For further information on this final SWEIS, or to request a copy 

of the SWEIS or references, please contact:

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SITE-WIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY/ 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN

THE STATE OF NEVADA (NNSS SWEIS)

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Linda M. Cohn, SWEIS Document Manager

NNSA Nevada Site Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P. O. Box 98518

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518

Telephone: 702-295-0077

Fax: 702-295-5300

Email: nepa@nv.doe.gov
Reader’s Guide

This Comment Response Document (CRD) portion of the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

(NNSS SWEIS) consists of three sections: 

 Section 1 – Overview of the Public Comment Process 

This section describes the public comment process for the Draft NNSS SWEIS; the format 

used in the public hearings on the draft SWEIS; the organization of this CRD and how to 

use the document; and the changes made by the U.S. Department of Energy/National 

Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) to the Final NNSS SWEIS in response to 

the public comments and recent developments that occurred since publication of the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS. 

 Section 2 – Public Comments and DOE/NNSA Responses 

This section presents a side-by-side display of all of the comments received by DOE/NNSA 

on the Draft NNSS SWEIS and DOE/NNSA’s response to each comment. The comments 

were obtained at five public hearings on the Draft NNSS SWEIS and via telephone, fax, 

email, and U.S. mail. 

 Section 3 – References 

This section contains the references cited in this CRD. 

To Find a Specific Comment and DOE/NNSA Response 

Refer to the “List of Commentors” immediately following the Table of Contents. This list is 

organized alphabetically by commentor name and shows the corresponding page number(s) 

where commentors can find their comment(s). 

DOE/NNSA has made a good faith effort to interpret the spelling of names that were either 

hand-written on comment forms and letters, or transcribed from oral statements made 

during public hearings. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 3 

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT

 vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 3 

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ vii 

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ viii 

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................. viii 

List of Commentors ...................................................................................................................................................... ix 

Acronyms List ........................................................................................................................................................... xvii 

Section 1 

Overview of the Public Comment Process 

1.1 Public Comment Process .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Public Hearing Format ................................................................................................................................. 1-4 

1.3 Organization of this Comment Response Document ................................................................................. 1-4 

1.4 Changes from the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement .................................................... 1-5 

1.5 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 

Section 2 

Public Comments and DOE/NNSA Responses 

Individual Commentors .................................................................................................................................. 2-3 

 Oral Comments Presented at the Public Hearings and NNSA Responses 

 Las Vegas, Nevada (September 20, 2011) ............................................................................................... 2-400 

 Pahrump, Nevada (September 11, 2011) ................................................................................................. 2-423 

 St. George, Utah (September 22, 2011) ................................................................................................... 2-439 

 Tonopah, Nevada (September 27, 2011) .................................................................................................. 2-452 

 Carson City, Nevada (September 28, 2011) ............................................................................................. 2-462 

 Las Vegas, Nevada (October 6, 2011) ..................................................................................................... 2-482 

Section 3 

References ................................................................................................................................................. 3-1
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

viii 

LIST OF FIGURES

Section 1 

Figure 1–1 NNSS SWEIS Comment Response Process ........................................................................................... 1-3 

LIST OF TABLES

Section 1 

Table 1–1 Public Hearing Locations, Attendance, and Comments Received ........................................................ 1-2 

Table 1–2 Numbers of Comment Documents Received by Method of Submission .............................................. 1-2 
List of Commentors

B

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley 

Bill Helmer, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office ����������������������������������������� 2-210

Virgil Moose, Tribal Chairperson ������������������� 2-383

C

Center for Energy Research 

Peter Bergel������������������������������������������������������� 2-21

City of Henderson, Nevada 

Robert A. Murnane, Director of 

Public Works��������������������������������������������������� 2-183

City of Las Vegas 

Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor ������������������������� 2-212

Clark County Board of Commissioners 

Chris Giunchigliani, Commissioner ��������������� 2-333

Susan Brager, Chair ���������������������������������������� 2-157

Clark County Department of Aviation 

Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation��������� 2-188

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Richard Arnold, Spokesperson ������������2-335, 2-483

E

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information 

Office 

Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor��� 2-374

F

Friends Committee on National Legislation 

David Culp, Legislative Representative ��������� 2-364

H

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth������������������������ 2-58

John Hadder����������������������������������������� 2-119, 2-474

Molly Johnson������������������������������������������������� 2-414

Launce Rake ��������������������������������������������������� 2-458

Judy Treichel����������������������������������������������������2-119

Jennifer Olaranna Viereck��������������������������������2-119

Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah 

Robert DeBirk������������������������������������������������� 2-323

I

Indian Springs Civic Association 

Marion Lewis, President��������������������������������� 2-326

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board 

Ann Brauer������������������������������������������������������ 2-143

Lisa Crow�������������������������������������������������������� 2-143

Jayme Brown, Vice Chair������������������������������� 2-143

Michelle McClary, Secretary �������������������������� 2-143

David Rohde ��������������������������������������������������� 2-143

Tom Seaver, Chair������������������������������������������� 2-143

L

Lincoln County, Nevada, Board of County 

Commissioners 

George T. Rowe, Chairman������������������������������� 2-50

Local #525: Plumbers, Pipefitters, and HVAC 

Technicians 

Matt Lydon�������������������������������������������������������� 2-68

N

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc.

Dave Taylor, Senior Vice President ���������������� 2-363

Nevada Conservation League 

Launce Rake ����������������������������������������2-417, 2-431

Nevada Desert Experience 

Mary Lou Anderson���������������������������������������� 2-434

Jim Haber���������������������������������������������2-105, 2-412

Richard Lai �����������������������2-29, 2-43, 2-106, 2-433

Robert Majors������������������������������������������������� 2-144

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 

Judy Treichel��������������������������������������������������� 2-416

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board 

Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair ������������������������������� 2-3

NTS Guide Service 

Ronald Bruce Greene�������������������������������������� 2-155

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico 

Jay Coghlan����������������������������������������������������� 2-202

Scott Kovac����������������������������������������������������� 2-202

Nye County Board of Commissioners 

Gary Hollis, Commissioner ���� 2-405, 2-428, 2-444,

2-457, 2-467

Nye County Community Development 

Darrell Lacy, Director������������������������������������� 2-109

Public Officials, Organizations, and Interest Groups

ix
P

Pahrump Nuclear Waste and Environmental Advisory 

Board 

John Pawlak, Acting Chair������������������������������ 2-429

Pax Christi and NDE 

Jovita Harrah��������������������������������������������������� 2-154

R

Regional Transportation Commission of 

Southern Nevada 

Jacob L. Snow, General Manager������������������� 2-379

S

Sheet Metal Workers Local 88 

William Brooks����������������������������������������������� 2-477

John Christiansen�������������������������������������������� 2-478

James Drollinger��������������������������������������������� 2-107

Alfonso N. Lopez�����������������������������������2-76, 2-108

Sierra Club 

Robert B. Elliott������������������������������������������������ 2-27

Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter���������������������������������������������� 2-145

Stephanie Greene ���������������������������������������������� 2-33

SOA Watch 

David Corcoran����������������������������������������������� 2-151

Solar Energy Industries Association 

Emily J. Duncan���������������������������������������������� 2-341

Katherine Gensler ������������������������������������������� 2-341

Southern Nevada Building and 

Construction Trades Council 

Darren Enns ������������������������������������������������������ 2-75

State of California – Natural Resources Agency 

James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ���������������������������������������������������� 2-349

State of Nevada 

Agency for Nuclear Projects, 

Office of the Governor 

Robert Halstead, Executive Director �����2-54, 2-471

Brian Sandoval, Governor �������������������������������� 2-69

Office of the Attorney General 

Marta Adams, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General������������������������������������2-71, 2-468

Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General����� 2-227

T

Tri-Valley CAREs 

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director���������������� 2-194

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney ����������������������������� 2-194

U

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Mark R. Spencer, Field Manager, 

Pahrump Field Office, 

Southern Nevada District Office��������������������� 2-346

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor����������������� 2-368

Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager ���������������� 2-368

National Park Service 

Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region �����������������������������������������2-311

Patricia Sanderson Port, Regional

Environmental Officer ������������������������������������ 2-191

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Review Office,

Communities and Ecosystems Division 

Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager ��������������� 2-171

V

Veterans for Peace 

Ellen Murphy �������������������������������������������������� 2-152

W

Western Shoshone Government 

Ian Zabarte, Principal Man for 

Foreign Affairs of Newe Sogobia ����������2-77, 2-409

Western Shoshone National Council

Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief����������������������������������� 2-328

Western State’s Council of Sheet Metal Workers 

Erik Emblem��������������������������������������������������� 2-476

 x

Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada
Individuals

A

Adams, Marta, Chief Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Nevada Attorney 

General������������������������������������������������������������ 2-468

Office of the Nevada Attorney General ������������ 2-71

Anderson, Mary Lou 

Nevada Desert Experience������������������������������ 2-434

Arnold, Richard, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of 

Tribes and Organizations���������������������2-335, 2-483

B

Bancroft, Elizabeth ��������������������������������������������������� 2-44

Barker, Georgia������������������������������������������������������� 2-447

Bergel, Peter 

Center for Energy Research������������������������������ 2-21

Bienenstein, Kathleen, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board����������������� 2-3

Bingham, Jo Ann����������������������������������������������������� 2-396

Blakeley, J. Morgan ������������������������������������������������ 2-345

Bobb, Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt ����������������������������������� 2-318

Bobb, Johnnie L., Chief 

Western Shoshone National Council �������������� 2-328

Boyd, James D., Vice Chair 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, State of California – 

Natural Resources Agency������������������������������ 2-349

Brager, Susan, Chair 

Clark County Commissioners������������������������� 2-157

Brauer, Ann 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

Brister, Bob ��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-34

Brooks, William 

Sheet Metal Workers, Local 88����������������������� 2-477

Brown, Jayme, Vice Chair 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

C

Campaign A������������������������������������������������������������� 2-385

Campaign B ������������������������������������������������������������ 2-387

Campaign C ������������������������������������������������������������ 2-389

Cathleen �������������������������������������������������������������������� 2-46

Christiansen, John��������������������������������������������������� 2-478

Coghlan, Jay

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico����������������������� 2-202

Copyak, J. ����������������������������������������������������������������� 2-38

Corcoran, David

SOA Watch������������������������������������������������������ 2-151

Crow, Lisa 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

Culp, David, Legislative Representative 

Friends Committee on National Legislation��� 2-364

D

DeBirk, Robert 

Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah ���������� 2-323

Drollinger, James 

Sheetmetal Workers Local 88 ������������������������� 2-107

Duncan, Emily J.

Solar Energy Industries Association ��������������� 2-341

Dwyer, Anabel �������������������������������������������������������� 2-325

E

Ediger, Peter�������������������������������������������������������������2-411

Elliott, Robert B.

Sierra Club �������������������������������������������������������� 2-27

Emblem, Erik 

Western State’s Council of 

Sheet Metal Workers��������������������������������������� 2-476

Enns, Darren

Southern Nevada Building and 

Construction Trades Council ���������������������������� 2-75

F

Fadie, Brian������������������������������������������������������������� 2-418

Feldman, Jane, Energy Chair 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter�������������������������� 2-145

Felske, Don ������������������������������������������������������������� 2-419

Ferrel, Kent ��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-40

Fragosa, William��������������������������������������������2-74, 2-420

G

Gensler, Katherine 

Solar Energy Industries Association ��������������� 2-341

Gibbs, Vickie ������������������������������������������������������������ 2-26

Giunchigliani, Chris, Commissioner 

Clark County Board of Commissioners���������� 2-333

Goforth, Kathleen Martyn, Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Review Office ������������������������ 2-171

Goodman, Carolyn G., Mayor 

City of Las Vegas�������������������������������������������� 2-212

Gorden, Lilias ��������������������������������������������������������� 2-397

Greene, Ronald Bruce 

NTS Guide Service ����������������������������������������� 2-155

Greene, Stephanie 

Sierra Club �������������������������������������������������������� 2-33

xi

List of Commentors
H

Haber, Jim 

Nevada Desert Experience�������������������2-105, 2-412

Hacker, Ilene ������������������������������������������������������������� 2-42

Hadder, John 

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth��� 2-119, 2-474

Halstead, Robert, Executive Director 

State of Nevada Agency for 

Nuclear Projects�������������������������������������2-54, 2-471

Harrah, Jovita

Pax Christi and NDE��������������������������������������� 2-154

Helmer, Bill, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley����� 2-210

Hess, Joann �������������������������������������������������������������� 2-35

Hollis, Gary, Commissioner 

Nye County Board of Commissioners.......................

�������������������������� 2-405, 2-428, 2-444, 2-457, 2-467

Houx, Craig��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-24

I

Innes, Ben ��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-153

J

Jackson, Jeannie�������������������������������������������������������� 2-23

Jaeger, Judy������������������������������������������������������������� 2-448

Johnson, Abigail C., Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain 

Information Office ������������������������������������������ 2-374

Johnson, Molly

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth�������������� 2-414

K

Kelley, Marylia, Executive Director 

Tri-Valley CAREs������������������������������������������� 2-194

Kelly, Michael��������������������������������������������������������� 2-424

Koch, Edward D., State Supervisor 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service�������������������������������� 2-368

Kovac, Scott 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico����������������������� 2-202

L

Lacy, Darrell, Director 

Nye County Community Development ���������� 2-109

Lai, Richard ������������������������������������������������������������ 2-446

Nevada Desert Experience.........................................

������������������������������������������2-29, 2-43, 2-106, 2-433

Lehnertz, Christine S., Regional Director, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service ��������������������������������������2-311

Lewis, Marion, President 

Indian Springs Civic Association�������������������� 2-326

Lopez, Alfonso N.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 88���������������2-76, 2-108

Lydon, Matt 

Local #525: Plumbers, Pipefitters, 

and HVAC Technicians������������������������������������� 2-68

M

Majors, Robert 

Nevada Desert Experience������������������������������ 2-144

Mapes, George �������������������������������������������������������� 2-432

Martell, Jeni L����������������������������������������������������������� 2-22

Masto, Catherine Cortez, Attorney General������������ 2-227

Maxand, Jeremy�������������������������������������������������������� 2-47

McClary, Michelle, Secretary 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

McFarland, Michael J. ���������������������������������������������� 2-36

Montague-Judd, Danielle������������������������������������������ 2-30

Moore, Tracy������������������������������������������������������������� 2-41

Moose, Virgil, Tribal Chairperson 

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley����� 2-383

Murnane, Robert A., Director of Public Works 

City of Henderson, Nevada����������������������������� 2-183

Murphy, Ellen 

Veterans for Peace������������������������������������������� 2-152

P

Pagewkopp, Robin���������������������������������������������������� 2-73

Pawlak, John, Acting Chair 

Pahrump Nuclear Waste and Environmental 

Advisory Board����������������������������������������������� 2-429

Peterson, Claudia ���������������������������������������������������� 2-445

Port, Patricia Sanderson, Regional Environmental 

Officer 

U.S. Department of the Interior ���������������������� 2-191

R

Raines, Kennon B. �����������������������������������������2-48, 2-394

Rake, Launce 

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth�������������� 2-458

Nevada Conservation League ��������������2-417, 2-431

Rohde, David

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

Ross, Mary L.���������������������������������������������������������� 2-141

Rowe, George T., Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners 

Lincoln County, Nevada ����������������������������������� 2-50

Rutherford, Lisa �������������������������������������������������������� 2-31

 xii

Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada
S

Sanchez, Shaun, Complex Manager 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service�������������������������������� 2-368

Sandoval, Brian, Governor 

State of Nevada������������������������������������������������� 2-69

Seaver, Tom, Chair 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board������������� 2-143

Shiroky, Cynthia ����������������������������������������������������� 2-398

Snow, Jacob L., General Manager 

Regional Transportation Commission 

of Southern Nevada ���������������������������������������� 2-379

Somerville, Austin ���������������������������������������������������� 2-37

Spatz, Midgene ������������������������������������������������������� 2-395

Spencer, Mark R., Field Manager 

Pahrump Field Office, Southern Nevada District 

Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management ������������������������� 2-346

Spotts, Richard�������������������������������������������������������� 2-309

T

Taylor, Dave, Senior Vice President 

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. �������� 2-363

Treichel, Judy 

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth���������������2-119

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force ����������������� 2-416

V

Valerie ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 2-28

Valero, Jack��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-25

Vanderleest, Eric ����������������������������������������������������� 2-407

Viereck, Jennifer Olaranna 

Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth���������������2-119

Voge, Gregory����������������������������������������������������������� 2-39

W

Waite, Mark������������������������������������������������������������� 2-437

Walker, Randall H., Director of Aviation 

Clark County Department of Aviation ������������ 2-188

Webb, Janet��������������������������������������������������������������� 2-45

Welsh, Anne ������������������������������������������������������������ 2-399

Y

Yundt, Scott, Staff Attorney 

Tri-Valley CAREs������������������������������������������� 2-194

Z

Zabarte, Ian 

Principal Man for 

Foreign Affairs of Newe Sogobia ����������2-77, 2-409

Zimmerman, Thomas������������������������������������������������ 2-32

xiii

List of Commentors
Campaigns

 xiv

Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Campaign A .......................................................................................... 2-385

Patricia McRae Baley

William Belknap

Bob

Howard Booth

Ann Brauer

Garth Brown

Michele Burkett

Tom Burtntte

L. Busch

John S. Cheney

Warren Clark

Chris Clarke

Brian and Rita Cohen

Clarence Collins

Alison Conley

Tim Cooper

Laura Cunningham

Jennifer Edwards

Brian Fadie

Jane Feldman

Alfredo Fernandez

Faith Franck

Tina Frisch

Robert Furtek

Evelyn Gajowski

Presley Garrett

Sally Greensill

Linda Gregg

Chance Hannon

Margery Hanson

Juanita Heffington

Brendan Hughes

Mary Humann

Eleanor Clinton Issa

MJ Kammerer

KN

Steve Kossack

Constance Kosuda

Joshua Kruger

William Kuehl

Ron Lew

Megan Little

Kim MacQuarrie

Elaine Manio

Peter Marozik

Bruce Mason

Joan Maurer

Curt McCormick

Leona Merrin

Marija Minic

Thomas R. Mirkovich

Keith Morrison

Mayra Moya

Robert Mulle

Stephanie Myers

Anthony Parent

Gary A. Patton

Thereick Pearis

L. Pelmeri

Kay Peters

Larry Pringle

TC Reinertson

Justice B. Rwechungura

Robert M. Samboy

Marrjorie Sill

Malcolm Simpson

Noel Smith

Eugene Souza

Ron Stauffer

Jason Steadmon

Mary Stoll

Rose Strickland

Rosemary Swartz

Bob Tregilus

Judy Treichel

Vera Vann-Wilson

Rainer Vogel

Zach

Julie Zimmerman

Carl Zimmerman

Adrian Zupp

Paul Benigno

Robert A. Conway

James Cooksey

Richard Crawford

Wayne Dey

Darren Enns 

Greg Esposito

Donny Grayman

James Halsey

Byron K. Harvey

Matt Lydon

Jack Mallory

Mark Mizzoni

Jeremy Newmanw

Frank O’Brien

Anthony Rogers

Eric Rubeck

Cordell Sanders

Warren Stender

Campaign B .......................................................................................... 2-387

Campaign C .......................................................................................... 2-389

Joni Arends

Jo Ann Bingham

Richard Calabro

Rev. James Conn

Adrienne Fong

Lilias Gorden

Lorraine Henry

Carole Kartunen

Shelley Lynn

Raymond Medlin

C. E. Pretzer

Mark Pringle

Kennon B. Raines

Rosalie G. Riegle

Cynthia Shiroky

Joanne Skirving

Rita Sloan

Phoebe Anne Thomas 

Sorgen

Midgene Spatz

April Tatro-Medlin

Kathleen Thomas

Natasha Tonres

Don Timmerman

Anne Welsh
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CONVERSION 

CHARTS

 xvii 

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CONVERSION CHARTS 

AIWS American Indian Writers Subgroup 

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CAS Corrective Action Site 

CAU Corrective Action Unit 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

CRD Comment Response Document 

CSP Concentrating Solar Power 

DAF Device Assembly Facility 

DETR Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DNWR Desert National Wildlife Range 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMAD Engine Maintenance and Disassembly Facility 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPWG Emergency Preparedness Working Group 

FFACO Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 

FMP Fluid Management Plan 

FMS Fluid Management Strategy 

FR Federal Register 

GTCC greater-than-Class C 

HLW high-level radioactive waste 

HRCQ Highway Route Controlled Quantities 

IDA intentional destructive acts 

ISCORS Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards 

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Facility 

LLC limited liability company 

LLW low-level radioactive waste 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MLLW mixed low-level radioactive waste 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

xviii 

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration 

NNSS Nevada National Security Site 

NPS National Park Service 

NPT Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NSO Nevada Site Office 

NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of influence 

RREM Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SNF spent nuclear fuel 

SR State Route 

SWEIS site-wide environmental impact statement 

TRU transuranic 

TTR Tonapah Test Range 

UGTA Underground Test Area 

USAF U.S. Air Force 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WAC waste acceptance criteria 

WMP Waste Management Plan 
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Conversion Charts 

 xix 

CONVERSIONS

METRIC TO ENGLISH ENGLISH TO METRIC 

Multiply by To get Multiply by To get 

Area

Square meters 

Square kilometers 

Square kilometers 

 Hectares 

10.764 

247.1 

0.3861 

2.471 

Square feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

Acres 

Square feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

Acres 

0.092903 

0.0040469 

2.59 

0.40469 

Square meters 

Square kilometers 

Square kilometers 

Hectares 

Concentration

Kilograms/square meter 

Milligrams/liter 

Micrograms/liter 

Micrograms/cubic meter 

0.16667 

1 a

1 a

1 a

Tons/acre 

Parts/million 

Parts/billion 

Parts/trillion 

Tons/acre 

Parts/million 

Parts/billion 

Parts/trillion 

0.5999 

1 a

1 a

1 a

Kilograms/square meter 

Milligrams/liter 

Micrograms/liter 

Micrograms/cubic meter 

Density

Grams/cubic centimeter 

Grams/cubic meter 

62.428 

0.0000624 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

0.016018 

16,025.6 

Grams/cubic centimeter 

Grams/cubic meter 

Length

Centimeters 

Meters 

Kilometers 

0.3937 

3.2808 

0.62137 

Inches 

Feet 

Miles 

Inches 

Feet 

Miles 

2.54 

0.3048 

1.6093 

Centimeters 

Meters 

Kilometers 

Temperature

Absolute

Degrees Celsius + 17.78 

Relative

Degrees Celsius 

1.8 

1.8 

Degrees Fahrenheit 

Degrees Fahrenheit 

Degrees Fahrenheit - 32 

Degrees Fahrenheit 

0.55556 

0.55556 

Degrees Celsius 

Degrees Celsius 

Velocity/Rate

Cubic meters/second 

Grams/second 

Meters/second 

2118.9 

7.9366 

2.237 

Cubic feet/minute 

Pounds/hour 

Miles/hour 

Cubic feet/minute 

Pounds/hour 

Miles/hour 

0.00047195 

0.126 

0.44704 

Cubic meters/second 

Grams/second 

Meters/second 

Volume

Liters 

Liters 

Liters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

0.26418 

0.035316 

0.001308 

264.17 

35.314 

1.3079 

0.0008107 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Acre-feet 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Acre-feet 

3.78533 

28.316 

764.54 

0.0037854 

0.028317 

0.76456 

1233.49 

Liters 

Liters 

Liters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Weight/Mass

Grams 

Kilograms 

Kilograms 

Metric tons 

0.035274 

2.2046 

0.0011023 

1.1023 

Ounces 

Pounds 

Tons (short) 

Tons (short) 

Ounces 

Pounds 

Tons (short) 

Tons (short) 

28.35 

0.45359 

907.18 

0.90718 

Grams 

Kilograms 

Kilograms 

Metric tons 

ENGLISH TO ENGLISH

Acre-feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

325,850.7 

43,560 

640 

Gallons 

Square feet 

Acres 

Gallons 

Square feet 

Acres 

0.000003046 

0.000022957 

0.0015625 

Acre-feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

a

 This conversion is only valid for concentrations of contaminants (or other materials) in water.

METRIC PREFIXES

Prefix Symbol Multiplication factor 

exapetateragigamegakilodecadecicentimillimicronanopicoE 

P 

T 

G 

M 

k 

D 

d 

c 

m 

μ

n 

p 

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,000,000

1,000

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.000 001

0.000 000 001

0.000 000 000 001

= 1018

= 1015

= 1012

= 109

= 106

= 103

= 101

= 10-1

= 10-2

= 10-3

= 10-6

= 10-9

= 10-12

SECTION 1 

OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS

 1-1

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS 

This section of this Comment Response Document (CRD) describes the public comment process for the 

Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of 

Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the 

State of Nevada (NNSS SWEIS), as well as the procedures used 

to respond to those comments. Section 1.1 describes the public 

comment process and the means through which comments on 

the NNSS SWEIS were received. It also identifies the comment 

period and the locations and dates of the public hearings on the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS. Section 1.2 addresses the public hearing 

format. Section 1.3 describes the organization of this document, 

including how the comments were categorized, addressed, and 

documented. Section 1.4 summarizes the changes made to the 

draft site-wide environmental impact statement (draft SWEIS) 

that resulted from the public comment process. Section 1.5 

summarizes the next steps the U.S. Department of 

Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) 

will take after publication of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

1.1 Public Comment Process 

DOE/NNSA prepared this NNSS SWEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 – 1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021, respectively). An important part of the 

NEPA process is solicitation of public comments on a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and consideration of those comments in preparing a final EIS. DOE/NNSA distributed copies of the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS to those organizations, government officials, and individuals who were known to have an 

interest in the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), as well as those organizations and individuals who 

requested a copy. Copies also were made available on the Internet and in regional DOE public document 

reading rooms and public libraries. 

On July 29, 2011, DOE/NNSA published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) (76 FR 45548) announcing the 

availability of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, the duration of the comment period, the location and timing of the 

public hearings, and the various methods for submitting comments. DOE/NNSA announced a 90-day 

comment period, from July 29, 2011 to October 27, 2011, to provide time for interested parties to review the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS. In response to requests for additional review time, the comment period was extended by 

36 days, through December 2, 2011, giving commentors a total review and comment period of 126 days 

(76 FR 65508). 

During the public comment period, five public hearings were held, as well as informational meetings 

elsewhere, to provide interested members of the public with opportunities to learn more about the content of 

the draft SWEIS from exhibits, factsheets, and other materials; to hear DOE/NNSA representatives present the 

results of the SWEIS analyses; to ask clarifying questions; and to provide oral or written comments. A website 

(www.nv.energy.gov/sweis) was established to further inform the public about the draft SWEIS, how to submit 

comments, and other pertinent information. Members of the public who expressed interest and are on the 

DOE/NNSA mailing list for the Draft NNSS SWEIS were notified by U.S. mail regarding hearing dates, times, 

and locations. 

Comment Document – A communication 

in the form of a transcript from a public 

hearing, a letter, an electronic 

communication (e-mail, fax), or a 

transcription of a recorded phone 

message that contains comments from a 

sovereign nation, government agency, 

organization, or member of the public 

regarding the Draft NNSS SWEIS. 

Comment – A statement or question 

regarding the draft SWEIS content that 

conveys approval or disapproval of 

proposed actions, recommends changes, 

or seeks additional information. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

1-2 

Table 1–1 lists the locations, estimated numbers of attendees, and number of commentors at each hearing. The 

attendance estimates are based on the number of registration forms completed and returned, as well as a rough 

“head count” of the audience. 

Table 1–1 Public Hearing Locations, Attendance, and Comments Received 

Location Date Estimated Attendance Number of Commentors 

Las Vegas, Nevada September 20, 2011 47 11 

Pahrump, Nevada September 21, 2011 47 8 

St. George, Utah September 22, 2011 25 5 

Tonopah, Nevada September 27, 2011 12 2 

Carson City, Nevada September 28, 2011 19 7 

Total 150 33 

In addition, Federal agencies, state and local governmental entities, American Indian tribal governments, and 

members of the public were encouraged to submit comments via the U.S. mail, email, a toll-free telephone 

number, and a toll-free fax line. DOE/NNSA considered all comments, including those received after the 

comment period ended. Table 1–2 lists the numbers of comment documents received by each method of 

submission. 

Table 1–2 Numbers of Comment Documents Received by Method of Submission 

Method of Submission Number of Comment Documents 

Toll-free telephone number 1 

E-Mail 150 

Toll-free fax line 11 

U.S. mail 33 

Public hearings (oral and written) 48 

 Total 243 

Upon receipt, all written comment documents were assigned a document number for tracking during the 

comment response process. Oral comments received by toll-free telephone, as well as those transcribed by the 

court reporter or entered into a computer at the public meetings, were assigned document numbers. The 

transcript from each public hearing also was assigned a document number. All comment documents were then 

processed through the comment analysis and response sequence for inclusion in this document, and the 

originally submitted documentation was maintained. The text of each comment document was analyzed to 

identify individual comments, which were numbered sequentially. The comments were re-evaluated 

throughout the course of the response process as new information became available and as the Final NNSS 

SWEIS was developed. All comments received by DOE/NNSA were considered in preparing this Final NNSS 

SWEIS. Comments determined not to be within the scope of the SWEIS were acknowledged as such in this 

CRD. The remaining comments were then reviewed and responded to by policy experts, subject matter 

experts, and NEPA specialists, as appropriate. Figure 1–1 illustrates the process used for collecting, tracking, 

and responding to the comments. 
Section 1 – Overview of the Public Comment Process 

 1-3

Figure 1–1 NNSS SWEIS Comment Response Process 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

1-4 

The comments and DOE/NNSA’s responses were compiled in a side-by-side format, with each identified 

comment receiving a separate response. All comments and responses were numbered with a comment 

identification number to facilitate matching a comment with its response. 

Integration of the comment response process into preparation of this Final NNSS SWEIS served to focus 

revision efforts and ensure consistency throughout the final document. The comments assisted in determining 

whether the alternatives and analyses presented in the Draft NNSS SWEIS should be modified or augmented; 

whether information presented in the draft SWEIS needed to be corrected or updated; and whether additional 

clarification was necessary to facilitate better understanding of certain issues. Change bars are presented 

alongside the text in Volume 1 of this Final NNSS SWEIS to indicate where substantive changes were made 

and where text was added or deleted. Editorial changes were not marked. 

1.2 Public Hearing Format 

The public hearings were organized to encourage public comments on the draft SWEIS and to provide 

members of the public with information about the NEPA process and the proposed actions. A court reporter 

was present at each hearing to record and prepare a transcript of the comments spoken publicly at the hearing. 

These transcripts are included in Section 2 of this CRD. Written comments were also collected at the hearings. 

Comment forms were available at the hearings for anyone wishing to use them. 

At each of the public hearings, there were poster displays staffed by DOE/NNSA subject matter experts. 

Members of the public were invited to view the displays and ask questions of the subject matter experts either 

before or after the formal hearings were conducted. The displays addressed the NEPA process and the 

alternatives included in the SWEIS. 

Management representatives from DOE/NNSA opened the hearings with welcoming remarks. The DOE EIS 

Document Manager then provided an overview of the draft SWEIS and the NEPA process. Following the 

overview presentation, a meeting facilitator opened the public comment session. To ensure that everyone 

interested in speaking had the opportunity, a time limit was established based on the number of people who had 

indicated a desire to speak. As part of the comment response process, the transcripts and written comments 

collected at the hearings were reviewed for comments on the draft SWEIS, as described in Section 1.1 of 

this CRD. 

1.3 Organization of this Comment Response Document 

This CRD is organized into the following sections: 

 Section 1 describes the public comment process, the public hearing format, the organization of 

this document, and the changes made to the Draft NNSS SWEIS before publication of the Final NNSS 

SWEIS. 

 Section 2 presents transcripts of the oral comments, computer-recorded comments, and scanned copies 

of the comment documents received during the five public hearings, as well as additional comments 

received via U.S. mail, email, toll-free telephone number, and toll-free fax line, side-by-side with 

DOE/NNSA’s comment-specific responses. 

 Section 3 lists the references cited in this volume. 
Section 1 – Overview of the Public Comment Process 

 1-5

1.4 Changes from the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement 

In preparing this Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA revised the SWEIS in response to public comments. 

Additional environmental baseline information was provided, as well as new and revised analyses including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

 DOE/NNSA added information (figures and supporting text) regarding current and projected levels of 

surface soil and groundwater contamination. 

 DOE/NNSA enhanced its cumulative effects analysis by including the remediation of the former 

Yucca Mountain Repository site as a reasonably foreseeable future action. 

 DOE/NNSA has included a human health impacts analysis for an alternate maximally exposed 

individual based upon a “subsistence consumer” lifestyle pattern. 

 DOE/NNSA included an analysis of potential impacts associated with wildland fire events. 

 DOE/NNSA has updated its analysis of transportation risks, including an accident scenario whereby a 

12-hour dose to the public occurs, but without an associated release of container contents. 

 DOE/NNSA has included new information regarding existing environmental conditions based upon 

more-recent, routine sampling and field data collection (e.g., groundwater contaminant sampling). 

DOE/NNSA also corrected inaccuracies, made editorial corrections, and clarified text. 

1.5 Next Steps 

No decision will be made any sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues the 

Notice of Availability for this Final NNSS SWEIS. The decision will explain all factors considered by 

DOE/NNSA, including environmental impacts. The decision also will identify the environmentally preferred 

alternative or alternatives. If mitigation measures, monitoring, or other conditions are adopted as part of 

DOE/NNSA’s decision, these would be described and summarized in the decision, as applicable, and would be 

included in a mitigation action plan that would be prepared following issuance of the decision. The mitigation 

action plan would explain how and when any mitigation measures would be implemented and how 

DOE/NNSA would monitor the mitigation measures over time to judge their effectiveness.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

1-6 

This page left blank intentionally. 
SECTION 2 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NNSA RESPONSES

 2-1

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NNSA RESPONSES 

This section presents a side-by-side display of the comments received by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) on the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation 

of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and 

Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (NNSS SWEIS) and NNSA’s response to each comment. To find a 

specific commentor or comment in the following pages, refer to the “List of Commentors” immediately 

following the Table of Contents. This list is organized alphabetically by commentor name and shows the 

corresponding page number(s) where commentors can find their comment(s). 

If a commentor provided comments through a postcard, form letter campaign, or petition, that commentor is 

referred to a copy of that postcard or form letter. This section only contains one representative copy of each 

postcard, form letter, or petition. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

2-2 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-3

Commentor No. 1: Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-1

1-1	 As defined in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures (10 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

[CFR] Part 1021), a “site-wide NEPA document means a broad-scope EIS

[environmental impact statement] or EA [environmental assessment] that is

programmatic in nature and identifies and assesses the individual and cumulative

impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions at a DOE site.” This

Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the 

Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National 

Security Site and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada (NNSS SWEIS) considers

potential activities at U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security

Administration (DOE/NNSA) facilities in Nevada over the next 10 years. 

The nature of ongoing activities and their associated environmental impacts are well

understood. In contrast, the nature of some proposed activities is less well known. In

the interest of fully disclosing potential environmental impacts that could occur at the

NNSS and offsite locations over the next 10 years, the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS

include well-understood, ongoing activities, as well as activities that are more

conceptual in nature. 

To assess the potential environmental impacts of all such activities, it was necessary

for DOE/NNSA to estimate at a programmatic level certain aspects of the more

conceptual proposed activities, such as the potential area of land disturbance or

amount of groundwater that may be required. DOE/NNSA incorporated these

programmatic-level estimates, along with more-detailed information on ongoing

and better-understood proposed activities, into the analysis of impacts. For instance,

estimated areas of land disturbance, for both potential future activities and well-defined

activities, were used in estimating potential impacts on resources such as soils (area of

disturbance and erosion), cultural resources (number of sites potentially affected), and

biology (vegetation/habitat loss, number of tortoises affected). 

DOE/NNSA understands that the level of analysis conducted for some proposed

future activities may not be sufficient at this time to permit implementation, and

such activities could require additional NEPA analysis. These activities are identified

in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. DOE/NNSA will conduct NEPA reviews for these

activities, as appropriate, in the future. Chapter 1, Section 1.3; Chapter 3, Section 3.0;

and Chapter 5, Section 5.0, of this Final NNSS SWEIS have been modified to clarify

this point.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-4

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-1

cont’d

1-2

1-3

1-5

1-4

1-2	 At this time, there are no proposals from private-sector entities to construct a solar

power facility at the NNSS, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue or allow construction

of a large-scale facility without such a proposal. If a proposal for a solar power facility

were received in the future, it would be subject to future NEPA review to address

potential issues to all resources including, but not limited to water availability, airspace,

and compatibility with other existing land uses and activities. NNSA will not approve

any activities that would negatively affect national security.

1-3	 Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, environmental restoration activities would

continue in accordance with the most recent version of the Federal Facility Agreement

and Consent Order (FFACO). While maintenance levels on roads and other

infrastructure in the northwest portion of the NNSS would be reduced relative to other

alternatives, access to sites necessary to continue environmental restoration activities

would be maintained. Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3.1, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been

edited to clarify this point.

1-4	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments

of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste (LLW/MLLW) for two cases:

a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes

within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds

of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes

and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over

the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand

the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing options

(which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in 

the State of Nevada [1996 NTS EIS] (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) (DOE 1996)

was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek stakeholder

comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not

intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation routes via this

NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through revisions to

the NNSS waste acceptance criteria (WAC). Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in

coordination with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), pursuant

to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA

Nevada Site Office (NSO) (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-5

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-5

cont’d

1-6

1-7

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

	 The transportation analysis used a regional approach because waste generators

that have not historically transported waste to NNSS may do so in the future and

there is uncertainty regarding the waste volumes to be received from identified

waste generators, as discussed in Appendix E, Section E.4.1. Table E–3 shows the

radioactive waste generators and site-specific waste volumes used to estimate the

number of waste shipments. Section E.4.2 discusses the assumptions used to develop

the shipment inventories and the truck or rail external dose rates. Figures E–3

through E–9 shows the transportation routes that were analyzed. Tables E–11,

E–12, and E–13 show the estimated number of shipments of radioactive wastes

and materials originating from each region of the country for the Constrained Case

under each alternative. Notwithstanding the first part of this response, Table E–17

show the estimated number of shipments for the Unconstrained Case. Note that an

Unconstrained Case was evaluated for comparative purposes and was only evaluated

for the number of shipments under the Expanded Operations Alternative.

1-5	 DOE recognizes that it has an obligation to remediate lands disturbed by its past

activities, including those associated with the former Yucca Mountain Repository

Project. Accordingly, DOE has evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of

remediating the lands and closing the infrastructure and buildings at Yucca Mountain

(see Chapter 6 of this SWEIS). Chapter 1, Table 1–2, and Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2,

have been clarified in this regard. 

1-6	 DOE is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of GreaterThan-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC–Like Waste

(GTCC EIS) (DOE/EIS-0375) that evaluates the potential impacts of a variety of

technologies, as well as locations for the disposal of greater-than-class C (GTCC)

LLW and DOE GTCC-like waste. A Notice of Availability of the Draft GTCC EIS 

for public comment was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2011

(76 FR 10574). The NNSS is one of the candidate sites evaluated in the Draft 

GTCC EIS. DOE has not yet made a decision regarding GTCC waste disposition. 

Therefore, rather than evaluating GTCC waste management at the NNSS as a mission
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-6

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 1 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

1.  Purpose / No Preferred Alternative

1‐1 1‐3 1.2 There does not seem to be any significant purpose and need for

this EIS other than statement on page 1‐3 as follows: “The

purpose and need for agency action is to support NNSA’s core

missions established by Congress and the President.”  There

should be a major federal action proposed that requires this EIS to

support a “decision” but there does not appear to be any true

decision to be made. It is more of a “Goldilocks” question: Is the

use of the Site too much? (We should reduce activities); too little?

(we should increase activities); or is it “just right” ? (We should

continue existing activities).  If there are true alternatives to

reduce or increase activities, then specific activities to be reduced

or increased should be named.   This document appears to be

nothing but a baseline statement of the known conditions and

programs at the various on and off‐site locations that is being

prepared to justify any possible future decision in advance.   

1‐2 1‐12 and

13

1.4 Since no preferred alternative is chosen in this document, it

makes it a little hard to comment on the overall SWEIS.  Since

NNSA can choose to implement any alternative, that leaves the

EIS very “open‐ended”.

1‐3 1‐12 1.4 (paragraph 7) This information must include an assessment of impacts.

  

1‐4 3‐78 3.6 This precludes reviewers from commenting intelligently on the

proposed missions.

  

2.  If Preferred Alternative, additional comment period needed

2‐1 1‐21 Table 1‐2, Alternatives,

2nd comment  

It is difficult to comment intelligently when there is no basis for

weighting concern about an alternative.  Yes, it is legal, but what is

the literal intent of allowing it?  Will DOE allow comments on the

final SWEIS before the ROD is issued?

3.  Solar and Geothermal

3‐1 1‐1 and

1‐3

1.1 None of the land withdrawal actions or the Administrative Orders

or Public laws allows for the Nevada National Security Site to be

used for commercial activities such as electrical power generation.

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

1-13

assigned to the NSO, it is discussed as a reasonably foreseeable future action in

Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts.” Section 6.2.1.2 includes a description of the facility,

and Section 6.3 presents the cumulative impacts of the activities evaluated in this

NNSS SWEIS, as well as other activities, including construction and operation of a

GTCC waste disposal facility.

	 Regarding MLLW, DOE/NNSA currently treats onsite-generated MLLW at NSSS in

accordance with a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment plan

that has been approved by NDEP. To date, DOE/NSO has not submitted an application

to NDEP to treat offsite MLLW, although such treatment is proposed under the

Expanded Operations Alternative.

1-7	 DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with respect to NNSS

activities in support of its missions. With respect to potential use of NNSS land for

commercial solar power development, DOE would fully coordinate with the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) before such a decision would be made.

1-8	 As noted in the response to comment 1-1 above, a “site-wide NEPA document means

a broad-scope EIS or EA that is programmatic in nature and identifies and assesses

the individual and cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future

actions at a DOE site.” Because the NNSS and other DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada

support multiple missions, programs, and projects and this NNSS SWEIS is a “sitewide NEPA document,” the purpose and need for agency action is necessarily broadly

stated. Although not specifically stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, one of the purposes

of this SWEIS is to provide information that DOE/NNSA management will consider

when making decisions regarding the continued operation of the NNSS over the next

10 years. Those decisions include potential levels of operations for various activities,

as well as potential development of new facilities for conducting tests, experiments,

and other activities. The specific levels of activities and new facilities are described in

Chapter 3 and Appendix A of this NNSS SWEIS.

1-9	 This comment is similar in nature to comments 1-11 and 1-12, below. This response

is intended to address all three of these comments. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4,

of this NNSS SWEIS, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS, but in no event

later than the final EIS. DOE/NNSA had not identified a preferred alternative

prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore, none was identified in that

document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-7

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 2 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

3‐2 1‐3 and

1‐4

1.2 NNSS was not established to serve as a waste disposal site for off‐

site generated defense wastes, or commercial generation of

electrical power.  See p1‐20 for land withdrawal scoping

comments.  1996 EIS comments: concurrence to use the NNSS for

any other activity outside of research, development, and testing

of nuclear weapons was never formally considered, as required by

law.  Nevada officials do not concur that DOE has the authority

under the existing withdrawal, nor has completed the required

analysis under NEPA, to support a major waste disposal program

at NTS. Department of Energy/EIS‐0200‐F PEIS WM should have

taken care of the disposal part of this. Executive Orders 13212 and

13514, and the 2005 EnPAct only direct conservation, not change

NNSS mission.  So, there is no justification for commercial use of

NNSS for electricity generation, but power generation for use on

NNSS is probably justified.

3‐3 1‐4 1.3 There is no justification for commercial use of NNSS for electricity

generation, but power generation for use on NNSS is probably

justified.

3‐4 1‐27 Table 1‐2, Renewable

Energy, last comment  

response

There are two issues here.    One is commercial power production

masquerading as demonstration of the viability of cutting‐edge

technologies.  The other is preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement for future missions of the Nevada National Security Site

and not adequately addressing impacts. It is not possible to

comment on the SWEIS when assessing the impacts of the

missions that lead to impacts are postponed.

3‐5 3‐40 and

3‐41

3.2.3.2 This is not  consistent with Nevada National Security Site land

withdrawals.  There is no Section 3.1.4.2. How then can you

include a new transmission line without assessing the impacts of

developing it.  It took years to get the "new" existing line in.

3‐6 3‐77 3.5.4 It is unclear if this section is intended to address the same issue as

3.2.3.2.,specifically

the proposed solar project.  If so, the SWEIS seems inconsistent in

its discussion of this

issue.  It is agreed that the issue should be addressed as stated in

3.2.3.2, i.e., a separate

more detailed analysis.

3‐7 4‐3 4.1.1.1 (4th paragraph

on page)

Without such a  PEIS, how can commercial solar be included in this

SWEIS – that is assuming that somehow the Land Withdrawals can

legally be amended?

3‐8 4‐7 and

4‐9

4.1.1.3 (1‐8 paragraphs) It is not clear that commercial development for solar, or

geothermal for that matter, should be legally any different from

the public access and  mining restrictions .

3‐9 4‐12 4.1.1.5 (3rd paragraph) The airspace is restricted – how then can the Department of

Energy allow commercial use?

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-14

1-15

1-16

1-17

1-18

1-19

1-20

Final NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA will not make a decision based on this NNSS SWEIS

until at least 30 days following its issuance (see 40 CFR 1506.10). During that

minimum 30-day period, interested parties may submit comments to DOE/NNSA for

consideration in its decisionmaking.

1-10	 DOE/NNSA has conducted an assessment of potential environmental effects, as

documented in Chapter 5 of this SWEIS, to support the decision elements described in

Chapter 1, Section 1.4.

1-11	 Please see response to comment 1-9, above.

1-12	 Please see response to comment 1-9, above.

1-13	 DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with respect to NNSS

activities in support of its missions. Supporting renewable energy efforts is an

important part of DOE’s Nondefense Mission.

1-14	 DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with respect to NNSS

activities in support of its missions. With respect to LLW management (as described in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.3), as part of the April 1997 Settlement Agreement resolving

State of Nevada litigation regarding radioactive waste disposal at the Nevada Test

Site (now the NNSS), DOE committed to initiate “consultation with the United

States Department of the Interior (DOI) concerning the status of the existing land

withdrawals for the NTS with regard to low-level waste storage/disposal activities.” 

The consultation process with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) was initiated

by DOE shortly thereafter and concluded in November 2009, with NNSA’s acceptance

of custody and control of the approximately 740 acres constituting the NNSS Area 5

Radioactive Waste Management Complex (Area 5 RWMC). As required by the

Settlement Agreement, DOE conveyed the results of its consultation to the State of

Nevada in a letter dated December 18, 2008. These actions relative to the status of

land withdrawals and LLW storage/disposal activities satisfy the provisions of the

Settlement Agreement between DOE and the State of Nevada. Please see the response

to comment 1-16 for a discussion of renewable energy development on the NNSS.

1-15	 The commentor is referring to the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Validation Project

described in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS. Since publication

of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, the CSP Validation Project has been put on indefinite hold

and the environmental assessment cancelled. The CSP Validation Project has been

removed from this Final NNSS SWEIS. If a similar project is proposed in the future,

appropriate NEPA review will be performed at that time.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-8

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 3 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

3‐10 4‐56 4.1.5.2.6   I think there should have been cross references between this

section and 3.2.3.2  

3‐11 D‐63 D.2.2.1 Mention is made that the construction emissions for the proposed

power generation facility were scaled based on generating

capacity from the Amargosa Farm Road Energy Project.   However,

the numbers for these emissions from the various proposed NNSS

solar facilities are not shown in this entire discussion about

emissions under the Expanded Operations Alternative.

3‐12 D‐68 D.2.2.2.1 Similar to above comment, the emissions from construction of the

proposed solar power generation facility under the Reduced

Operations Alternative do not appear to be listed anywhere.

4.  Reduced Operations

4‐1 3‐24,        

3‐49,        

A‐49, and

A‐52

3.1.2.2, Table 3.3, A.3,

and A.3.2

No Action Alternative – UGTA paragraph states that up to 50 new

groundwater characterization and monitoring wells would be

developed over the next 10 years.  Paragraph A.3.2, pg. A‐52,

states that EM activities under the Reduced Operations

Alternative would be the same as under the No Action Alternative.  

Table 3‐3, on page 3‐49, reiterates that under the Reduced

Operations Alternative the Environmental Management Program

would be the same as under the No Action Alternative.  However,

in ¶ A.3, pg. A‐49 the statement is made that under the Reduced

Operations Alternative maintenance of roads on Pahute Mesa,

Stockade Wash, and Buckboard Mesa would be terminated.  

These two statements regarding continuing UGTA activities vs

termination of maintenance on the roads necessary to get to the

current and new well sites appear to be incompatible.

4‐2 8‐6 8.1.3.1.2   It does not appear to be true that a significant reduction in site

mission would not adversely impact EM mission. If all else at site is

reduced, overhead cost to EM will skyrocket and ability to

accomplish mission may be in jeopardy.

5.  Transportation

5‐1 1‐12 1.4 (paragraphs 5 and 6) “informing any highway routing revisions” without analyzing the

potential impacts seems inconsistent with NEPA requirements.

5‐2 1‐12 and

1‐13

1.4 Why will no decision be made as to recommended transportation

routes for waste shipped to the NNSS?

5‐3 1‐23 Table 1‐2, Waste

Disposal, 2nd comment

Non‐responsive ‐ the purpose of this Environmental Impact

Statement ought to be to understand the impacts based on

known history of shipments.

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-21

1-22

1-23

1-24

1-25

1-26

1-27

	 For response to the commentor’s second issue, refer to the response to comment 1-1

above.

1-16	 DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with respect to NNSS

activities in support of its missions. Supporting renewable energy efforts is an

important part of DOE’s Nondefense Mission.

This NNSS SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of a commercial solar

power generation facility located in Area 25 of the NNSS. At this time, there are no

active proposals from private-sector entities to construct a solar power generation

facility at the NNSS, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue or allow construction of

a facility without such a proposal. If a private-sector proposal for a solar power

generation facility were received in the future, it would be subject to future NEPA

review to address issues such as water availability and compatibility with other existing

land uses and activities. While the potential impacts associated with a transmission

line segment were analyzed in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3.2, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS,

future NEPA reviews would also include further analyses of transmission line

development.

The reference to Chapter 3, Section 3.1.4.2, on page 3-41 of the Draft NNSS SWEIS

was in error, and should have referred to Section 3.1.3.2. This has been corrected in

this Final NNSS SWEIS.

1-17	 Chapter 3, Section 3.6, discusses potential alternatives that were eliminated from

detailed study and were not further evaluated in this SWEIS. Chapter 3, Section 3.6.4,

notes that DOE/NNSA previously considered a separate, stand-alone alternative

focused on renewable energy development. However, as stated in Section 3.6.4,

during the scoping process, DOE/NNSA received several suggestions that renewable

energy should be considered in all alternatives, rather than be addressed in a separate

alternative. DOE/NNSA agreed and analyzed renewable energy activities under each

of the three alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS.

1-18	 The BLM and DOE Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar 

Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (Solar Energy Development PEIS) was

described in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.4.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS. On July 27, 2012,

BLM and DOE published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability for the Final 

Solar Energy Development PEIS (77 FR 44267). In this Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/

NNSA updated its discussion of the Solar Energy Development PEIS and considered

and included relevant information (e.g., locations of nearby designated Solar Energy
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-9

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 4 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

5‐4 3‐38 3.2.2.1 The statement about rail‐to‐truck transloading facilities seems to assume

that commercial vendors would establish such a facility if the ‘Expanded

Action’ alternative is chosen.  Do the various analyses of increased

transportation requirements, discussed later in the EIS, include the

increased truck traffic if such a facility is not established?

5‐5 3‐51 Table 3‐3 The transportation fatalities don’t seem to scale with the increase in the

number of shipments.

5‐6 4‐25 and

4‐26

4.1.3.2.1

(2nd sentence)

This is incorrect.  Also, the following Map shows 160 as the most

commonly used truck route.

5‐7 4‐32 and     

5‐67

Tables 4‐11 and

5‐19

7.7 miles east of 372  with 8,900 cars passing, is roughly 3 miles from the

point that is 0.6 miles east of the Clark – Nye county line with 1,600 cars

passing.  It is inconceivable that 8,900 – 1,600 = 7,300 cars find

something to do in this relatively uninhabited region of the county.

5‐8 A‐41 A.2.2.1 Table A‐6.  The Expanded Operations Alternative calls for an additional

waste generation of 11,000,000 cubic feet of waste from TTR.  This

waste would come from cleanup of sites Clean Slates 1, 2, & 3, Project

57 and Small Boy.  How will this waste be transported to the NNSS for

disposal at Area 5  (or 3)?  This information is not readily apparent in the

EIS.

6.  Yucca Mountain

6‐1 2‐13 2.5.2

(3rd paragraph)

Inconsistent action.  If the site project is closed, then Department of

Energy must remediate the site.  There are in excess of 600,000 yd3 of

excavated rock in piles that need to be reclaimed, in addition to roads

and pads.  The impacts of these activities can be assessed regardless of

whether or not the DOE has funds appropriated for it.  Also, the

operation of the Yucca Mountain project as a part of the Nevada

National Security Site mission was raised in scoping as an ongoing

program. The  Department of Energy dropping it allowed no opportunity

for the public to comment on the impacts of remediation of the

disturbed land, let alone the issue of no location to dispose of wastes.  

6‐2 4‐9 4.1.1.3 (Yucca

Mountain

paragraph)  

The Department of Energy is responsible for returning the land to

original conditions ‐ this is a condition of existing MOUs and the impacts

ought to be included in the SWEIS.

6‐3 6‐32 6.3.3

(1st paragraph)

Development of the Yucca Mountain Project Gateway Area assumed and

Yucca Mountain is assumed to be canceled.

7.  Inaccuracies and Clarifications

7‐1 viii   Table of

Contents

Chapter 3 pages 3‐1 to 3‐10 are omitted from TOC.

   

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-28

1-29

1-35

1-36

1-34

1-30

1-31

1-32

1-33

Zones) from the Solar Energy Development PEIS. Within this SWEIS, DOE/NNSA

considered the potential environmental effects of a commercial solar power generation

facility located in Area 25 of the NNSS; however, DOE/NNSA recognizes that there

are no proposals from a private entity at this time, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue

or allow a large-scale solar facility in the absence of a private sector proposal. If a

proposal for a commercial solar power generation facility were received in the future,

it would be subject to future NEPA review and analysis to address issues such as water

availability and compatibility with other existing land uses and activities.

1-19	 The commentor’s opinion regarding commercial solar development is noted.

1-20	 The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is a cooperating agency on this SWEIS and has reviewed

all proposed activities, including those for a commercial solar power facility, to ensure

that they are compatible with USAF mission requirements. The USAF did not identify

any airspace or other conflicts with the location or configuration (parabolic mirror

arrays) of the solar power facility described in this SWEIS. At this time, there are no

active proposals from private-sector entities to construct a solar power facility at the

NNSS, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue or allow construction of a facility without

such a proposal. If a private-sector proposal for a solar power facility were received in

the future, it would be subject to future NEPA review to address issues such as water

availability and compatibility with other existing land uses and activities.

1-21	 Chapter 4 of this SWEIS describes the affected environment for the NNSS and other

offsite locations in the State of Nevada. The intent of Chapter 4 is to describe existing

conditions, rather than proposed activities or their potential effects. The references

in Chapter 4 of this SWEIS to geothermal power systems were intended as a general

description to aid the reader in understanding the potential for bedrock formations on

the NNSS to support geothermal power systems and were not referring to any specific

proposals.

1-22	 The emissions associated with the construction of the proposed NNSS solar

facilities under the Expanded Operations Alternative are discussed in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.8.2.1, of this NNSS SWEIS. The emissions associated with the construction

of the solar power generation facility are explicitly reported in Table 5–38 for each

criteria pollutant and for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Emissions associated

with the construction of the solar facility under the Reduced Operations Alternative are

found in Section 5.1.8.3.1 and are reported for individual criteria pollutants and VOCs

in Table 5–43. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-10

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 5 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐2 1‐3 sidebar The last paragraph of the sidebar text box about American Indian

prospective, should be the first paragraph, and would probably be better

if it was a separate sidebar. A reader should not have to get to the last

paragraph before being told this was text prepared by others and not a

government position.

7‐3 1‐6 1.3.2 There should be some mention of the possibility of siting a GTCC disposal

facility at the NNSS.  This subject is discussed further in the SWEIS, but

an initial reference should be made here.

7‐4 1‐17

and 1‐23

1.5 and Table  

1‐2, Waste

Disposal,

1st comment

Why doesn’t the SWEIS fully consider the impacts of disposal of Greater

Than Class C wastes?  It is not identified as a future mission of the

Nevada National Security Site.  NNSS is, however, a leading candidate for

the disposal site in the GTCC EIS.

7‐5 1‐22 Table 1‐2, Nye

County Impacts  

It is not possible to figure out if this is addressed.

7‐6 1‐23 Table 1‐2,

Waste Disposal,

Final comment

This is Greater Than Class C and should be treated explicitly.

7‐7 1‐28 Table 1‐2,

Potential

Impacts,

1st comment

Disagree. It is not possible to comment on the SWEIS when assessing the

impacts of the missions that lead to impacts are postponed.  Preparing

an Environmental Impact Statement for future missions of the Nevada

National Security Site and not adequately addressing impacts does not

result in an acceptable SWEIS.

7‐8 2‐1 2.0 and  

Table 1‐1

Regarding a return to nuclear testing ‐ Table 1‐1 shows this is not

analyzed in the SWEIS.

7‐9 2‐14 Chapter 2, 2.5.3,

bullet 2

This bullet implies that BEEF was planned and analyzed in 1996 SWEIS

and then constructed. Actually BEEF went on line in 1994, and as such is

not a change since 1996.  Furthermore, for all of these bullets of

“changes since 1996 EIS” I recommend that the date of first operation be

added.

7‐10 3‐20 and     

4‐153

3.1.2.1 and     

4.1.11.1.2

“Under the no action alternative, offsite generated MLLW would not be

treated at the NNSS.”   DOE/NV has already applied for a permit from

NDEP to treat MLLW at the NNSS.  This is discussed further in the EIS and

this statement should be corrected.  See also pg. 4‐153, ¶4.1.11.1.2  The

DOE  has already submitted an application to NDEP for the MLLW

treatment permit.

   

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-37

1-38

1-42

1-44

1-45

1-40

1-41

1-43

1-39

1-23	 See response to comment 1-3.

1-24	 DOE/NNSA has not identified any scenarios under the Reduced Operations Alternative

that would prevent the accomplishment of DOE Office of Environmental Management

activities and goals, or directly or indirectly result in unavoidable adverse impacts, as

defined under 40 CFR 1502.16. DOE/NNSA would continue to comply with the terms

of the most recent FFACO regarding environmental contamination. 

1-25	 The approach to the transportation analysis performed for this NNSS SWEIS is

consistent with analyses performed for other DOE/NNSA NEPA analyses. As

stated in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has analyzed

two transportation cases: one that reflects the existing commitment (Constrained

Case) and one that permits shipments through greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada (Unconstrained Case). This analysis was undertaken to develop a greater

understanding of the potential environmental consequences of shipping such waste

along the analyzed routes, including through and around metropolitan Las Vegas, by

comparing the impacts that would occur under different alternatives. Conservative

assumptions were used throughout the analysis to prevent an understatement of the

potential impacts. While the transportation analysis was performed in a relatively

generic way, the results provided a reasonable estimate of the relative magnitude of

the impacts that could occur. Although an analysis of LLW/MLLW shipping routes

is included in this SWEIS, individual decisions on routing will not be made as part of

this NEPA process; such decisions are developed in accordance with DOE/NNSA’s

standard practices, which include consultation with the State of Nevada, and, when

finalized, become publicly available through publication on the NNSS website.

1-26	 DOE/NNSA never intended for there to be routing decisions as a direct outcome of the

preparation of this NNSS SWEIS. As stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, the analysis was

undertaken to develop a greater understanding of the potential environmental

consequences of shipping such waste through metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and to

inform any highway routing revisions to DOE/NNSA’s WAC. The Unconstrained Case

was developed within the Expanded Operations Alternative to provide information on

the sensitivity of calculated impacts to changes in routes and use of different

transportation modes (i.e., truck versus rail). Any future decisions on routing of LLW/

MLLW would be developed in accordance with DOE/NNSA’s standard practices,

which include consultation with the State of Nevada.

1-27	 Historical data regarding waste received at NNSS for disposal were incorporated

into the transportation analysis. As described in Appendix E, Section E.4.2,
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-11

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 6 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐11 3‐20,

3‐38,  

and 3‐39

3.1.2.1 (LLW

and MLLW

management),

3.2.2.1  

(1st paragraph),

3.2.2.2  

(last sentence)

This is 11,000,000 ft3 of additional wastes.  Unable to determine if it was

included.

7‐12 3‐47 3.3.2 The waste management program is not addressed under the reduced

operations alternative.

7‐13 3‐77 3.5.5 A table presenting the differences in assumptions between the 1996 and

the current document would have been useful.

7‐14 4‐1 4.1 and 4.1.1 Both sections state the site is 57 miles from Las Vegas in different terms.

4.1.1 is better, use of term overland miles in 4.1 may be confused with

road miles, and the 57 miles is direct line of site. Recommend either

deleting the redundant distance sentence from one of the paragraphs,

or make the use of terms, and “downtown starting point” the same.  

7‐15 4‐14 4.1.2.1.1 Facilities: avoid exact count of buildings and trailers, these numbers

change frequently, and will not be same from time of draft input to final

issue date. Further down in paragraph, data is clarified with “as of

November 2009” that should perhaps lead the paragraph.

7‐16 4‐35 Table 4‐12 The table of Clark County Largest Employers is misleading.  The source is

NV Energy who has split up employers by billable locations or power

accounts.  Find a better source of data. The decision on how to group

employers does not seem to be consistent.  For example: All of County

Government workers are grouped together with the exception of UMC

where all workers are also County employees.  It seems arbitrary to split

up the employees that work for major hotel/casino companies by

property.  All MGM properties should be grouped (MGM Grand, Bellagio,

numerous City Center hotels, Mirage, Luxor, etc) likewise, all Caesar’s

Entertainment properties (ally's Caesar’s Palace, Harrah's, Flamingo,

etc.).   If all Station Casino were grouped together they also would make

the list.  Likewise, all U.S. government including military, civilian, VA

hospitals, Postal Service, FAA, BLM etcetera should be totaled and put

on the list.

7‐17 4‐36 Table 4‐13 It is disingenuous to refer to NSTEC and Wackenhut as Nye County

employers.

7‐18 4‐63

and 4‐94

4.1.6.1 The first sentence of Surface Water Characteristics appears to contradict

the  American  Indian Perspective of Water Resources on page 4‐94.  The

present nature of the analysis should be highlighted.  Apart from that, I

though the hydrology section was particularly well written.

7‐19 4‐84 4.1.6.2 There is no mention of the small amount of PU found in one of the wells

on Pahute Mesa.

   

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-46

1-47

1-52

1-54

1-53

1-48

1-49

1-50

1-51

historical information applied to the analysis included the types of containers used

for transporting radioactive materials and wastes (all alternatives), as well as the

waste volumes that have been received (when determining the number of shipments

associated with the No Action Alternative). The number of shipments of LLW/

MLLW estimated for the No Action Alternative reflects the number of shipments that

are actually received. As described in Section E.4.2, historical information regarding

the radionuclide quantities that have been received from waste generators was used

to determine a conservative basis for the radionuclide inventory in the shipments for

transportation accident analysis. Additionally, the analyzed routes for LLW/MLLW

shipments in this NNSS SWEIS are the most commonly used transportation routes, as

shown in Figures E–3 and E–4.

1-28	 The description of the use of rail-to-truck transfer stations in this NNSS SWEIS assumes

the use of existing stations in the vicinity of southern Nevada. Use of rail shipments

was not intended to convey the development and construction of new locations for

performing the rail-to-truck transfer. The description of the activity in Chapter 3,

Section 3.2.2.1, was revised to more clearly convey that these types of facilities already

exist. Use of rail to transport LLW and MLLW would not eliminate the use of trucks. 

The same number of trucks would be needed to transport waste from the rail-to-truck

transfer station to the NNSS.

1-29	 The number of traffic fatalities estimated for each alternative does not precisely

depend on the total number of shipments, but on the distance over which the waste and

material were transported and the average fatality rate per kilometer traveled, which

differs depending on the mode of transport (truck or rail) and the states through which

the material is transported. That is, the average fatality rate per kilometer is different

for truck transport versus rail transport and different for each state. Thus, although

the total number of shipments of waste and material may increase under the Expanded

Operations Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative (e.g., see Chapter 5,

Tables 5–9 and 5–10), the number of fatalities under each alternative depends on

whether the shipments occur via truck or rail transport and the total distances the waste

and material are transported under each alternative from each region of the country.

1-30	 The majority of NNSS workers are employed by the management and operating

contractor. Based on the locations of contractor employee residences, DOE/NNSA

determined the geographic distribution of the NNSS workforce and estimated

current commuting patterns. DOE/NNSA estimates that approximately 70 percent

of the traffic volume is from commuters in privately owned vehicles arriving at
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-12

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 7 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐20 4‐85 Footnote   Pretty sloppy referencing.

7‐21 4‐91 and

4‐92

UGTA and RREM

Plan

This is disingenuous and indicates that the Department of Energy has a

bad monitoring program if it has 10.7 max on site and 62.5% off site

(conveniently not expressed as a percentage).

7‐22 4‐163 and

4‐164

4.1.12.5   Accident History. Not all significant accidents seem to be included off the

top of my head I can think of two: About 1990 two workers died in a

vehicle roll over coming off Pahute Mesa in the snow late at night having

worked late, and; August 1998 in U16b a tunnel worker was almost killed

(heart stopped and then revived) in industrial accident. If I can think of 2

then there are likely more, this section should be given some thought

and attention to completeness. If I was a relative of one of these workers

and found the case omitted there is an implication my “loved one” was

not “noteworthy” which could be interpreted as non‐caring or insulting

to their memory.

7‐23 5‐23, 5‐

24 and  

5‐25

5.1.2.1.2 and

Table 5‐4

Expanded Operations land use discussion should contain some comment

re use of land for potential GTCC disposal.  This use should also be

included in Table 5‐4, “Proposed New Infrastructure ‐‐‐“.

7‐24 5‐258 5.4.6.1.2.2 The statement that impacts would be similar to those described under

the No Action Alternative is a bit of an understatement, or perhaps just

misleading.

7‐25 7‐11 Mitigation

Measure 6

The discussion of actions in the event of discovery of human remains is

too presumptive that any remains found are American Indian. If remains

are discovered one should first determine not a recent death (say in the

last 75  years) and not a crime scene, body dump, previously unknown

missing worker or trespasser, etc. After law enforcement and Nye

County Coroner have complete their investigations, then anthropologist

can determine if its remains of Native American or perhaps an 18th

Century European explorer or 19th Century rancher/prospector.

7‐26 8‐2 8.1.1.1.2 After reams and reams of pages leading up to this section there is not

very much here.  This re‐emphasizes the comment of “what’s the

point?”

7‐27 9‐3 Table The heading “Human Health” should be renamed or a different heading

of “Safety” is needed. Many of the right column citations have nothing

to do with “health” and are in fact safety documents. DOE Safety and

Health staff should be able to better describe the difference between

safety and human health for SWEIS writers. Examples of safety but not

health documents are 10CFR820, 10CFR830, DOE Order 5480.20A, and

DOE Orders 420.1B, 4251.D, 433.1D, 440, (458 is protection of public

health and protection of environment).

   

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-55

1-56

1-58

1-59

1-61

1-62

1-60

1-57

NNSS via U.S. Route 95 from the east (e.g., from the Las Vegas, Nevada, area), and

approximately 20 percent of the traffic volume is commuters in privately owned

vehicles arriving at NNSS via U.S. Route 95 from the west (from Pahrump, Beatty,

and Amargosa Valley). DOE/NNSA estimates that the remaining NNSS-related traffic

results from trucks and buses, with approximately 7 and 3 percent on U.S. Route 95

from the east and west, respectively. The sentence in question was revised to more

accurately reflect the estimated distribution of NNSS-bound traffic. The legends of

Figures 4–6 and 4–7 in Chapter 4, which show transportation routes, were revised to

clarify that the green-highlighted routes are the most common routes used for transport

of LLW.

1-31	 The annual average daily traffic volumes and location of traffic monitoring stations

identified in Chapter 4, Table 4–11, and Chapter 5, Table 5–19, were provided by the

Nevada Department of Transportation. The Nevada Department of Transportation has

acknowledged that “east” and “west” in the location descriptions of the monitoring

stations for Nevada State Route 160 (Nye County) were incorrectly described in the

traffic report and should be corrected to “north” and “south,” respectively, to reflect the

correct locations. The monitoring station that recorded an annual average daily traffic

volume of 8,900 is located 0.3 miles north of the Clark-Nye county line; the station

that recorded an annual average daily traffic volume of 1,600 is located 7.7 miles north

of Nevada State Route 372. The stretch of State Route 160 between these two stations

is the prime location of many commercial businesses, hotels, restaurants, and casinos,

which attract relatively high daily traffic volumes. The location descriptions of the

traffic monitoring stations were reviewed and have been corrected in Tables 4–11

and 5–19. 

1-32	 The impacts analysis in the Draft NNSS SWEIS was based on the assumption that

the waste would be transported to the NNSS via U.S. Route 6 to U.S. Route 95. In

response to this comment, DOE has revised Appendix E, Section E.4.1, to state that

wastes would be transported from the Tonapah Test Range (TTR) along this route.

1-33	 Please see response to comment 1-5 above.

1-34	 Please see response to comment 1-5 above.

1-35	 As described in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.9.3, the Yucca Mountain Project Gateway 

Area Concept Plan (DOE 2007) presents a multi-phase land use plan proposed by

Nye County to ensure that land development in the area occurs in an orderly manner,

as well as to increase opportunities for industrial and commercial development and

other activities along the U.S. Route 95 Technology Corridor, consistent with NNSS-
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-13

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 8 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐28 A‐43 A.2.2.2 Environmental Restoration Program – Soils Project, does not mention

the Double Track site.  Does this mean that this site is considered

remediated to acceptable standards?

7‐29 D‐86 D.2.5.2.1 This section does not appear to account for ground disturbance nor

increased truck traffic caused by cleanup of Clean Slates 1, 2, 3, etc.  (See

also Table 3‐6, page 3‐72.)

7‐30 G‐2 and    

G‐3

G.1.1.1 Why are the “traditional units” of radiation and radioactivity, i.e. curie,

rad, and rem, used instead of the currently accepted International

System Units of becquerels, grays, and sieverts?

7‐31 G‐3 and     

G‐4

G.1.1.2 and

Table G‐1

The discussions in this paragraph and table are somewhat misleading.  

There should be some statement that “averages” vary greatly over the

US.  For example, radon is not a problem in the Western US, but is a big

problem in the East.  Air travel average is truly meaningless, since only

those people who actually fly get any dose and that dose is considerably

more than 1 millirem per year.  The air travel dose could be expressed as

the dose for a coast‐to‐coast flight, which would be more meaningful

than the average dose.   There should be some discussion that these

average doses vary greatly across the US and from person‐to‐person.

7‐32 G‐42 G.3.7.1 Table G‐16.  Table G‐16 (NNSS Radiological and Chemical Facility

Accidents) lists plutonium source terms for accidents in the Area 5

Waste Management facility.  What is the source of this plutonium?  The

NSSAB has been informed that all of the TRU waste at NNSS has been

shipped to WIPP.

7‐33    Various Examples of citations from the Draft Site Wide Site Environmental

Impact Statement that illustrate major federal actions planned or

considered for the Nevada National Security Site that require additional

NEPA analyses.

7‐33a      

  

Although an analysis of LLW/MLLW shipping routes is included in

this SWEIS, decisions on routing would not be made as part of

this NEPA process. This analysis was undertaken to develop a

greater understanding of the potential environmental

consequences of shipping such waste through and around

metropolitan Las Vegas and to inform any highway routing

revisions to NNSA’s waste acceptance criteria. P1‐12

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-63

1-64

1-65

1-67

1-68

1-66

related activities. As a multi-phase land use and development plan, DOE/NNSA has

determined that the plan presents a reasonably foreseeable future action.

	 In contrast, DOE is not required, nor does it intend, to construct or operate a repository

at Yucca Mountain. Accordingly, in the absence of a DOE proposal to construct and

operate a repository, NEPA review of the former Yucca Mountain Repository Project in

this SWEIS is not required. However, DOE/NNSA considers the potential remediation

of the former Yucca Mountain site to be a reasonably foreseeable future action and has

included it in the assessment of cumulative impacts in Chapter 6.

1-36	 Chapter 3, “Description of Alternatives,” Section 3.0, contains an introduction to the

chapter. In this Final NNSS SWEIS, the Table of Contents has been amended to reflect

Section 3.0 beginning on page 3-1.

1-37	 The Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) has agreed to reorder the

text box mentioned.

1-38	 The section of the Draft NNSS SWEIS noted in the comment is in Chapter 1, which

provides a general introduction and discussion of the purpose and need for agency

action. The specific section is a very brief summary of the Expanded Operations

Alternative. In the discussion of the Draft GTCC EIS (DOE/EIS-0375-D) in

Section 1.5 of this NNSS SWEIS, it is noted that the NNSS is one of seven alternative

locations being considered by DOE for a GTCC waste disposal facility. The potential

development of a GTCC waste disposal facility at NNSS is located in Chapter 6,

Section 6.2.1.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, and the potential impacts are analyzed in

Section 6.3.

1-39	 As addressed in the response to comment 1-6, although DOE is preparing a Draft

GTCC EIS (DOE/EIS-0375) that evaluates the potential impacts of a variety of

technologies and locations for the disposal of GTCC LLW and DOE GTCC-like waste

and the NNSS is one of the candidate sites evaluated in the Draft GTCC EIS, DOE has

not yet made a decision regarding GTCC waste disposition. A Notice of Availability

of the Draft GTCC EIS for public comment was published in the Federal Register

on February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10574). Therefore, rather than evaluating GTCC waste

management at the NNSS as a mission assigned to the NSO, it is discussed as a

reasonably foreseeable future action in this NNSS SWEIS in Chapter 6, “Cumulative

Impacts.” Section 6.2.1.2 includes a description of the facility, and Section 6.3

presents the cumulative impacts evaluated in this NNSS SWEIS, including construction

and operation of a GTCC waste disposal facility.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-14

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 9 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐33b      

  

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and

Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility

at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site (DOE/EIS‐0359) (DOE 2004d) – This

environmental impact statement (EIS), tiered from the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative

Strategies for the Long‐Term Management and Use of Depleted

Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS‐0269) (DOE 1999c), considered

the potential environmental impacts of construction, operation,

maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning of a

proposed facility for converting depleted uranium hexafluoride to

a more‐stable chemical form at alternative locations within the

Paducah Site. DOE evaluated transportation of the depleted

uranium conversion product to a commercial facility or the NNSS

for disposal as LLW. The July 27, 2004, ROD (69 FR 44654) stated

that DOE planned to decide the specific disposal location(s) after

further NEPA review. 1‐14

7‐33c      

  

This NNSS SWEIS would not provide the basis for a DOE

programmatic decision, but would provide the basis for site

specific implementation of programmatic decisions that have

already been made in existing programmatic EISs and other NEPA

documents. DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(c)) require

that large, multiple‐facility DOE sites, such as the NNSS, prepare

SWEISs. This Nevada National Security Site SWEIS addresses the

full range of missions, programs, capabilities, projects, and

activities under the purview of NNSA in Nevada.  Table 1‐2

7‐33d      

  

Response: Each of the three alternatives includes renewable

energy projects. Each alternative includes a commercial solar

power generation facility that varies among the alternatives in

terms of electricity‐generating capacity, as described in Chapter 3.

All the commercial solar projects would be located in Area 25 of

the NNSS. In addition, the Expanded Use Alternative includes a

project to install a photovoltaic system in Area 6 and a project to

demonstrate the feasibility of enhanced geothermal electricity‐

generating systems in other locations on the NNSS. In the

cumulative impacts chapter (Chapter 6), a Concentrating Solar

Power Validation Project for solar research and development is

also evaluated. This project is intended to demonstrate the

viability of cutting‐edge technologies for commercial power

production. Because there are no proposals for the commercial

scale solar power generation facilities or geothermal electricity

generation, additional NEPA review would be required if a specific

proposal is considered by NNSA.  Table 1‐2

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-68

cont’d

1-40	 The commentor is referring to Nye County’s scoping comments for this NNSS SWEIS,

which are summarized as follows: (1) Nye County believes that significant adverse

impacts and losses of natural resources have occurred that must be mitigated;

(2) environmental monitoring will not suffice as a mitigation measure; and (3) this

SWEIS must address the legacy of environmental insult that has occurred and define

appropriate measures to mitigate the massive loss of natural resources. Because the

impacts alluded to by Nye County are primarily based upon past actions on the part

of DOE/NNSA and its predecessors, this NNSS SWEIS addresses them in Chapter 6,

“Cumulative Impacts.” Although not specifically noted as Nye County concerns in the

cumulative impacts analysis, all applicable resources are addressed, including impacts

on groundwater and geologic media from underground nuclear testing and impacts

associated with lack of access to potential mineral deposits. In addition, as the host

county of the NNSS and a Cooperating Agency in this NNSS SWEIS, Nye County

provided its perspective, which is included in this NNSS SWEIS in Section 6.2.9.4, Nye

County Input for this Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/NNSA does

not generally employ environmental monitoring as a mitigation measure. DOE/NNSA

does use environmental monitoring, however, to ensure its activities are not threatening

public health and safety or the environment outside of the NNSS and to ascertain the

effectiveness of mitigation and other measures designed to protect the public and/or

environment. 

1-41	 GTCC waste is commercial waste. DOE/NNSA does not consider sealed sources

recovered and owned by DOE/NNSA under the Offsite Source Recovery Project to

be GTCC waste—rather, they are considered materials. DOE/NNSA takes ownership

of sealed sources as needed to avert a potential threat to health, safety, and national

security. Efforts are made to reuse the sealed sources (e.g., by transfer to an authorized

or licensed party such as a manufacturer of devices containing sealed sources). If no

reuse of the sealed sources is identified, DOE/NNSA may declare them to be waste

and dispose them accordingly. DOE/NNSA notes that the provisions for disposal

of GTCC waste under Section 3(b)(1)(D) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985 do not apply to waste owned or generated by DOE. DOE/

NNSA also notes that commercially generated or -owned LLW would be classified

as GTCC waste only if the waste contains one or more of a limited number of

radioisotopes in sufficient concentrations, where waste concentrations are determined

considering the volume or mass of the final waste form.

1-42	 Please see the response to comment 1-1.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-15

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 10 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐33e      

  

Response: NNSA concurs with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency comments addressing renewable energy. However, the

renewable energy projects in this SWEIS are not sufficiently

defined to include this level of detail and would require additional

NEPA analysis before being implemented.

            Ch 3  

7‐33f      

  

If a commercial solar power project were proposed at the NNSS in

the future, additional project‐specific NEPA analysis would be

required.

     

  

Therefore, additional NEPA analysis would be required to identify,

analyze, and document project‐specific impacts if such a

commercial‐scale solar power generation facility were proposed.  

P 3‐28

7‐33g      

  

Training facilities.  These new and expanded facilities projects are

conceptual at this time and would require an appropriate level of

NEPA analysis before they could be implemented.  P 3‐34

7‐33h      

  

Nonproliferation‐ and counterterrorism‐related activities –

NNSA nonproliferation‐ and counterterrorism‐related activities

would include four related areas: arms control, nonproliferation,

nuclear forensics, and counterterrorism. Although the purpose of

nonproliferation‐ and counterterrorism related activities would

be the same as that under the No Action Alternative, new

nonproliferation and counterterrorism facilities, described below,

would be constructed at various locations on the NNSS to

undertake enhanced activities. Because the new nonproliferation

and counterterrorism facilities (Arms Control Treaty Verification

Test Bed, nonproliferation test bed, and Urban Warfare Complex)

are still conceptual in nature and their locations are unknown,

they are not fully analyzed in this SWEIS, and an appropriate level

of NEPA analysis would be required before they could be

implemented.  O3‐34

   

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-68

cont’d

1-43	 The commentor is correct. This NNSS SWEIS addresses the impacts of maintaining the

readiness to conduct an underground nuclear test, but not the actual conduct of such

a test. For informational purposes only, Appendix H to this NNSS SWEIS includes a

general description of underground nuclear testing and the environmental impacts of

conducting a test.

1-44	 The commentor is correct that the Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF) began

operations in 1994. Expansion of BEEF capabilities was analyzed in the 1996 NTS EIS 

(DOE EIS-0243, August 1996). The SWEIS has been corrected to include information

on the expansion and to indicate operations began in 1994. Operational dates also have

been added to the final SWEIS as requested.

1-45	 The cited statements in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.1, and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.2,

are correct. DOE/NNSA currently treats onsite-generated MLLW at the NNSS

under a RCRA treatment plan approved by NDEP. Such treatment is addressed in

this NNSS SWEIS under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives. To

date, DOE/NSO has not submitted an application to NDEP to treat offsite-generated

MLLW, although such treatment is addressed in this NNSS SWEIS under the Expanded

Operations Alternative.

1-46	 The cited 11,000,000 cubic feet of LLW assumed to be generated from excavating a

number of contaminated soil sites is included with the rest of the LLW addressed under

the Expanded Operations Alternative. The text in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.1, refers the

reader to Appendix A, Section A.2.2.1, which provides a description of the basis for the

estimated waste volumes to be managed under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

Additionally, the footnote in Chapter 5, Table 5–49, indicates that the 11,000,000 cubic

feet of LLW is included in the Expanded Operations waste volume.

1-47	 Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2, Environmental Management Mission, describes the Waste

Management Program in terms of the differences between the Reduced Operations

Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

1-48	 Chapter 1, Table 1–1, Comparison of the 1996 NTS EIS Expanded Use Alternative and

this NNSS SWEIS No Action Alternative, provides the comparison that the commentor

is requesting. A reference to Table 1–1 has been added to Chapter 3, Section 3.6.5.

1-49	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1, has been edited to delete the term “overland,” which the

commentor suggests could be confusing.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-16

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 11 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐33i      

  

DHS counterterrorism operations support would include

construction of new training facilities (about 10,000 square feet

of floor space). In addition, RNCTEC would be operated up to the

level of a Hazard Category 2 nonreactor nuclear facility, which

would allow larger amounts of radioactive material in alternative

configurations to be used in tests and experiments. A high‐speed

road, a short section of full‐scale railroad line, a simulated

seaport facility, and a mock urban area would also be added to

RNCTEC (DOE 2004f), requiring about 125 acres of additional land

in Area 6. These new facilities are still conceptual in nature and

their potential locations have not been identified. An appropriate

level of additional NEPA analysis (beyond this SWEIS) would be

required before NNSA makes any decision regarding these

facilities. P 3‐35

7‐33j      

  

Support for NASA – NNSA would support NASA nuclear rocket

motor development, including using existing boreholes to

examine for proof of concept the use of deep alluvial basins for

sequestering radionuclides released as part of emissions from

tests of a yet‐to‐be‐developed prototype nuclear rocket motor.

Over about a 10‐year period, NASA would not likely test a nuclear

rocket motor, but may conduct proof‐of‐concept tests using a

surrogate, such as spiked xenon, in a borehole to evaluate the

effectiveness of the alluvium for this purpose. NNSA would

identify and comply with all applicable regulatory requirements

for both proof‐of‐concept experiments and any actual test of a

nuclear rocket motor. If NASA proposes to test an actual nuclear

rocket motor, additional NEPA analysis would be prepared.  3‐35

7‐33k      

  

New test beds – Additional test beds would be developed to

support research and development for sensors, high‐power

microwaves, and high‐power lasers. New test beds (including

approximately 50,000 square feet of new building spaces) would

be constructed at various locations on the NNSS and would

disturb approximately 200 acres of previously undisturbed land.

Because there are no specific plans for construction of these new

test beds at this time, additional NEPA analysis would be

necessary before they could be implemented. 3‐37

7‐33l      

  

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, Mercury would be

reconfigured to provide the modern facilities and infrastructure

necessary to support advanced experimentation and production

at the NNSS. Because the reconfiguration of Mercury is

conceptual in nature, an appropriate level of NEPA analysis and

documentation would be required before it could be

implemented. 3‐40

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-68

cont’d

1-50	 Although subject to change, counts of buildings and other infrastructure elements are

provided to give readers a sense of scale on these issues. The date reference has been

moved to the beginning of the paragraph as suggested.

1-51	 These data were obtained from NV Energy (who obtained the information from the

State of Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation [DETR],

an official source of employment information). DOE/NNSA has obtained an updated

listing of the top 20 employers in Clark and Nye Counties for 2011 from DETR. 

Chapter 4, Table 4–12, of this SWEIS has been updated accordingly. Regarding the

grouping of employers, DOE/NNSA is grouping employers per the source (DETR). 

DETR has stated that most Las Vegas casinos report their information under separate

limited liability companies (LLCs) at the facility level (e.g., MGM Grand Hotel, LLC);

therefore, no change has been made to the grouping of employers. 

1-52	 These data were obtained from the DETR, an official source of employment

information. DOE/NNSA has obtained an updated listing of the top 20 employers

in Clark and Nye Counties for 2011 from DETR and Chapter 4, Table 4–13, in this

SWEIS has been updated accordingly. NSTec, LLC, is no longer on the list of top 20

employers; however, Wackenhut remains in the no. 5 position.

1-53	 DOE/NNSA recognizes that information presented in the American Indian Writers

Subgroup (AIWS) text boxes are based on unique cultural perspectives and may be

inconsistent with other information in the SWEIS. In this case, different perspectives

on the nature of water movement and the relationship of groundwater basins have been

presented. No changes have been made to this SWEIS or the AIWS text to reconcile

those perspectives.

1-54	 As reported by Kersting et al. (1998), groundwater samples taken at well ER-20-5 in

1997 contained low concentrations (from 0.0085 to 0.63 picocuries per liter, or about

4.2 percent of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) limit of 15 picocuries per liter)

of plutonium, apparently associated with colloids. Well ER-20-5 is located on the

southwestern part of Pahute Mesa, about 4,265 feet south of the Benham underground

nuclear test and 984 feet west of the Tybo underground nuclear test. Analysis of the

plutonium in the groundwater samples demonstrated that it was from the Benham

test, rather than the Tybo test. Kersting et al. noted, “this is the first time Pu has

been shown to be transported by groundwater and for a significant distance.” A low

concentration of plutonium (0.42 picocurie per liter, which is well below the EPA’s

SDWA limit of 15 picocuries per liter) was found in samples taken from well ER-20-5

#1 in 2004 (Eaton et al. 2007). In a study subsequent to the discovery of plutonium at
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-17

SWEIS Committee Comments

10/04/11 Page 12 of 12

Number Page Section Comment

7‐33m      

  

The analysis in this SWEIS is based on assumptions for a

representative commercial solar project (West 2010). Because

there is no specific proposal for a commercial solar power‐

generating project, additional NEPA analysis would be required to

evaluate any such proposals in the future.  3‐41

7‐33n      

  

Because there are no specific proposals for geothermal

exploration or development on the NNSS at this time, additional

NEPA analysis would be required before such work could be

conducted. 3‐41

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

1-68

cont’d

well EC-20-5, Smith et al. (2003) noted that, “general experience from the U.S. nuclear

testing program based on radiochemical diagnostic data collected from a variety of test

matrices suggest that only a small fraction (5 to 10 percent) of the total plutonium from

an underground nuclear detonation would be available for transport in groundwater.” 

More-detailed information regarding the potential for plutonium migration in

groundwater in and around Pahute Mesa at the NNSS has been added to Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2.

1-55	 The footnotes to Chapter 4, Table 4–31, in the Draft NNSS SWEIS erroneously

referred to a 1993, rather than 1992, sampling date. However, DOE/NNSA has since

identified more-recent raw water chemistry data that have been included in this Final 

NNSS SWEIS.

1-56	 DOE/NNSA is committed to its groundwater monitoring program and continues to

expand the programs by installing new wells to be routinely sampled to gather further

data for the establishment of a long-term monitoring system. To ensure public health

and safety, groundwater monitoring is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Chapter 4, Table 4–34, includes tritium analysis results from both onsite (monitoring

and potable wells) and offsite wells. Note that the values in Table 4–34, consistent

with the purpose of the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring (RREM)

Program, are not meant to illustrate maximum onsite tritium concentrations. The

RREM Program is focused on identifying changes in contaminant concentrations and

potential movement of contaminants that could indicate threats to water supply wells. 

Some wells that have known high levels of radiological contamination and are not

expected to change in the near term are not sampled through the RREM Program.

1-57	 DOE/NNSA agrees that there are many more accidents than listed. Rather than list

specific accidents and miss identifying important ones, this section was revised to

identify the types and ranges of accidents that have occurred. 

1-58	 While the NNSS is being considered as one potential disposal site for GTCC LLW

and DOE GTCC-like waste in the analyses performed for the Draft GTCC EIS, no

decision has been made regarding disposal locations. Therefore, disposal of GTCC

waste, as well as any infrastructure required to accommodate disposal, is not proposed

under any alternative in this SWEIS. GTCC waste disposal is discussed in Chapter 6,

“Cumulative Effects,” in this SWEIS as a reasonably foreseeable future action that

would require additional NEPA review and documentation.

1-59	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.2, under the Expanded Operations Alternative,

the Industrial Sites Project would operate as was described under the No Action
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-18

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

Alternative, though the pace of cleanup activities could be accelerated. Thus, the

draft SWEIS text in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.6.1.2.2, Environmental Restoration

Program – Industrial Sites Project, is correct in stating that impacts would be similar

in nature (activities would occur at the same locations, using the same processes) to

the No Action Alternative, though an accelerated pace of activities could exacerbate

them. The same is true for the Soils Project. As noted in numerous places within this

NNSS SWEIS, the Environmental Restoration Program is driven by the FFACO. For

this reason, the extent of characterization, cleanup, and monitoring is essentially the

same under all alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS. The Expanded Operations Alternative

does assume cleanup to background levels at several soils sites on the Nevada Test and

Training Range, primarily for purposes of estimating the maximum amount of LLW

that may be generated by the Soils Project.

1-60	 In accordance with Federal and state laws, the DOE/NNSA NSO takes precautions

to determine whether human remains are recent, of American Indian descent, or of

European or other non–American Indian descent. The DOE/NNSA NSO has included

additional information to Mitigation Measure 6 indicating that, if human remains

are found and determined to be American Indian, DOE/NNSA would follow the

requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other

applicable Federal laws.

	 Additionally, DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with

DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within

this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

1-61 As indicated in the response to comment 1-1 above, DOE’s NEPA Implementing

Procedures require preparation of a SWEIS, a broad-scope document that identifies

and assesses the individual and cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably

foreseeable future actions for certain large multiple-facility DOE sites such as the

NNSS. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1021, an evaluation of a SWEIS is required

every 5 years. DOE/NNSA determines whether an existing SWEIS remains adequate

or a new SWEIS or supplement to the existing SWEIS is needed. After DOE/NNSA’s

initial 5-year evaluation of the 1996 NTS EIS, a determination was made that the

document continued to adequately address the environmental conditions, activities, and

impacts of DOE/NNSA facilities in the State of Nevada. After conducting the second

periodic evaluation of the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE/NNSA determined that there were
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-19

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

sufficient new circumstances, including environmental conditions and new potential

activities, to warrant preparation of a new site-wide EIS. DOE/NNSA has prepared

this SWEIS to comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations and DOE NEPA Implementing

Procedures.

1-62	 The commentor is correct that a number of the listed documents deal with safety rather

than health; therefore, the heading was revised to Human Health and Safety. 

1-63	 Information regarding the Double Tracks site may be found as part of the description of

Soils Project sites in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.4.1, of this NNSS SWEIS. Double Tracks

is the site of a nuclear weapons safety test located on Nevada Test and Training Range

about 14 miles east of the town of Goldfield, Nevada. It was remediated in 1996

to a level of less than 400 picocuries per gram of soil. This level of remediation is

considered appropriate for current land use in the area. DOE/NNSA plans to conduct

characterization work at the Double Tracks and the Clean Slate 1 and 3 sites during

spring 2012. DOE/NNSA has and will continue to meet with the USAF and NDEP

to determine the final closure scenarios for the Double Tracks and Clean Slate sites. 

Additional information regarding the major soils sites on the NNSS, TTR, and Nevada

Test and Training Range has been added in Appendix A.

1-64	 Emissions associated with ground disturbance from cleanup operations at TTR and

Nevada Test and Training Range (including the Clean Slate 2 and 3, Project 57, and

Small Boy sites) are included within the estimate of emissions from stationary sources. 

Note that corrective action activities at Clean Slate 1 have been completed. The

potential for radiological air quality impacts associated with these cleanup operations

are addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.8.2.2. Emissions associated with LLW

transport trucks (for disposal at the NNSS) are included within the analysis for the

NNSS in Section 5.4.8, along with truck emissions originating from all other generator

sites.

1-65	 DOE uses the units of curie and rem in this NNSS SWEIS because they are still in

common use throughout DOE and much of the radioactive materials and radiation

protection profession in the United States. Additionally, their historical use makes

them more familiar to the general public and facilitates the communication intended in

the SWEIS. Appendix G, Section G.1.1.1, includes a conversion chart for converting

traditional units to International System units.

1-66	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges that doses from natural and manmade sources of radiation

vary due to a number of factors. The data presented in this NNSS SWEIS, including
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-20

Commentor No. 1 (cont’d): Kathleen Bienenstein, Chair 

Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board

the doses from radon exposure and air travel, are represented as averages among

the U.S. population (NCRP 2009). The footnote to Appendix G, Table G–1, and the

descriptive paragraphs in Section G.1.1.2 state that these are average doses to a person

living in the United States. The footnote addressing medical exposures states that the

doses vary over a wide range, depending on the procedure, and that the reported values

are averages among the U.S. population. Nonetheless, Appendix G, Section G.1.1.2,

was revised to indicate more clearly that the sources of background radiation vary. 

1-67	 The backlog of transuranic (TRU) waste that had been stored at the Area 5 RWMC has

been shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The TRU waste inventory reflected in

the accident analysis is not from waste, but from nuclear materials that are temporarily

stored in Area 5. 

1-68	 As noted in the response to comment 1-1, above, this NNSS SWEIS considers potential

activities at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada over the next 10 years. Those range from

well-understood ongoing activities to potential activities that are more conceptual in

nature. DOE/NNSA analyzed the more conceptual proposed actions at a programmatic

level and acknowledges for each such activity that an appropriate level of NEPA

review would be necessary before these actions could be implemented.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-21

Submitted: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 19:10

Name: Peter Bergel

E-mail (optional): pbergel@igc.org

Organization: Center for Energy Research

Comment:

We have long believed that this site should be used for two functions:

1. Experimental procedures seeking the best way to neutralize nuclear waste for

the astronomical lengths of time necessary.

2. Solar and wind installations to produce renewable energy for use in Southern

Nevada. If NTS were used this way, it could begin to rectify the enormous damage

the above- and below-ground testing of nuclear weapons there did for many

decades.

Commentor No. 2: Peter Bergel,

Center for Energy Research

2-1 2-1	 DOE/NNSA notes the preferences of the commentor for use of the NNSS. As stated

in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, the purpose and need for continued operation of the NNSS

and offsite facilities in Nevada is to support DOE/NNSA’s core missions established

by Congress and the President. DOE/NNSA needs to meet its obligations to ensure a

safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs,

characterize and/or remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously

contaminated as a result of the Nation’s nuclear weapons testing program, and provide

for the disposal of LLW and MLLW from across the DOE complex. In addition,

DOE/NNSA must meet the mandates of Executive Orders 13212, Actions to Expedite 

Energy-Related Projects, and 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance, as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act

of 2007 (P.L. 109-58). Accordingly, DOE/NNSA’s purpose and need also is to satisfy

the requirements of these Executive Orders and comply with congressional mandates

to promote, expedite, and advance the production of environmentally sound energy

resources, including renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal energy

systems. Although implementing the commentor’s limitations for activities at the

NNSS would not meet DOE/NNSA’s purpose and need, it is important to note that the

preferred activities are compatible with it.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-22

Commentor No. 3: Jeni L Martell

Submitted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 10:41

Name: Jeni L Martell

E-mail (optional): jlmartell74@aol.com

Organization: US Citizen

Comment:

Please use common sense, undercut greed and make the environment the proirity!

Thank you, Jeni

3-1 3-1	 DOE/NNSA considers the NEPA process, and consideration of the environmental

effects of proposed activities, to be a crucial component in its decisionmaking process.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-23

Submitted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 14:57

Name: Jeannie Jackson

E-mail (optional): Jjackson4444@yahoo.com

Organization: not much

Comment:

Could you also please stop sending America’s finest to die in the Middle East? 

After 17 years, God gave me a miracle of the world’s best son (that’s alive and here

on earth) and Obama has sent him to die in the world’s war zone (Afghanistan)

for his fourth trip. One of these days the military intelligence in the Middle East is

going to be par with ours, and we’re in big trouble.

Commentor No. 4: Jeannie Jackson

4-1 4-1	 This comment is not within the scope of this SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-24

Submitted: Friday, December 2, 2011 - 15:06

Name: Craig Houx

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

It is imperative that the Nevada Test Site be decomminated, and not used for

future weapons testing. The contimination to the planet from seventy- five years

of atomic, nuclear, and other weapons testing has contributed to the severe

degredation of the air, water, and land on this earth.

Commentor No. 5: Craig Houx

5-1 5-1	 The commentor’s opposition to nuclear weapons testing and concerns regarding

environmental contamination are noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-25

Commentor No. 6: Jack Valero

Submitted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 10:51

Name: Jack Valero

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

Gentlemen,

I believe extending the deadline for 90 days longer will stimulate more conversation

as regards to the DOE/NNSA use of the site and perhaps other potential ideas that

are appropriate. Rather than continue to use it as a site to test explosive devices,

continuing to kick radiation laden dust into the atmosphere, it is time to consider

a national test site for alternative energy. Large scale solar experiments could be

accomplished at the site, please consider such an idea. Just as the site was used

during the Cold War to protect America’s security, today’s security requires less use

of fossil fuels and this site could again lead the way. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jack Valero

6-1 6-1	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the importance of renewable energy sources to our Nation. 

The stated purpose and need for agency action discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2,

of this SWEIS, includes a significant commitment to satisfy the requirements of

Executive Orders 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects, and 13514,

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, as well as

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 109-58) to promote, expedite,

and advance the production of environmentally sound energy resources, including

renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal energy systems. Chapter

4, Section 4.1.2.2.4, describes DOE/NNSA’s Conservation and Renewable Energy

Program at the NNSS. As stated in Sections 3.1.3.2, 3.2.3.2, and 3.3.3.2, DOE/NNSA

is committed to continuing to further the conservation and renewable energy goals

of the Nation. Further, under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE/NNSA

proposes to construct a 5-megawatt photovoltaic power generation facility at the NNSS

to provide a renewable energy source for its activities and provide an opportunity

for development of an enhanced Geothermal Demonstration Project at the NNSS.

Although a commercial entity has not proposed to do so, in the interest of furthering

renewable energy development, this NNSS SWEIS analyzes potential commercial solar

power generation facility construction and operation in Area 25 of the NNSS under

each of the alternatives considered.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-26

Submitted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 14:49

Name: Vickie Gibbs

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

I support this

Commentor No. 7: Vickie Gibbs

7-1 7-1	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-27

Submitted: Saturday,September17,2011-14:33

Name: RobertB.Elliott

E-mail (optional): creator3@live.com

Organization: SierraClub

Comment:

Let’s

b

e

surew

e

geti

t

right.

Commentor No. 8: Robert B. Elliott,

Sierra Club

8-1 8-1	 Comment

noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-28

Submitted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 13:55

Name: Valerie

E-mail (optional): Dorismlm@aol.com

Organization:

Comment:

Pls. sign this.

Commentor No. 9: Valerie

9-1 9-1	 No specific comment was found in this transmittal.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-29

Commentor No. 10: Richard Lai 

Nevada Desert Experience

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

10-2	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

10-3	 The commentor’s preference for the Reduced Operations Alternative is noted. As

stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-30

Submitted: Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 22:02 

Name: Danielle Montague-Judd

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

As a concerned U.S. citizen, I ask that you please never again allow nuclear 

weapons testing in Nevada or anywhere else in the United States.

Thank you for considering my comment.

Sincerely,

Danielle Wanship, UT

Commentor No. 11: Danielle Montague-Judd

11-1 11-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-31

Commentor No. 12: Lisa Rutherford

Submitted: Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 19:12 

Name: Lisa Rutherford

E-mail (optional): 

Organization:

Comment:

Resumed weapons testing in Nevada is not an option most of us who live in

Southern Utah will support. In fact, the majority of Utahns seems against weapons

testing. We have received the effects of this in the past and do not want it anymore. 

The people who stand to gain from this are not the American citizens in general

since we have more weapons than we hopefully will ever need. Only those who

work at the facility, perhaps surrounding communities and a few other entities will

benefit. There are other options for this site from what I recollect from an earlier

public meeting held in the St. George area where several options for the facility

were presented. I’m not against the facility completely but weapons testing - below

or above ground - that could affect the quality of life for citizens who live close

enough to possibly be affected is not something I support. Given our current

debt crisis, there are many areas where we should look to save money, and this

is one of them. Perhaps some will argue that jobs will be lost, but that will be the

result of saving money in some cases. For that I am sorry. But these are times

that demand tough decisions. I suppose that the people who have worked at this

facility have made good money during their time there and perhaps have been

wise enough to plan for a future when they are not working there. I worked for

an oil company and was faced with layoffs over many years, off and on, before I

left. Because of that, I planned for the possibility that I might not have that job. All

people should be planning along those lines in this economic environment.

12-1

12-2

12-3

12-4

12-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.

12-2	 Comment noted.

12-3	 While the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program would remain prominent

under all three alternatives, DOE/NNSA also considers a range of other national

defense–related activities (e.g., counterterrorism, military training) in this SWEIS, as

well as environmental restoration activities; renewable energy research, development,

and production; and research and development programs sponsored by other

governmental and private entities, including academic institutions. See the response to

comment 12-1 regarding nuclear weapons testing.

12-4	 Comment noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-32

Submitted: Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 15:20 

Name: Thomas Zimmerman

E-mail (optional): tomzimmerman06@gmail.com

Organization:

Comment:

I wanted to voice my strong opposition to renewed nuclear testing in NV (or

anywhere else). The ill-effects of nuclear testing have been well documented, if

not well-publicized; we don’t need any more “downwinders” here in Utah, and I

imagine the citizens of Nevada feel the same way. Ultimately, these weapons are

senselessly powerful tools for such a myopic species; their continued use, to me,

marks a departure from logic, compassion and humanity.

Thank you-Thomas Zimmerman NREMTI

Commentor No. 13: Thomas Zimmerman

13-1 13-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-33

Submitted: Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 11:11 

Name: Stephanie Greene

E-mail (optional): steph-greene@hotmail.com

Organization: Sierra

Comment:

Don’t you think we already have enough waste in our environment without

continually adding to it. When is it going to stop. I think it’s time to take action to

clean it up other than to keep adding to it. I’d like to think that it could change for

the benifit for our children & grandchidren. Not to mention the animals on this

planet. We all have a need for food & water. How much more contamination are

you going to add. Once again it’s about money & the pocket that’s getting filled with

it.

Commentor No. 14: Stephanie Greene 

Sierra Club

14-1 14-1	 The commentor’s concerns regarding waste generation and contamination are noted. 

As noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.3, DOE/NNSA’s pollution prevention and waste

minimization initiatives entail processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste

generated at the NNSS and offsite facilities in Nevada. The processes also ensure

that proposed methods of treatment, storage, and disposal minimize potential threats

to human health and the environment. These initiatives address the requirements of

several Federal and state regulations applicable to DOE/NNSA operations. The goals

are to minimize the generation, release, and disposal of pollutants to the environment

by implementing cost-effective pollution protection technologies, practices, and

policies. Pollution prevention and waste minimization components include source

reduction, recycling, reuse, affirmative procurement, and employee and public

awareness.

	 In addition to DOE/NNSA’s efforts to minimize the generation of waste generation

from its operations, it is important to understand that the volumes of radioactive

waste considered for disposal at the NNSS are primarily from decommissioning

and decontamination activities at DOE/NNSA sites, not from operational activities. 

Further, DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires that all

DOE radioactive waste generators implement a Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Program to minimize the generation of waste. 

The commentor also notes the need to clean up contamination from past activities.

DOE/NNSA’s Environmental Restoration Program, in compliance with the Federal

Facility Agreement and Consent Order and in consultation with the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection, actively pursues characterization, remediation, as necessary,

and monitoring of sites and environmental media contaminated by past nuclear

weapons testing activities. Environmental Restoration Program activities are part of

each of the alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-34

Submitted: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 12:01 

Name: Bob Brister

E-mail (optional): bbrister@q.com

Organization: Individual

Comment: 

End nuclear weapons testing now. The possession of nuclear weapons is an

international crime.

Commentor No. 15: Bob Brister

15-1 15-1	 The United States has not conducted nuclear weapons testing since September 1992. 

Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been added in

Chapter 3, Section 3.0.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-35

Submitted: Monday, September 19, 2011 - 17:08 

Name: Joann Hess

E-mail (optional):

Organization: 

Comment: 

More tests here make no sense. We live here! Let’s use the area for something

positive, like renewable solar energy!

Commentor No. 16: Joann Hess

16-1 16-1	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the importance of renewable energy sources to our Nation,

and as described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.2, 3.2.3.2, and 3.3.3.2, has included

renewable energy–related activities under each alternative in this SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-36

Submitted: Monday, September 19, 2011 - 16:20

Name: Michael J. McFarland

E-mail (optional):

Organization: 

Comment: 

I favor Nuclear testing for both weapons and power, but only if all airborn

contamination and potential subterainian contamination can be contained, to

protect against water and down wind contamination.

Commentor No. 17: Michael J. McFarland

17-1 17-1	 The comment regarding nuclear-related activities and contamination control is noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-37

Submitted: Monday, September 19, 2011 - 13:21 

Name: Austin Somerville

E-mail (optional): ams442@bajabb.com

Organization: SunRiver, St. George Retire

Comment: 

Our neighborhood, 3,200 people, does not want any neuclear testing in Nevada.

Please do not allow this to happen.

Austin Somerville

4568 Cinnamon Field Cir.

St. George, Ut. 84790

Commentor No. 18: Austin Somerville

18-1 18-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-38

Submitted: Monday, September 19, 2011 - 01:48 

Name: j copyak

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment: 

please no more nuclear testing in nevada i live in st. george part of the year the

other in bountiful.....my kids say no way,,my neighbors etc. our thyroids cancer etc 

loved ones dead please dont do this

Commentor No. 19: J. Copyak

19-1 19-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-39

Submitted: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 15:53

Name: Gregory Voge

E-mail (optional): gmvoge@yahoo.com

Organization: Sun River St. George resident

Comment:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I’m writing to express my opposition to any nuclear testing in Nevada, or elsewhere

in the USA, for that matter. Please test, if you must, in some foreign country where

people don’t value their lives very highly. Perhaps you could evacuate an island

in the Pacific, such as Bikini Atoll, and do your testing there. I’m sure the native

people would welcome the intrusion of Americans there as liberators.

Sincerely,

Greg Voge

Commentor No. 20: Gregory Voge

20-1 20-1	 Comment noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-40

Submitted: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 23:41

Name: Kent Ferrel

E-mail (optional): kferrel@sunrivertoday.com

Organization: Retiree & resident of St George

Comment: 

NOT A CHANCE IN XXXX!

Commentor No. 21: Kent Ferrel

21-1 21-1	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-41

Submitted: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 14:25 

Name: tracy moore

E-mail (optional): zenbly27@hotmail.com

Organization: private citizen

Comment: 

i urge the DOE/NNSA to utilize the Nevada National Security Site for renewable

energy pursuits, especially solar. Nevada’s cloudless skies are perfect for such

energy generation, and the NNSS is an obviously perfect location. thank you

Commentor No. 22: Tracy Moore

22-1 22-1	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the importance of renewable energy sources to our Nation

and, as described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.2, 3.2.3.2, and 3.3.3.2, has included

renewable energy–related activities under each alternative in this SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-42

Submitted: Monday, September 26, 2011 - 20:55

Name: Ilene Hacker

E-mail (optional): hacker@infowest.com

Organization: Downwinders of Southern Utah

Comment:

I am against any further nuclear testing of any kind at the Nevada National

Security Site. I was unable to attend the meeting in St. George, Utah on 9‐22‐11. 

My father, Orvil D. Wardle, died of Pancreatic Cancer due to the fallout from the

Nevada Test Site ib 01-18-78. The check from the government issued to my

mother did not bring my father back. This small token did nothing to change

the fact that we lost this wonderful man. Please stop testing, stop allowing your

radiation to destroy mankind and the environment; the risk is too high. I have lost

faith in your promises to keep us safe in our area. We all realize your meetings are

just a smoke screen. We have grown tired of the lies from our own government.

What are you going to do to help those people currently suffering the effects of

tests in the past at the NTS; many are now very ill and need help to pay their

medical expenses. How can they get funding from the government to pay for their

mounting bills due to negligence of the US government?

It is so disappointing to be unable to trust our own government. I’m sure you’ve

heard this all before. We have all grown tired....I am sure you are tired too, of

listening to our complaints.

Let’s get some funding for those currently suffering the ill effects of tests from the

past. Please stop testing at the NNSS now to prevent any further health problems

and death.

Commentor No. 23: Ilene Hacker

23-1

23-2

23-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.

23-2 Congress has implemented the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act on

October 5, 1990. The act’s scope of coverage was broadened in 2000. The act

presents an apology and monetary compensation to individuals who contracted certain

cancers and other serious diseases following their exposure to radiation released

during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Under this act, people who lived or worked

downwind of aboveground nuclear weapons tests in certain counties in Utah, Nevada,

and Arizona for at least 2 years during certain periods between 1951 and 1962, and

who later develop certain medical conditions, may be entitled to a payment of $50,000.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-43

Submitted: Monday, September 26, 2011 - 16:58

Name: Richard Lai

E-mail (optional): rkmlai@nevadadesertexperience.org

Organization: Nevada Desert Experience

Comment:

1) Please extend the comment period as few currently even know about the

comment period (ending October 27th) and the Statewide Environmental Impact

Statement for the Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site) is

a large document at almost 1,700 pages,

2) Please do not disturb previously undisturbed lands,

3) Please make the previous EIS available on the internet and physically,

4) Please choose the “Reduced Operations Alternative The Reduced Operations

Alternative reflects diminished activity levels, as well as decommissioned facilities

and areas at the NNSS and other offsite locations in Nevada. The Reduced

Operations Alternative includes continued implementation of previous NEPA

decisions, but may not retain all capabilities from those decisions. No new projects

or facilities are proposed under the Reduced Operations Alternative. Operational

levels would be reduced relative to the No Action Alternative, and geographical

and organizational constraints would be placed upon some activities under the

Reduced Operations Alternative.” or even

5) Please respect the Treaty of Ruby Valley http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.

php?title=Treaty_of_Ruby_Valley_%281863%29&oldid=377521689 by cleaning up

the test site and leaving.

Commentor No. 24: Richard Lai 

Nevada Desert Experience

24-1

24-2

24-4

24-3

24-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

24-2	 DOE/NNSA has made the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (1996 NTS EIS)

(DOE EIS‐0243, August 1996) available to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA

website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical.aspx).

24-3	 The commentor’s preference for the Reduced Operations Alternative is noted. As

stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS.

24-4	 As described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and 3.3.2, DOE/NNSA, in

coordination with NDEP, would continue to comply with the FFACO to characterize,

monitor, and remediate contaminated areas, facilities, soils, and groundwater on

the NNSS. In the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE considered ceasing all operations at the

NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status (Discontinue Operations

Alternative). In its December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided

that it would implement the Expanded Use Alternative for all activities other than

LLW/MLLW management, which was to continue under the Continue Current

Operations Alternative. DOE later decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative

for LLW/MLLW management at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Based on these previous

decisions and the ongoing need to conduct a wide range of activities at the NNSS in

support DOE/NNSA’s and other agencies’ missions and programs, closing the NNSS

and leaving is not considered a reasonable action.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-44

Submitted: Friday, September 23, 2011 - 11:40

Name: Elizabeth Bancroft

E-mail (optional): betsy.bancroft@suu.edu

Organization:

Comment:

Please consider the health of my young daughter and all children in Iron County,

Utah and do not choose the Expanded Operations Alternative. I know many

people throughout Southwestern Utah who were negatively affected by nuclear

tests in Nevada and I have no wish to join them. Please do not expand operations

at the DOE/NNSA Nevada National Security Site or other off-site locations.

Commentor No. 25: Elizabeth Bancroft

25-1 25-1	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-45

Submitted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 11:56 

Name: Janet Webb

E-mail (optional): airedalemom@gmail.com

Organization: self 

Comment:

I support the NNSS Draft SWEIS.

Commentor No. 26: Janet Webb

26-1 26-1	 Comment noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-46

Submitted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 18:21

Name: Cathleen

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

On page S-2, in the gray box, you might want to reword the first sentence. Really,

“Since the beginning of time...” As a geologist, I know that the beginning of time

was 4.5 billion years ago. Were the first Native Americans really here then? This

sentence should say something along the lines of “Since xx,xxx years ago...” I’m

sure you can find someone in your organization that can give you a better number.

Commentor No. 27: Cathleen

27-1 27-1	 The text in the gray boxes was developed by the Consolidated Group of Tribes and

Organizations (CGTO) and represents their unique cultural perspectives. DOE

has agreed not to change the CGTO text so that those cultural viewpoints can be

accurately reflected and considered. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-47

Submitted: Friday, October 28, 2011 - 15:19

Name: Jeremy Maxand

E-mail (optional): jmaxand@hotmail.com

Organization:  

Comment:  

The NNSA should decommission the Nevada Test Site. No future nuclear weapons

testing should be conducted at the NTS. Closing the test site would send the right

message to other countries, save national resources, protect the public by ensuring

contamination isn’t deployed by future activity, and move us closer to ending an

era of nuclear proliferation. The US has failed to take responsibility for the health

impacts to US citizens for past nuclear weapons testing and to continue to pump

money into the NTS, without compensating downwinders, is immoral, unethical,

and should be criminal. Close the NTS.

Commentor No. 28: Jeremy Maxand

28-1

28-2

28-1	 In the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996), DOE considered ceasing all

operations at the NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status (Discontinue

Operations Alternative). In the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE also considered discontinuing all

defense-related and most Work for Others Program activities at the NNSS (Alternate

Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative). Because discontinuing operations at the NNSS

was previously considered and DOE decided in 1996 to continue to operate the NNSS

at an expanded level, in addition to the continuing need for the NNSS for National

Security/Defense Mission programs, both closing the NNSS and discontinuing

National Security/Defense Mission programs, projects, and activities are considered

unreasonable alternatives at this time. Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness

to conduct a test if so directed by the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not

included under any of the alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement

to this effect has been added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0. Although conducting a nuclear

weapon test is not included as part of any alternative in this NNSS SWEIS, many of the

other evolving DOE/NNSA missions and programs at the NNSS are critical to national

security.

28-2	 Congress implemented the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act on October 5, 1990. 

The act’s scope of coverage was broadened in 2000. The act presents an apology and

monetary compensation to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious

diseases following their exposure to radiation released during atmospheric nuclear

weapons tests. Under this act, people who lived or worked downwind of aboveground

nuclear weapons tests in certain counties in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona for at least

2 years during certain periods between 1951 and 1962, and who later develop certain

medical conditions, may be entitled to a payment of $50,000.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-48

Submitted: Monday, October 24, 2011 - 04:45

Name: Kennon B. Raines

E-mail (optional):

Organization: Human Family and American Citizen

Comment:

Follow positions of the Consolidated Group of Tribes & Organizations; Draft SWEIS

should be supplemented to provide necessary info that is missing IE: current levels

of Test Site contamination, Provide Test Site Budget figures, Provide info on plans

to address range fires and flash flooding to prevent off-site contamination; & DO

NOT DISTURB new lands or contaminated areas. I support all Tribal demands

for use/access and environmental protections. STOP ALL NUCLEAR TESTING &

TRANSPORTATION...LEARN FROM FUKISHIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Commentor No. 29: Kennon B. Raines

29-1

29-2

29-3

29-1	 American Indian groups were invited to participate in the preparation of this SWEIS,

in accordance with DOE Order 144.1, Department of Energy American Indian Tribal 

Government Interactions and Policy. As part of the DOE/NNSA NSO American

Indian Consultation Program, DOE/NNSA has for many years worked closely

with American Indian tribes with cultural affiliations with the NNSS through the

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO). DOE/NNSA carefully

reviews and considers CGTO recommendations to evaluate compatibility with

DOE missions and proposed undertakings. The DOE/NNSA NSO responds and/or

incorporates CGTO recommendations to the extent practicable as part of this longstanding American Indian Consultation Program. Additional information regarding

tribal involvement is included in Chapter 1, Section 1.6, Cooperating Agencies/Tribal

Involvement. 

29-2	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS)

and 4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding

the location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under the

FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe the current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to

describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21

have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated

groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium

detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS,

respectively.

	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, also has been revised to incorporate the additional

information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater.

	 Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the

potential impacts from wildland fires. 

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, most of the NNSS

surface drainage is in closed basins (i.e., Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat) and remains

on site. The primary portions of the NNSS that have drainage that may flow off

site in the event of a large precipitation event or series of events are the western
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-49

Commentor No. 29 (cont’d): Kennon B. Raines

and far southwestern portions of the site. There are no areas of substantial surface

contamination within this drainage area. Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.1.1, 5.1.6.1.2,

and 5.1.6.3, have been revised to more clearly describe the potential for offsite impacts

on surface waters from DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS.

	 DOE/NNSA’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas if the

land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have specific

requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed areas, DOE/

NNSA tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements mitigation measures

specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding the types of mitigation

measures that may be implemented can be found throughout Chapter 7, “Mitigation

Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7,

Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

29-3	 DOE/NNSA appreciates the interest and evaluates input from CGTO in undertakings

that occur on the NNSS. Since the inception of the DOE/NNSA NSO American

Indian Consultation Program, CGTO has submitted recommendations collectively

to the DOE/NNSA NSO, which in turn reviews each recommendation carefully for

implementation whenever possible. DOE/NNSA provides access to CGTO tribal

members for visits to the NNSS and its many culturally significant locations. These

visits have included overnight camping at areas identified by CGTO for further study. 

Such visits will continue to be provided as part of the American Indian Consultation

Program under the safeguards and security protocols of DOE/NNSA, which are

designed to allow public visitation of the NNSS without hindering its national security

activities while continuing to protect the offsite public. Environmental protection

and cleanup of previously contaminated areas continues to be a high priority at

NNSS. Since 1992, no nuclear weapons testing has occurred at the NNSS. Although

DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by the President,

conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the alternatives analyzed

in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been added in Chapter 3,

Section 3.0.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-50

Commentor No. 30: George T. Rowe, Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln County, Nevada

30-1

30-2

30-1	 The comment has been noted and DOE/NNSA looks forward to continue to work with

Lincoln County in a mutually beneficial association.

30-2	 The commentor’s support for the continuation of the agency mission is noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-51

Commentor No. 30 (cont’d): George T. Rowe, Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln County, Nevada

30-3

30-4

30-5

30-6

30-7

30-3	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4

of this Final NNSS SWEIS. The land use zones depicted in this NNSS SWEIS are

intended to set priorities for categories of potential uses, but do not preclude other,

nonconflicting uses. In addition to the land use zone designations, a number of other

factors help to determine the location of any particular activity on the NNSS. Although

DOE/NNSA provides land and infrastructure and other support for a wide range of

tests and experiments and would support a “National Energy Park Concept” at the

NNSS, there are currently no proposals for such a facility. Further, the location of any

facility or activity would be subject to a number of siting criteria, such as the need

for access to public roadways, access to secure areas by uncleared personnel, terrain

issues, and potential conflicting activities.

30-4	 Comment noted.

30-5	 The activities described under the three alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS represent

the range of activities and operating levels that may occur at the NNSS over the

next 10 years. At this time, there are no plans for development of the capabilities

envisioned in the comment. If such capabilities are proposed in the future, they would

be subject to NEPA review.

30-6	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in facilities, if the facility

meets the project requirements or can be modified with reasonable effort to meet the

requirements of a new project. When there are projects that have specific requirements

that cannot be met by locating them in an existing facility, DOE/NNSA would propose

development of a new facility and undertake all appropriate evaluations, including

National Environmental Policy Act review, before proceeding with implementation. 

DOE/NNSA appreciates the commentor’s suggestions for potential uses of the Engine

Maintenance and Disassembly Facility (EMAD). EMAD is currently in cold and dark

status (i.e., no utilities are operating and power has been shut off). DOE/NNSA has

conducted some minor remediation activities, including asbestos removal and draining

of liquid from process lines, within the EMAD. Full investigation and demolition

activities are currently planned to start in fiscal year (FY) 2018 and be completed in

FY 2021. Until that time frame, EMAD remains available if an approved alternative

use can be identified.

	 The Expanded Operations Alternative includes the currently envisioned upper range of

activities that may be undertaken at the NNSS and other DOE/NNSA facilities within
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-52

Commentor No. 30 (cont’d): George T. Rowe, Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln County, Nevada

30-7

cont’d

30-12

30-8

30-11

30-9

30-10

the State of Nevada over the next 10 years. Those activities include nuclear forensics,

tests and experiments for development of cargo imaging and radiography, and many

other activities to support national security. Although none of these potential activities

are proposed for EMAD, they could be conducted at other existing NNSS facilities. 

30-7	 As described in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, although an analysis of LLW/MLLW shipping

routes is included in this SWEIS, decisions on routing will not be made as part of

this NEPA process. DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in potential

environmental effects between different routing options that incorporated changes

to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996), communicate those differences to the public, and seek stakeholder

comments on the range of transportation routes. Analyses of a Constrained Case

(current routing protocol) and an Unconstrained Case (utilizing all routes within

the Las Vegas Valley), as well as increased use of rail transport and rail-to-truck

transfer stations, was undertaken to develop a greater understanding of the potential

environmental consequences of shipping such waste through metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada. Any future changes to transportation routings will be made by revisions to

DOE/NNSA’s waste acceptance criteria. Section 1.4 has been clarified in this regard. 

DOE/NNSA also notes that, for safety and security reasons, the USAF restricts vehicle

movement on the Nevada Test and Training Range; therefore, a route across the range

would not be allowed.

30-8	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the increased burden placed on local community emergency

responders by its transportation of radioactive wastes and materials and has established

a mechanism to mitigate those burdens. For over a decade, DOE/NNSA has placed

a surcharge on each cubic foot of radioactive waste that is shipped to the NNSS for

disposal. Those monies are provided to the State of Nevada for distribution as grants

to six counties, including Lincoln County (the commentor). The grants, now totaling

about $10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake emergency preparedness

planning and response capability assessments; acquire emergency response resources

such as ambulances, fire trucks, and communication equipment; and construct training

facilities and emergency services buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers

training to first responders for emergency situations involving radioactive waste

and materials. The DOE/NNSA NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first

responders across the country, including local, county, and state participants from

Nevada. Additional information has been provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3, to

address the cumulative impacts on local governments.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-53

Commentor No. 30 (cont’d): George T. Rowe, Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln County, Nevada

30-9	 The commentor’s conditional support for expanded LLW/MLLW activities is noted.

30-10	 DOE/NNSA recognizes that historical activities at the NNSS, such as atmospheric

nuclear weapons tests, have resulted in exposures of offsite populations to radioactive

materials. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.4, summarizes studies that have evaluated the

doses and potential impacts of past site activities. This NNSS SWEIS also looks

forward and evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with continued

operation of the NNSS and other DOE/NNSA locations in Nevada. As a starting point,

Chapter 4 presents information on the existing affected environment. In characterizing

the existing human health environment, DOE/NNSA used information provided in the

annual site environmental reports (available at www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/

aser.aspx). The annual site environmental reports present a dose to a hypothetical

maximally exposed individual (MEI) (a hypothetical individual at the offsite location

that would result in the maximum radiological impact). The dose is based on exposure

data collected at onsite locations and includes exposures that would result from direct

exposure and radionuclides from past testing that could become airborne. These onsite

locations were selected to ensure any estimated doses would exceed those that could be

received by an offsite member of the public. 

Additionally, DOE/NNSA supports a Community Environmental Monitoring Program

(CEMP), which is administered by the Desert Research Institute (information at

www.cemp.dri.edu). There are 29 CEMP monitoring stations in communities around

the NNSS, including one each in Alamo, Caliente, and Pioche, Nevada. Results

of the monitoring are reported on the CEMP website and in the NNSS annual site

environmental reports. As reported in the annual site environmental reports, the data

show no measurable evidence of offsite impact from radionuclides originating on the

NNSS. 

30-11	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s offer to provide services through the

Nuclear Waste Oversight Program of Lincoln County. Although not identified as a

cooperating agency in this NNSS SWEIS, the Lincoln County Nuclear Waste Oversight

Program may submit for consideration proposals to the appropriate DOE/NNSA offices

for studies it believes may be useful to furthering the knowledge and understanding of

past, present, and potential future impacts from DOE/NNSA activities.

30-12	 DOE agrees with the county’s comment concerning the importance of the safety of the

people and has implemented numerous safeguards to protect the public. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-54

Commentor No. 31: Robert J. Halstead, Executive Director 

State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor

31-1

31-1	 The attachment that the commenter refers to is included as document number 34

in this Comment Response Document. In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft 

NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of

LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to

avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case

that considered routes within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered

are within the bounds of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect

major changes and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have

occurred over the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to

understand the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing

options (which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since the

1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate those

differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of transportation

routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding

specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing

routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC

are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle

between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-55

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 31 (cont’d): Robert J. Halstead, Executive Director 

State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor

31-1

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-56

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 31 (cont’d): Robert J. Halstead, Executive Director 

State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-57

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 31 (cont’d): Robert J. Halstead, Executive Director 

State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-58

Commentor No. 32: HOME 

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

32-1

32-2

32-3

32-4

32-5

32-6

32-1	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an

agency to identify its preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in

the draft EIS, but in no event later than the final EIS. DOE/NNSA had not identified

a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore, none

was identified in that document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

32-2	 DOE/NNSA believes that the analyses in this NNSS SWEIS are sufficient to provide

its decisionmakers with adequate information for making a selection among the

alternatives. Chapter 4, “Affected Environment,” of this SWEIS describes the current

environmental conditions at the NNSS and offsite DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada,

including the residual impacts from past nuclear weapons testing activities, on all

environmental resource areas. The potential impacts on the existing environment

from ongoing and proposed activities are addressed in Chapter 5, “Environmental

Consequences.” Chapter 6, “Cumulative Effects,” addresses the effects of past

activities at the NNSS and nearby areas when combined with impacts from proposed

and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. As discussed in more detail in

responses to other specific comments by this commentor, additional information

has been provided in each of these chapters to improve the reader’s understanding

of current environmental conditions, impacts of proposed actions, and cumulative

impacts.

32-3	 DOE/NNSA believes that cost and budget data are not necessary or useful in

understanding and evaluating the environmental impacts of actions addressed in this

SWEIS. Future budgets for the NNSS and its various programs are uncertain, and

the costs of some future activities have not been defined yet. Therefore, budget and

cost data do not provide a meaningful method for defining and distinguishing between

alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA has presented a detailed description of the

activities included under each alternative, as well as the potential environmental

consequences associated with implementing those activities. 

32-4	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed

areas if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects

that have specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously

disturbed areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and

implements mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information

regarding the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found

throughout Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-59

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

32-7

32-8

32-9

32-10

32-11

and

Soils;7.6,Hydrology;7.7,BiologicalResources;and7.10,CulturalResources. 

TheDOE/NNSANSOagreesthatundamagedlandandendangeredspecieshabitat

shouldb

e

protected,andexposureo

f

below-surfacecontaminationshouldb

e

avoided

wherepractical,withtheexceptionofcharacterizationandcleanupactivities.

32-5	 TheSWEISdoesnotstate(orinfer)thatcontaminatedgroundwaterisacceptable

becausehumanbeingscanbuybottledwater.DOE/NNSAiscommittedtoaddressing

existinggroundwatercontaminationandlimitingfutureimpactst

o

themaximum

extentpracticable.DOE/NNSA’scommitmentisdisplayedthroughtheoperationof

theRoutineRadiologicalEnvironmentalMonitoring(RREM)Program,whichsamples

wells,springs,andsurface-watersitestoensureradionuclidelevelsdonotexceed

SafeDrinkingWaterAct(SDWA)standards;theUndergroundTestArea(UGTA)

Project,whichsamplesanetworko

f

deepwellst

o

helpdeterminewherecontaminants

arepresentingroundwater,whatdirectionthesecontaminantsaremoving,andhow

quickly;andtheCommunityEnvironmentalMonitoringProgram(CEMP),which

performsindependent,annualmonitoringofspringsandwatersuppliesincommunities

surroundingtheNNSS.DOE/NNSAabidesbyallapplicablegroundwaterregulations

andstandards.

32-6	 TheDOE/NNSANSOAmericanIndianConsultationProgramworkscloselywith

ConsolidatedGroupo

f

TribesandOrganizations(CGTO),whosemembership

includes16culturallyaffiliatedWesternShoshone,SouthernPaiute,andOwens

ValleyPaiute/ShoshoneTribes.TheDOE/NNSANSOvaluesandrespectstribal

recommendationspresenteddirectlyt

o

theDOE/NNSANSOb

y

CGTOforreview

priort

o

implementation.Thoserecommendationsrelatingt

o

accessandmanagement

o

f

culturalresourcesareevaluatedandaccommodatedwhenpracticable.

	 The

WesternShoshonehavelongclaimedaboriginaltitlet

o

approximately2

4

million

acreso

f

landi

n

Nevada,Idaho,California,andUtah.Thisclaimi

s

basedo

n

theRuby

ValleyTreatyo

f

1863.TheWesternShoshoneassertthattheU.S.Governmenthas

notproventitlet

o

WesternShoshonelandsoccupiedb

y

otherswithintheiraboriginal

territory,includingtheNNSS.Thisissuehascomebeforenumerouscourtsfor

adjudication,resultingi

n

afinalrulingfromtheU.S.SupremeCourtthatthemonetary

awardconstitutedfinalsettlementforWesternShoshonelandclaims.TheDOE/NNSA

NSOcontinuestomaintainresponsibilityandauthorityformission-relatedactivities

o

n

theNNSS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-60

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

32-12

32-13

32-14

32-15

32-16

32-17

32-7	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for treaty compliance

verification activities and the potential to dismantle nuclear weapons. As stated in

Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments

received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS. As stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, Purpose and Need for

Agency Action, DOE/NNSA supports the core missions established by Congress

and the President. Through the NSO, DOE/NNSA needs to meet its obligations

to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile and support other national

security programs. The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of

weapons in the stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter

of national policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are

outside the scope of this NNSS SWEIS.

32-8	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the preference of the commentor. As noted in the response

to comment 32-7 above, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft 

NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative in this

Final NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

This NNSS SWEIS addresses the impacts of maintaining the readiness to conduct an

underground nuclear test, but not the actual conduct of such a test. Conducting such

a test is not a proposed activity under any of the alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/

NNSA would not conduct explosives or other ground-disturbing tests or experiments

in areas of the NNSS that are considered to be radiologically contaminated. With

regard to tests and experiments with depleted uranium and explosives, as stated in

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.8.2.2, Radiological Air Quality: “Before conducting any activity

that is designed to include an atmospheric release of radiological materials, NNSA/

NSO would model the potential releases using CAP-88 (at a minimum, additional

models may be used) and, if the results indicate a potential dose exceeding 0.1 millirem

at the nearest boundary, NNSA/NSO would submit an application to construct to

Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control (with a copy to EPA) in compliance with

40 CFR Part 61 Subpart H (Section 61.96). NNSA/NSO would ensure that the

cumulative annual dose to the nearest offsite individual remains within the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) standard of 10 millirem

per year.”

DOE/NNSA would not use or allow the use of biological warfare agents at the

NNSS. Appendix A, Section A.1.1.3, contains a more-detailed description of the use
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-61

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

32-18

32-19

32-20

32-21

32-22

32-23

ofbiologicalsimulants(i.e.,abiologicallyderivedsubstanceo

r

microorganismthat

sharesatleastonephysicalorbiologicalcharacteristicofthebiologicalagentitis

simulating,hasbeenshowntobenonpathogenic,andcanreplacethebiologicalagent

intesting)intests,experiments,andtraining.

32-9	 DOE/NNSAagreesthatEnvironmentalRestorationisanimportantprogramatthe

NNSS.DOE/NNSSmanagestheEnvironmentalRestorationProgramattheNNSS,

whichincludestheSoils,UndergroundTestArea,andIndustrialSitesProjects.

ThecurrentstatusofcontaminatedsitesandmediaispresentedinChapter4,

Sections4.1.5.4.1and4.1.6.2,ofthisSWEIS.Thosesectionsalsocontainupdated

informationregardingthecurrentknowledgeoftheextentofcontaminatedsoilsand

groundwater,respectively.AsdiscussedinChapter1,Section1.4,andChapter3,

Section3.1.2.2,theseEnvironmentalRestorationProgramprojectsareconducted

pursuanttotheFederalFacilityAgreementandConsentOrder(FFACO)in

consultationwiththeNevadaDivisionofEnvironmentalProtection.TheFFACO,

amongotherthings,providestheprocessforidentifyingandprioritizingsitesthat

havepotentialhistoriccontamination,implementingstate-approvedcorrective

actions,andinstitutingclosureactions.AdditionalinformationconcerningtheNNSS

EnvironmentalRestorationProgramisprovidedatthefollowingwebsite:ww.nv.

energy.gov/envmgt.

32-10	 Asnotedintheresponsetocomment32-8,above,DOE/NNSAhasrevisedthisFinal 

NNSS

SWEISt

o

enablethepublict

o

betterunderstandtheextento

f

surfacesoils

contaminatedb

y

historicnuclearweaponstestingo

n

theNNSSandTTR. 

32-11	 Returningparto

r

allo

f

thelandswithdrawnfortheNNSSt

o

BLMforotherusei

s

inconsistentwiththeoriginalandongoingpurposeforwhichthelandwaswithdrawn

foruseb

y

DOE/NNSA.Theoriginalareawithdrawn,whichwasparto

f

theUSAF

LasVegasBombingandGunneryRange,wasselected,i

n

part,duet

o

itsremote

location,lownearbypopulation,andminimalpublicusei

n

thevicinity.A

s

activities

o

n

thesiteevolvedthroughtheyears,additionallandwaswithdrawn(i.e.,theoriginal

andthreeadditionalwithdrawalsconstitutecurrentsiteboundaries)t

o

ensuresufficient

landwasreservedfornationalsecurityactivitiesandt

o

maintainadequatebuffers

betweenpubliclyaccessiblelocationsoffsiteandhigh-hazardandsensitiveactivities

o

n

site.

	 Returning

NNSSlandt

o

BLMforotherusewouldreducelandsavailablefornational

securityneeds,a

s

wella

s

bufferareasthatareimportantforprotectiono

f

thepublic. 

Consequently,therei

s

n

o

landareawithintheNNSSthatdoesnotserveoneo

f

these

twoprimaryuses.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-62

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

	 As noted in the response to comment 32-8, above, DOE/NNSA has revised Chapter 4,

Sections 4.1.5.4.1 and 4.1.6.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS to provide further

information on the current extent of knowledge of radiologically contaminated soil and

groundwater at the NNSS.

32-12	 As noted in the response to comment 32-8, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS.

As noted in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, Groundwater, the most recent estimate

of the underground source term at the NNSS was about 132 million curies as of

September 22, 1992, based on a 2001 study by Bowen, et al. Only a portion of

this source term would be available as part of the hydrologic source term. The

hydrologic source term is that portion of the overall underground source term that

is available for transport in the groundwater. As noted in Appendix H, Section H.2,

between 30 and 38 percent of underground nuclear tests were conducted close

enough to the groundwater to potentially contribute to the hydrologic source term. 

Of the radionuclides produced by an underground nuclear detonation, only those

that are readily soluble in water and/or are available to be transported (i.e., those not

encapsulated within the melt glass in the detonation cavity or otherwise immobile) may

become part of the hydrologic source term.

32-13	 As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, DOE/NNSA samples groundwater from a

large number of wells and springs both on and off of the NNSS. Groundwater samples

are analyzed for a wide range of underground-nuclear-test-related radionuclides in

addition to tritium. The wells that are sampled on the NNSS are located both at and

near underground detonation sites (i.e., near-field) and farther downgradient, where

they are strategically placed to intercept any contamination plumes originating from

the underground tests. 

As noted in the response to comment 32-8, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the current knowledge of the

extent of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. 

In addition to changes in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has

been revised, based on information developed under the FFACO and in coordination

with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater

contamination at the NNSS. Please see the response to comment 32-15 below

regarding radioactive contaminants other than tritium monitored by DOE/NNSS at the

NNSS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-63

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

32-14	 Asnotedintheresponsetocomment32-8,above,DOE/NNSAhasrevisedthis

FinalNNSSSWEIS toenablethepublictobetterunderstandtheextentofgroundwater

contaminatedbyhistoricnuclearweaponstestingontheNNSS. 

32-15	 Tritiumisnottheonlyradioactiveelementofconcerningroundwatermonitoringand

characterizationattheNNSS,butbecauseitwastheradioactivespeciescreatedinthe

greatestquantitiesduringundergroundnucleartestingandi

s

widelybelievedt

o

b

e

the

mostmobileingroundwater,itistheprimarytargetanalyteforboththeUGTAProject

andtheRREMProgram.Forthisreason,tritiumistheprimaryradionuclidediscussed

inthisNNSSSWEIS.However,boththeUGTAProjectandRREMProgramanalyze

watersamplesforawiderangeofunderground-nuclear-test-associatedradionuclides. 

Chapter4

,

Section4.1.6.2,hasbeenrevisedt

o

provideadditionalinformation

regardingDOE/NNSAgroundwatercharacterizationandmonitoringactivities,

includingalistofspecificradioactiveelementsforwhichgroundwatersamplesare

analyzed(underthesubheading“AnalytesMonitoredb

y

theRREMandUGTA”).

32-16	 As

notedi

n

theresponset

o

comment32-8,above,DOE/NNSAhasincludedi

n

this

Final NNSSSWEISadditionaldiscussionandfiguresrelatedt

o

surfacesoilsand

groundwatercontaminationa

t

theNNSS.

As

discussedi

n

Chapter1

,

Section1.3.1,DOE/NNSAenvironmentalrestoration

activitiesattheNNSS,includingthoseassociatedwithgroundwatercontaminated

b

y

pastnuclearweaponstesting,aresubjectt

o

Stateo

f

Nevadaoversightthrough

theFFACO,whichwasenteredintoin1996byDOE,theU.S.Departmentof

Defense(DoD),andtheStateo

f

Nevada.TheFFACOprovidesaprocessfor

identifyingsitesthathavepotentialhistoric(legacy)contamination,implementing

state-approvedcorrectiveactions,andinstitutingclosureactions.DOE/NNSA,under

theNSSSEnvironmentalRestorationProgram,willcontinuet

o

ensurecompliance

withtheFFACOb

y

characterizingandmonitoringlocationsandresourcesthat

havesustainedadverseenvironmentalimpactsfrompastDOEactivities,including

groundwatercontaminatedb

y

pastnuclearweaponstesting.Therearealargenumber

ofcontaminatedsitesontheNNSS,TTR,andNevadaTestandTrainingRange. 

Thecontaminatedsiteshavebeenorganizedintogroupscalledcorrectiveaction

units(CAUs).EachCAUi

s

composedo

f

multiplecorrectiveactionsites(CASs). 

ForeachCAU/CAS,DOE/NNSAandNDEPdevelopspecificstrategiest

o

reach

a

n

agreed-uponseto

f

objectivest

o

considertheCAU/CASclosed.ManyCASs

havealreadybeenclosed,andtheremainderi

s

a

t

somestageo

f

theFFACOprocess.

Figures4–9and4–10havebeenaddedt

o

Chapter4

,

Section4.1.5.4.1,o

f

thisFinal 

NNSS

SWEISt

o

display,respectively,theapproximatelocationo

f

CASsthathave
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-64

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

been closed under the FFACO and CASs that are not yet closed under the FFACO. 

Figure 4–10 has been added to Chapter 4 in this Final NNSS SWEIS to display those

CASs that have not been closed to date. 

Providing specific information on remediation strategies and the status for each

CAS managed under the DOE/NNSA Environmental Management Program in this

NNSS SWEIS would not be reasonable because of the sheer volume of information. 

However, NDEP maintains a publicly available copy of the FFACO on its website at

www.ndep.nv.gov/boff/ffco.htm.

	 Although the cost of any project or activity is a factor in decisionmaking, it

is not a useful discriminator of environmental impacts and is not addressed in

this NNSS SWEIS. The actual activities that are undertaken within the NNSS

Environmental Restoration Program are driven by the FFACO, but the pace of

accomplishment may be affected by the level of funding appropriated by Congress.

32-17	 As noted in numerous places within this NNSS SWEIS, the NNSS Environmental

Restoration Program is driven by the FFACO. For this reason, the extent of

characterization, cleanup, and monitoring is essentially the same under all three

alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS (although the Expanded Operations Alternative

does assume cleanup to background levels at several soils sites on the Nevada Test

and Training Range, primarily for purposes of estimating the maximum amount of

LLW that may be generated by the Soils Project). The pace of fulfilling the goals and

requirements established in the FFACO is driven in part by the availability of funding

provided by Congress.

	 Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the

potential impacts from wildland fires. 

32-18	 As addressed in this NNSS SWEIS (e.g., see Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and

3.3.2, as well as Appendix A, Sections A.1.2.2, A.2.2.2, and A.3.2), DOE/NNSA is

conducting environmental restoration at NNSS in accordance with Federal and state

statutes and regulations, including the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by

DOE, DoD, and the State of Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying

sites that have potential historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved

corrective actions, and instituting closure actions. The NNSS Environmental

Restoration Program is organized into three projects: the UGTA Project, Soils

Project, and Industrial Sites Project. The Environmental Restoration Program also

addresses DOE/NNSA’s Borehole Management Program. Environmental restoration
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-65

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

activitieswouldcontinueunderallalternatives,althoughthepaceofcleanupcould

b

e

acceleratedundertheExpandedOperationsAlternative.UndertheN

o

Action

andReducedOperationsAlternatives,DOE/NSOwouldcontinueimplementingthe

UGTAProjectt

o

characterizeandmonitorgroundwater,developgroundwaterflowand

transportmodels,developclosurestrategies,anddevelopupto50newgroundwater

andmonitoringwells;closeallidentifiedSoilsProjectsitesundertheFFACObythe

endo

f

2022;completeremediation,decontamination,anddecommissioningo

f

FFACO

industrialsitesbytheendof2018;andplugallunneededboreholesbytheendof2013. Environmental restoration activities under the Expanded Operations Alternative include an examination of the impacts of implementing a stricter cleanup standard for certain Soils Project sites than that assumed under the No Action Alternative. The impacts include the possible generation of up to approximately 11,000,000 cubic feet of additional LLW that was assumed to be disposed at the NNSS. 

32-19	 DOE/NNSAiscommittedtoreducingimpactsassociatedwithLLW/MLLW

transportationt

o

theNNSS. 

The

transportationo

f

radioactivewastetypicallywouldoccuro

n

Federalandstate

highwayswhenrequired.Tomitigateimpactso

n

affectedNevadacounties,agrant

programwasestablished.ThisprogramisfundedbyDOEandadministratedbythe

StateofNevada.Theprogramaidstheaffectedcountiesinpreparingforallkindsof

emergencies.

32-20	 DisposalofLLWandMLLWatNNSSisinaccordancewithprogrammaticdecisions

reachedpursuantt

o

theFinal Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and 

Hazardous Waste (WM

PEIS)(DOE/EIS-0200).InaccordancewiththeWMPEIS

ROD(65F

R

10061)issuedo

n

February25,2000,DOEdecidedt

o

continueonsite

disposalo

f

LLWa

t

NNSSandcertainotherDOEsitesandt

o

establishregional

disposalcapacityattheNNSSandtheHanfordSite.Specifically,inadditionto

disposingtheirownLLW,theNNSSandtheHanfordSitewoulddisposeLLW

generatedatotherDOEsites,providedthewastemettheirrespectiveWAC.DOE

decidedt

o

treatMLLWa

t

anumbero

f

DOEsites,withdisposala

t

eithertheNNSS

o

r

theHanfordSite.NeitherdecisionprecludesDOE’suseo

f

commercialdisposal

facilitiesconsistentwithDOEOrdersandpolicy. Only

a small percentage of the

LLW/MLLW generated by DOE is disposed of at the NNSS.Approximately

9

0

percento

f

DOE’sLLW/MLLWi

s

disposedo

f

a

t

thesitewheretheyaregenerated. 

Abouthalfo

f

theremainingquantitiesaredisposedo

f

a

t

commercialfacilities.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-66

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

	 The increase in the volume of LLW/MLLW between the No Action and Expanded

Operations Alternatives is largely due to sources other than new NNSS projects or

increased levels of operation at the NNSS. As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–50, the

volume of onsite-generated waste increases by 300,000 cubic feet between the No

Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives. The large difference in waste disposal

volumes between the two alternatives is from an assumed extensive removal of

contaminated soil from cleanup activities at Nevada locations outside NNSS, with

shipment to the NNSS for disposal, and to increased projections of wastes that may

be shipped to NNSS from authorized out-of-state generators. The text in Chapter 3,

Section 3.2.2.1, was revised to more clearly indicate the sources of the larger quantity

of waste that would be disposed of under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

As addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.11.2.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, there may

be other options for addressing the soil contamination other than removing it and

shipping it to the NNSS for disposal. In accordance with agreements between DOE

and other Federal and state agencies, these options may include stabilization in place

or use of environmental restoration disposal sites established nearer the points of

contamination. The projections of wastes from out-of-state sources are considered

upper-bound estimates, and their generation would depend on programmatic and

regulatory decisions, funding, and other considerations that are outside the scope of

this NNSS SWEIS. DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires that

all DOE radioactive waste generators implement a Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Program to minimize the generation of waste. Although, for purposes of

conservative NEPA analysis, it was assumed that the out-of-state wastes would all be

disposed at NNSS, waste managers at DOE sites proactively seek to use commercial

disposal facilities if the facilities are compliant, cost-effective, and have WAC under

which they are able to accept the DOE waste.

32-21	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS.

32-22	 The commentor’s support for solar and wind energy systems that minimize the use of

water and large-scale transmission lines and opposition to geothermal energy projects

at the NNSS are noted. The pilot-scale “enhanced geothermal system” described

under the Expanded Operations Alternative would not tap into or affect hot springs

or hot groundwater (none of which have been identified on the NNSS), and thus

would not be a source of water pollution or degradation of American Indian sacred
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-67

Commentor No. 32 (cont’d): HOME

(Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

sites where hot springs emerge. The theoretical system, as described in Appendix A,

Section A.2.3.2, would involve the injection of water into boreholes penetrating deep

“dry” hot rock (i.e., over 356 degrees Fahrenheit) that naturally contains no mobile

water, then recovering the injected water after it is heated, passing it through a steam

turbine engine to generate electrical energy, and then recirculating the water back

through the hot rock for reheating (i.e., a closed-loop system). As mentioned in

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2, and Section A.2.3.2, because there are no specific proposals

for geothermal exploration or development on the NNSS at this time, additional NEPA

review would be required before such work could be conducted.

32-23	 DOE/NNSA will continue to support energy efficiency measures and smaller onsite

renewable energy projects (e.g., solar-powered lighting for pedestrian walkways)

at the NNSS and other facilities. Examples of such measures can be found in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2.2.4, and Chapter 5, Section 5.1.2.2.1, of this SWEIS. 

DOE/NNSA has also proposed a small-scale photovoltaic energy project in Area 6

of the NNSS under the Expanded Operations Alternative. DOE/NNSA recognizes

that construction and operation of commercial-scale solar power facilities can result

in adverse environmental impacts and has evaluated the potential impacts resulting

from several different sizes of production facilities in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA

would consider the potential environmental impacts in any future decisions related

to siting a commercial solar facility at the NNSS. In addition, any commercial

proposal would require additional NEPA review prior to approval to proceed.

Please see the response to comment 32-4 above for DOE/NNSA’s policy regarding

preferential siting of new facilities in previously disturbed areas.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-68

Commentor No. 33: Matt Lydon 

Local #525: Plumbers, Pipefitters, and HVAC Technicians

33-1 33-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative and the

contractors and national laboratories operating at the NNSS is noted. As stated in

Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments

received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-69

Commentor No. 34: Brian Sandoval, Governor 

State of Nevada

34-1

34-1 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained

Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan

Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater

metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing

regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to

the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-70

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 34 (cont’d): Brian Sandoval, Governor 

State of Nevada

34-1

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-71

Commentor No. 35: Marta Adams, Chief Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Nevada Attorney General

35-1

35-2

35-1	 This NNSS SWEIS provides a description of groundwater at the NNSS in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2, including current knowledge of the extent of radiological

contamination. As discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, groundwater quality would

not be impacted by any of the activities proposed under any of the alternatives in

this NNSS SWEIS. Because it is not a proposed activity in this SWEIS, DOE/NNSA

analyzes the impact of past nuclear weapons testing on groundwater as a cumulative

impact in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2. That analysis provides a sufficient basis for

differentiating among the alternatives considered for continued operation of the

NNSS. In Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, DOE/NNSA provides its estimation of potential

cumulative environmental impacts on groundwater resources resulting from past

nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS.

	 Although DOE/NNSA believes the groundwater analyses in the Draft NNSS SWEIS

provide a sufficient basis for differentiating among alternatives, in response to a

number of requests, this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to enable the public to

better understand the extent of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons

testing on the NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have

been revised, based on information developed under the FFACO and in coordination

with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater

contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to describe the distribution

of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21 have been added

to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated groundwater

in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium detected in

hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS, respectively.

	 Because of the new information provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, DOE/NNSA

has also revised the discussion of potential cumulative impacts from radiologically

contaminated groundwater at the NNSS (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2).

	 DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, developed a UGTA Corrective Action

Strategy to address the contamination created by the testing of nuclear devices in shafts

and tunnels at the NNSS. The UGTA Corrective Action Strategy is discussed in detail

in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS.

35-2	 Groundwater resources at the NNSS, including groundwater use, depth to groundwater,

recharge and discharge, water supply systems, and groundwater monitoring and

quality, are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of the SWEIS. Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.6.2, provides estimates of the amount of groundwater (expressed as

perennial yield in terms of acre-feet per year) underlying the NNSS, as well as historic
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-72

Commentor No. 35 (cont’d): Marta Adams, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General

35-2

cont’d

and projected future demands on this groundwater to support ongoing and proposed

projects and activities under each alternative. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, analyzes the

potential cumulative impacts of past nuclear weapons testing on groundwater. When

the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also implicitly

reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation was created. 

Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintain a Federal reserved water right at the NNSS to

support its mission requirements, one of which includes complying with the FFACO

to characterize and monitor locations that have sustained adverse environmental

impacts from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past nuclear

weapons testing.

As noted in the response to comment 35-1 above, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge

of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. As described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.1.2.2, and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, groundwater characterization under

the UGTA Project is a continuing effort, and information regarding groundwater

contamination on the NNSS will be refined as more information is collected in the

future.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-73

Commentor No. 36: Robin Pagewkopp

36-1 36-1	 DOE/NNSA appreciates your sharing your daughter’s experience and hopes that she

continues to recover.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-74

Commentor No. 37: William Fragosa

37-1 37-1	 DOE/NNSA has a sincere interest in public outreach regarding its programs and

activities, as well as in receiving public input in its decisionmaking processes.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-75

Commentor No. 38: Darren Enns 

Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council

38-1 38-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-76

Commentor No. 39: Alfonso N. Lopez 

Sheet Metal Workers Local 88

39-1 39-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-77

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40: Ian Zabarte, Principal Man for Foreign Affairs 

Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-78

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government

40-1 40-1	 Comment noted. The DOE/NNSA NSO maintains an American Indian Consultation

Program that concentrates on the protection of cultural resources and promotes

government-to-government relationships with tribes and organizations (represented

by CGTO, which includes 16 culturally affiliated Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute,

and Owens Valley Paiute/Shoshone Tribes). The DOE/NNSA NSO values and

respects tribal recommendations presented directly to the DOE/NNSA NSO by CGTO

for review prior to implementation. Those recommendations relating to access and

management of cultural resources are evaluated and accommodated when practicable. 

DOE/NNSA has provided funds for activities such as ethnographic interviews and

studies, as well as monitoring of cultural resource surveys and updates on NNSS

projects and activities. In addition, DOE/NNSA provides funds to enable the AIWS of

CGTO to prepare evaluations and recommendations, the most recent of which appear

throughout this SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-79

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-80

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-81

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-82

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-83

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-84

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-85

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-86

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-87

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-88

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-89

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-90

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-91

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-92

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-93

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-94

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-95

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-96

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-97

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-98

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-99

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-100

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-101

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-102

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-103

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-104

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 40 (cont’d): Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

for Foreign Affairs, Western Shoshone Government
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-105

Commentor No. 41: Jim Haber 

Nevada Desert Experience

41-1

41-2

41-3

41-4

41-1	 DOE/NNSAhasmadethe1996NTSEIS(DOEEIS-0243,August1996)available

tothepublicbypostingitontheNNSSNEPAwebsite(www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

41-2	 The

DOE/NNSANSO’spolicyi

s

t

o

placenewprojectsi

n

previouslydisturbedareas

ifthelandareameetstheprojectrequirements.Whenthereareprojectsthathave

specificrequirementsthatcannotb

e

metb

y

locatingthemi

n

previouslydisturbed

areas,theDOE/NNSANSOtriest

o

minimizetheareadisturbedandimplements

mitigationmeasuresspecifictothelandareatobedisturbed.Informationregarding

thetypeso

f

mitigationmeasuresthatmayb

e

implementedcanb

e

foundthroughout

Chapter7,“MitigationMeasures,”inSections7.1,LandUse;7.5,GeologyandSoils;

7.6,Hydrology;7.7,BiologicalResources;and7.10,CulturalResources.

41-3	 The

commentor’sstatemento

f

oppositiont

o

nuclearwastedisposali

s

noted. 

41-4	 Thecommentordoesnotprovideanyinformationregardingwhichaspectso

f

laws

and/ortreaties“musn’tb

e

cynicallyignoredo

r

treateda

s

irrelevant”butdoescitethe

TreatyofRubyValleyandtheTreatyontheNon-ProliferationofNuclearWeapons

(NPT)a

s

generalexamples.RegardingtheRubyValleyTreatyo

f

1863,theWestern

Shoshonehavelongclaimedaboriginaltitletoapproximately24millionacresofland

inNevada,Idaho,California,andUtah.ThisclaimisbasedontheRubyValleyTreaty

o

f

1863.TheWesternShoshoneassertthattheU.S.Governmenthasnotproventitlet

o

WesternShoshonelandsoccupiedbyotherswithintheiraboriginalterritory,including

theNNSS.Thisissuehascomebeforenumerouscourtsforadjudication,resultingi

n

afinalrulingfromtheU.S.SupremeCourtthatthemonetaryawardconstitutedfinal

settlementforWesternShoshonelandclaims.TheDOE/NNSANSOcontinuesto

maintainresponsibilityandauthorityformission-relatedactivitieso

n

theNNSS.

	 The

NPTwasratifiedb

y

theU.S.Senateo

n

March5

,

1970.Thebasicprovisions

oftheNPTareto(1)preventthespreadofnuclearweapons,(2)provideassurance,

throughinternationalsafeguards,thatthepeacefulnuclearactivitiesofstatesthathave

notalreadydevelopednuclearweaponswillnotb

e

divertedt

o

makingsuchweapons,

(3)promotethepeacefuluseso

f

nuclearenergy,and(4)expressthedeterminationthat

thetreatyshouldleadt

o

furtherprogressi

n

comprehensivearmscontrolandnuclear

disarmamentmeasures.Althoughnotdirectlygermanet

o

thescopeo

f

thisSWEIS,

manyo

f

theprojectsandactivitiesdescribedi

n

Chapter3supportU.S.effortst

o

addresstheseprovisions.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-106

Commentor No. 42: Richard Lai 

Nevada Desert Experience

42-1

42-4

42-2

42-3

42-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources. With respect

to hydrological systems, new groundwater characterization wells may be added and

wells for potable water may be constructed in the future as the need arises.

42-2	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

42-3	 The commentor’s preference for the Reduced Operations Alternative is noted. As

stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS.

42-4	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-107

Commentor No. 43: James Drollinger 

Sheet Metal Workers Local 88

43-1 43-1	 The commentor’s concerns regarding the need for job creation in Nevada and support

for alternative energy programs are noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-108

Commentor No. 44: Alfonso N. Lopez 

Sheet Metal Workers Local 88

44-1 44-1	 The commentor’s concerns regarding the need for job creation in Nevada are noted. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-109

Commentor No. 45: Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-1

45-2

45-1	 TheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ)statedinConsidering Cumulative 

Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act(CEQ1997):“Thedescriptiono

f

theaffectedenvironmentshouldfocusonhowtheexistingconditionsofkeyresources,

ecosystems,andhumancommunitieshavebeenalteredbyhumanactivities.”CEQ

cumulativeimpactsguidancegoesontostate:“Thedescriptionoftheaffected

environmentwillnotonlyprovidethebaselineneededtoevaluateenvironmental

consequences,butalsoi

t

willhelpidentifyotheractionscontributingt

o

cumulative

effects.”Chapter4ofthisNNSSSWEISdescribestheaffectedenvironmentof

DOE/NNSAfacilitiesinthestateofNevadaintermsoftheirexistingcondition,

includingimpactsthathaveoccurredtothoseresourcesfrompastactivities. 

Forexample,Section4.1.5.2includesdescriptionsofsurfacesoilsandsubsurface

geologicalmediaa

s

i

t

hasbeenimpactedb

y

bothatmosphericandundergroundnuclear

weaponstesting;Section4.1.6.2describesgroundwaterattheNNSS,includingcurrent

knowledgeoftheextentofradiologicalcontaminationresultingfromunderground

nuclearweaponstesting;andSection4.1.7describesbiologicalresourcesofthe

NNSSandprovidesinformationontheamountofwildlife,specificallydeserttortoise,

habitatthathasbeendisturbedb

y

pastDOE/NNSAactivitiesa

t

theNNSS.Chapter

6,Section6.3.6.2,ofthisNNSSSWEISacknowledgesandevaluatesimpactsthat

mayhaveoccurredo

r

willcontinuet

o

occurduet

o

lacko

f

directaccesst

o

NNSS

groundwater.

45-2	 WhentheUnitedStateswithdrawspubliclandforusessuchastheNNSS,italso

implicitlyreservessufficientwatertosatisfythepurposesforwhichthereservation

wascreated.Accordingly,DOE/NNSAmaintainsaFederalreservedwaterrightatthe

NNSSt

o

usegroundwatert

o

supportitsmissionrequirements.Themeansb

y

which

thelandwaswithdrawndidnotprovideforanyformo

f

compensation. 

As

discussedi

n

Chapter6

,

Section6.3.6,DOE/NNSAandotherFederalagencies,

suchasBLMandU.S.NationalParkService(NPS),haveforvariousreasons

protestedapplicationsforwaterwithdrawalsbyothers.InDOE/NNSA’scase,the

protestswerebasedontheneedtoprotectitsFederalreservedwaterrightswherethe

requestedwithdrawalscouldaffectthoserights.DOE/NNSA,pursuantt

o

itssafeguard

andsecurityprotocols,maypermitaccesstotheNNSSandtheconductofcertain

commercialactivities,althoughDOE/NNSAwouldcontinuetoretainandexerciseits

Federalreservedwaterrightsa

s

appropriate,andthusthecommercialentitywouldb

e

responsibleforobtainingitsownwaterappropriationfromtheStateEngineer.

45-3	 DOE/NNSA

involvesNyeCounty(thecommentor)i

n

itsgroundwater

characterization,modeling,andmonitoringactivitiesinavarietyofways.For
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-110

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-2

cont’d

45-3

45-4

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board (with two standing liaison positions), regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA

regarding groundwater studies and other environmental management activities and has

participated in annual groundwater-related public meetings.

	 Furthermore, although participation in groundwater characterization and monitoring

programs at the NNSS is outside the scope of this NNSS, DOE/NNSA accepts,

evaluates, and may fund unsolicited proposals for various activities such as the

hydrogeological investigations suggested by the commentor. When unsolicited

proposals are received, they are evaluated pursuant to relevant procurement and

contracting regulations and policies, as well as in consideration of other factors such

as the extent to which the proposals would assist DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission

objectives and the availability of funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through the

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), which was entered into in

1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for

identifying sites that have potential historic (legacy) contamination, implementing

state-approved corrective actions, and instituting closure actions. DOE/NNSA, under

the NSSS Environmental Restoration Program, will continue to ensure compliance

with the FFACO by characterizing and monitoring locations and resources that

have sustained adverse environmental impacts from past DOE activities, including

groundwater contaminated by past nuclear weapons testing. 

DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with DOE’s

requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within this

mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. As a Cooperating Agency in this SWEIS,

Nye County may provide input for consideration in the mitigation action plan.

Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare

a mitigation action plan.

45-4	 DOE is not required, nor does it intend, to construct or operate a repository at Yucca

Mountain. Accordingly, in the absence of a DOE proposal to construct and operate

a repository, NEPA review of the former Yucca Mountain Repository Project in this

SWEIS is not required. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-111

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-4

cont’d

45-5

45-6

45-5	 For estimating impacts on groundwater availability from proposed activities at the

NNSS in this Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA used the perennial yields established

by the Nevada State Engineer. These perennial yields are sufficient for purposes of

estimating impacts. Better defining the sustainable water yields of the hydrographic

basins and sub-basins on the NNSS is beyond the scope of this SWEIS.

45-6	 The three proposed actions that the commentor references are separate projects that

have been or would have been analyzed in separate NEPA processes as a result of

organizational responsibilities within the DOE. DOE/NNSA did include them in the

Draft NNSS SWEIS as reasonably foreseeable future actions and analyzed their impacts

as cumulative impacts. 

Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2, of this NNSS SWEIS notes that the Administration decided

to cease funding and activities related to the development of a repository at Yucca

Mountain, while developing alternative storage and disposal approaches for spent

nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). Accordingly, in the

absence of a DOE proposal to construct and operate a repository, NEPA review of the

former Yucca Mountain Repository Project is not required. 

Although the Yucca Mountain Repository Project has been cancelled and there is not

a specific proposal for remediation of the former site, DOE/NNSA recognizes that, at

some point in the future, specific remediation is likely to be proposed. Accordingly, the

cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 6 has been revised to include a programmaticlevel analysis of the potential impacts of such a remediation project, based on the

analyses in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geological Repository 

for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Yucca Mountain FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0250) and Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geological Repository for the 

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

Nye County, Nevada (Yucca Mountain SEIS) (DOE/EIS-0250-S1). 

Since publication of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, the CSP Validation Project has been put

on indefinite hold and the environmental assessment has been cancelled. The CSP

Validation Project description has been deleted from Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1.1, and

its potential impacts removed from Section 6.3 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. If a similar

project is proposed in the future, appropriate NEPA review will be performed at that

time.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-112

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-6

cont’d

45-13

45-12

45-11

45-10

45-8

45-9

45-7

45-7	 Please see response to comment 45-6 for information regarding the CSP Validation

Project. 

45-8	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS, but in no event

later than the final EIS. DOE/NNSA had not identified a preferred alternative

prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore, none was identified in that

document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA will not make a decision based on this Final NNSS SWEIS

until at least 30 days following its issuance (see 40 CFR 1506.10). During that

minimum 30-day period, interested parties may submit comments to DOE/NNSA for

consideration in its decisionmaking.

45-9	 DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with respect to NNSS

activities in support of its missions. Any commercial solar development would be fully

coordinated with BLM before such a decision would be made.

45-10	 The USAF is a cooperating agency on this SWEIS and has reviewed all proposed

activities, including those for a commercial solar power facility, to ensure that they are

compatible with USAF mission requirements. The USAF did not identify any conflicts

with the location (i.e., Area 25) or configuration (parabolic mirror arrays) of the solar

power facility described in the Draft NNSS SWEIS. 

At this time, there are no proposals from private-sector entities to construct a solar

power facility at the NNSS, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue or allow construction

of a large-scale facility without such a proposal. Therefore, it is not productive to

speculate further within the SWEIS about the specifics of the facility configuration

proposed by such a proponent. If a proposal for a solar power facility were received in

the future, it would be subject to appropriate NEPA review. 

45-11	 Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, environmental restoration activities

would continue in accordance with the most recent version of the FFACO. Chapter 3,

Section 3.3, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS indicated that maintenance of Pahute Mesa,

Stockade Wash, and Buckboard Mesa Roads would be terminated; however,

Section 3.3.3.1 stated, “Roads within Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 would be minimally

maintained to provide the basic access necessary to maintain the noted infrastructure.”

While maintenance levels on roads and other infrastructure in the northwest portion

of the NNSS would be reduced relative to other alternatives, access to sites necessary

to continue environmental restoration activities would be maintained. Sections 3.3
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-113

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-13

cont’d

45-14

45-16

45-15

and 3.3.3.1 and appropriate sections in Appendix A of this Final NNSS SWEIS were

revised to clarify this point.

45-12	 The transportation analysis used a regional approach because waste generators

that have not historically transported waste to NNSS may do so in the future and

there is uncertainty regarding the waste volumes to be received from identified

waste generators, as discussed in Appendix E, Section E.4.1. Table E–3, shows

the radioactive waste generators and site-specific waste volumes used to estimate

the number of waste shipments. Figures E–3 through E–9 show the transportation

routes that were analyzed. Tables E–11, E–12, and E–13 show the estimated number

of shipments of radioactive wastes and materials originating from each region of

the country for the Constrained Case under each alternative, and Table E–17 shows

the estimated number of shipments for the Unconstrained Case. Note that an

Unconstrained Case was evaluated for comparative purposes and was only evaluated

for the number of shipments under the Expanded Operations Alternative. The

NNSS SWEIS transportation analysis is based on population characteristics developed

from U.S. census data developed at the block group level.

45-13	 DOE recognizes that it has an obligation to remediate lands disturbed by its past

activities, including those associated with the former Yucca Mountain Repository

Project. Accordingly, DOE has evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of

remediating the lands and closing the infrastructure and buildings at Yucca Mountain

(see Chapter 6 of this SWEIS). Chapter 1, Section 1.7.1 (Table 1–2) and Chapter 2,

Section 2.5.2, have been clarified in this regard. 

45-14	 When considering whether to allow commercial solar power generation as an

acceptable land use, DOE/NNSA selected a comparative model based on a BLM EIS

for a project proposed near the NNSS: the Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project (BLM 2010). This EIS projects a

permanent labor force of 170 to 200 full-time equivalents for a plant of approximately

250 megawatts in production capacity. DOE/NNSA’s comparative model used the

same technologies and facility layout as the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy

Project, and scaled employment estimates accordingly. While other types of power

generation technologies could result in lower employment levels (and lower levels

of impacts on environmental resources), DOE/NNSA chose to use a conservative

model for purposes of analysis that provided an upper-end level of resource impacts. 

Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3.2, describes how the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy

Project was used as the basis for facility descriptions in this NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-114

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-17

45-23

45-24

45-25

45-26

45-20

45-21

45-22

45-19

45-18

45-15	 See response to comment 45-14 above. The actual workforce (permanent and

contractors/on-call) associated with a solar power generation facility would depend

upon the design and technologies proposed by private applicants. No such proposals

have been identified at this point in time. Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3.2, describes how

the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement was

used to develop attributes for a commercial solar power generation facility in this

NNSS SWEIS.

45-16	 DOE/NNSA analyzed the potential effects of allowing land on the NNSS to be used

by a private entity for the construction and operation of a commercial solar power

generation facility, as well as a route for a connection to the regional transmission

system. However, these analyses are based upon hypothetical designs (including for

production capacity and transmission line alignment). A private proponent’s designs

could likely vary from these. Therefore, it is premature to discuss any specific issues

related to power transmission and sales. These issues would be addressed in an

additional, tiered NEPA review should a proposal from a private entity be considered in

the future.

45-17	 Water use associated with a commercial solar power generation facility (as well

as all other activities) is presented in the Summary, Table S–15, under the heading

“Groundwater Resources.”

45-18	 Table S–15 is located in the Summary of this NNSS SWEIS. A similar table may be

found in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 (Table 3–4), of the SWEIS. Both tables are labeled

as summaries and, as such, do not contain all of the detailed information available in

the text of the SWEIS and its appendices. As noted, the explanation for representing

impacts on the threatened desert tortoise as “harassment” is explained in the text,

in Chapter 5, page 5-119, of this NNSS SWEIS. A clarification has been added in

Section 5.1.7 of this Final NNSS SWEIS to explain that the term “harassment” in this

NNSS SWEIS analysis includes relocation by qualified biologists of tortoises that

may be found within the impact zone of a proposed action. In addition, the NNSS

Desert Tortoise Compliance Program is described and the text states, in part: “By

implementing the Desert Tortoise Compliance Program, NNSA/NSO would ensure

that most, if not all, impacts on desert tortoises addressed in this analysis would

involve harassment, rather than injury or mortality.” The expectation that impacts on

desert tortoises from DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS would almost entirely result

from “harassment” is based on almost 20 years of operating experience. Through preactivity tortoise clearance surveys and use of tortoise monitors during land-disturbing

activities in tortoise habitat, DOE/NNSA has not experienced a single program-related
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-115

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-27

45-32

45-35

45-36

45-33

45-34

45-30

45-31

45-28

45-29

desert tortoise injury or mortality since 1992; however, there have been 15 tortoises

taken by mortality on NNSS roadways since 1992, or an average of 0.75 per year. 

As stated in the SWEIS, based on the long history of actual operations, it can be

anticipated that less than one desert tortoise may be taken each year by injury or

mortality due to non-project-related impacts by vehicles on NNSS roads. Information

regarding desert tortoise mortality on NNSS roadways has been incorporated into

Section 5.1.7 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

45-19	 The number of desert tortoises that may be taken on NNSS roadways that was used

in the SWEIS analysis is the number allowed under the NNSS Biological Opinion

(USFWS 2009). This number was used for purposes of analysis only. Based on actual

operating experience at the NNSS since 1992, fewer than one desert tortoise per year

would be expected to be taken by direct injury or mortality; the remaining number of

tortoises taken would be expected to result from harassment (i.e., being moved from

roadways to prevent injury or death). The textbox located in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7,

of this NNSS SWEIS includes a definition of the term “harass.” A description of the

methodology used for estimating impacts on desert tortoises, a brief clarification of

“harassment” as used in the analysis, and an explanation of desert tortoise takes on

NNSS roadways have been added to Section 5.1.7.

45-20	 In the Summary, Table S–15 summarizes the potential direct and indirect impacts that

could result under the three alternatives. Tritium contamination currently exists on the

NNSS; however, additional tritium contamination is not expected to result from the

proposed construction or operation of future activities and, therefore, is not included

in the table. A discussion of existing baseline conditions at the NNSS, including

current knowledge of the extent of tritium contamination, is discussed in S.3.1.4 and

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2.

45-21	 As described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.2 and 3.2.3.2, in this NNSS SWEIS, new

transmission lines would be required under the No Action and Expanded Operations

Alternatives, but not under the Reduced Operations Alternative. Chapter 3, Table 3–4,

and the Summary, Table S–15, have been revised to clarify that new transmission lines

would be necessary for a commercial solar power generation facility under both the No

Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives. 

45-22	 In the Summary, Table S–15, summarizes potential impacts and, as such, does not

include all of the details and results of the analyses. Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.11.1.1,

5.1.11.1.2, 5.1.11.2.1, 5.1.11.2.2, 5.1.11.3.1, and 5.1.11.2 of this NNSS SWEIS address

solid waste generation and disposal, including potential solar power generation

facilities for the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-116

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-36

cont’d

45-37

45-38

45-39

45-41

45-40

Alternatives, respectively. The potential waste volumes that may be generated if a

commercial solar power generation facility were developed at the NNSS have been

included to add more detail in Table S–15 and Chapter 3, Table 3–4. The cumulative

impacts of nonradioactive solid waste generation and disposal are addressed in

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.11, of this NNSS SWEIS. That section has been modified to

include specific information related to a potential commercial solar power generation

facility.

45-23	 This information is a summary of the cumulative impacts analysis for land use in

Chapter 6 of this SWEIS. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1, provides a more-detailed analysis

of cumulative land use impacts.

45-24	 The groundwater values in the Summary, Tables S–15 and S–16, and Chapter 3,

Table 3–4, have been reviewed and corrected as necessary to accurately reflect

estimated groundwater usage under the three alternatives.

45-25	 This NNSS SWEIS does address the amount of waste that would be generated by a

commercial solar power generation facility and its management. On the table and

page of the Draft NNSS SWEIS referenced by the commentor, the column labeled

“DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts” shows the volumes of waste that

would come from NNSS. Under each alternative, there is a line showing the volume

of waste from DOE/NNSA activities and a second line showing the volumes from a

commercial solar facility. The table entry addressing disposition of the waste (below

the volumes) was revised to address the disposition of either source of waste in a

similar manner. 

45-26	 The reference to Chapter 3, Section 3.1.4.2, has been changed to Section 3.1.3.2. In

addition, potential annual water requirements for operation of the commercial solar

power generation facility considered under each of the alternatives have been added to

the descriptions in Sections 3.1.3.2, 3.2.3.2, and 3.3.3.2.

45-27	 When considering whether to allow commercial solar power generation as an

acceptable land use, as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3.2, DOE/NNSA selected

a comparative model based on a BLM EIS for a project proposed near the NNSS: the

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy 

Project (BLM 2010). This EIS projects a permanent labor force of 170 to 200 fulltime equivalents for a plant of approximately 250 megawatts in production capacity. 

DOE/NNSA’s comparative model used the same technologies and facility layout as

the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project, and scaled employment estimates

accordingly. While other types of power generation technologies could result in
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-117

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-42

lower employment levels (and lower levels of impacts on environmental resources),

DOE/NNSA chose to use a conservative model for purposes of analysis that provided

an upper-end level of resource impacts. 

45-28	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.6, and 4.4.12.6, have been revised as suggested by the

commentor.

45-29	 Per the commentor’s suggestions, the following text was added to the SWEIS at

the end of Chapter 5, Section 5.1.2.1.2. “The NNSA would continue to work with

local governments to ensure that reliable communications interconnectivity and

interoperability is achieved in accordance with the National Incident Management

System.”

45-30	 While the Solar Energy Zone shown for Area 25 is large in size, siting considerations

for any solar projects would still be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. If a proposal for

a commercial solar power generation facility were received in the future, DOE/NNSA

would work with the proponent on preliminary siting issues, such as compatibility with

other projects and land uses, as well as avoidance of sensitive environmental resources,

including ephemeral waterways, followed by the appropriate level of NEPA review,

which would include measures to further reduce the potential impacts on resources,

such as surface hydrology.

45-31	 Please refer to the responses to comments 45-14 and 45-15, above. 

45-32	 The noted correction has been made. 

45-33	 As noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.1.4, and Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, of this

NNSS SWEIS, the term “sensitive habitat” is one of several designations developed by

DOE/NNSA as management tools to identify important habitats at the NNSS where

special attention is paid during project planning. The presence of an important habitat

in an area could affect project planning by potentially requiring some mitigation

measures or, in the cases of some habitats, complete avoidance. A “sensitive habitat”

is an area where vegetation is expected to recover slowly from disturbance. Because

a commercial solar power generation facility would permanently convert and maintain

the land to a cleared and stabilized area with engineered controls to control run-on and

run-off of surface water flows from storm events, the status of the area as “sensitive

habitat” would not be cause for any extraordinary mitigation measures. Additional

information regarding potential impacts on important habitats has been included in

Sections 5.1.7.1.1, 5.1.7.2.1, and 5.1.7.3.1 of this NNSS SWEIS.

45-34	 The suggested change has been made.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-118

Commentor No. 45 (cont’d): Darrell Lacy, Director 

Nye County Community Development

45-42

cont’d

45-35	 The spelling has been corrected. 

45-36	 The suggested change has been made. 

45-37	 The spelling has been corrected as suggested. 

45-38	 The spelling has been corrected as suggested. 

45-39	 The spelling has been corrected as suggested. 

45-40	 The section referred to in this comment addresses environmental impacts; the proposed

change is not reflective of or relevant to characterizing an environmental impact. 

Therefore, no change was made to this section. Instead, the intent of this comment was

addressed in the responses to comment numbers 45-28 and 45-29, and text was added

to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.6, regarding coordination between DOE/NNSA and local

governments on emergency planning and preparedness.

45-41	 As with comment 45-41, the suggested change was not made in the referenced

section of this NNSS SWEIS, but the intent of this comment was addressed in the

responses to comment numbers 45-28 and 45-29.

45-42	 DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s concern that the existing routing arrangement

would result in a large percentage of the shipments continuing to traverse Nevada State

Route 160 and pass through Pahrump, Nevada. No changes will be made to existing

DOE/NNSA transportation routes through this NEPA process; any changes to existing

routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC

are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle

between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). In

consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after

consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined

that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW;

therefore, there would be no need to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

	 As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–19, increases in traffic volume on Nevada State

Route 160 associated with any of the alternatives, including the Expanded Operations

Alternative, would not change the level-of-service designation for any of the locations

along this route. Section 5.1.13 addresses the potential for environmental justice

impacts and concludes that there are none associated with NNSS-related transportation

activities. DOE/NNSA looks forward to continuing engagement with the State of

Nevada and affected counties regarding transportation and would be glad to discuss

improvements that the counties may be planning.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-119

VERMONT	OFFICE:		35	Rollin	Rd,	N.	Bennington	VT	05257			802.442.5533			heal@access4less.net	

CALIFORNIA	OFFICE:		16744	Verde	St,	Victorville	CA	92395			dale.bolger@yahoo.com		

November	30,	2011	

Linda	Cohn	

NNSA/NTS	Documents	Manager	

PO	Box	98518	

Las	Vegas	NV	89193-8518	

nepa@nv.doe.gov

COMMENTS ON THE NEVADA TEST SITE DRAFT SITE-WIDE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

All	of	us	at	HOME	welcome	and	appreciate	this	SWEIS	comment	process	as	an	

important	opportunity	for	the	public	to	participate	in	determining	the	direction	of	

programs	at	the	Nevada	Test	Site.	We	also	greatly	appreciate	the	Department	of	Energy’s	

(DOE)	positive	response	to	the	public’s	request	for	additional	time	to	review	these	

extensive	documents,	and	the	many	other	documents	referred	to	throughout.		Please	

consider	our	comments	below	in	shaping	the	Final	SWEIS.	

THE PUBLIC MEETING & COMMENT PROCESS 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

HOME	found	the	public	meetings	to	be	well	done	in	general.		The	format	of	poster	

session	followed	by	a	formal	hearing	should	be	continued	in	future	NEPA	actions.

Resource	people	at	the	poster	sessions	were	able	to	field	most	questions,	and	there	was	

good	follow-up	on	informational	materials	that	were	not	available	at	the	poster	sessions.

The	number	and	range	of	public	hearings	also	adequately	covered	the	impacted	

communities,	although	a	hearing	in	Beatty,	NV	might	have	been	productive.		Beatty	is	the	

nearest	community	to	the	most	likely	first	offsite	impacts,	due	to	radionuclides	moving	in	

the	groundwater	from	Pahute	Mesa.	

BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS

JENNIFER	VIERECK	

Shaftsbury,	VT	

MOLLY	JOHNSON	

San	Miguel,	CA	

JOHN	HADDER	

Reno,	NV	

STEVE	FRISHMAN	

Las	Vegas,	NV	

JUDY	TRIECHEL	

Las	Vegas,	NV	

DARLENE	GRAHAM	

Fallon,	NV	

DALE	BOLGER	

Victorville,	CA	

EILEEN	McCABE	

Taylorsville,	UT	

Commentor No. 46: John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

46-1 46-1	 DOE/NNSA sought to make the public hearings highly accessible to local communities

and stakeholders and structured them in a way that allowed hearing attendees to have

their questions answered by qualified subject matter experts. DOE/NNSA selected the

locations for public hearings to provide opportunities for as many interested parties

as possible to be able to attend; however, the combination of long distances between

communities in southern Nevada and budget and schedule considerations precluded

conducting a hearing in every local community. It should be noted that DOE/NNSA’s

Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project conducts informational open houses in local

communities, including Beatty, Nevada, to present and discuss with residents the

current status of groundwater studies related to the NNSS and planned activities to

further characterize and monitor groundwater at and around the NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-120

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

2 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

In	addition	to	outreach	that	DOE/NNSA	conducted	themselves,	HOME	also	conducted	outreach	and	

advertising	to	involve	additional	stakeholders	from	a	variety	of	backgrounds	in	the	SWEIS	process	for	

each	of	the	meetings	(made	possible	through	a	grant	from	the	DOE	funded	Community	Involvement	

Fund).		While	we	had	hoped	for	higher	turnout,	we	believe	through	informal	polling	that	between	50-

66%	of	those	attending	meetings	overall	came	as	a	direct	result	of	our	efforts.		We	have	focused	much	of	

our	comments	on	issues	of	particular	importance	to	members	of	the	public	who	attended	SWEIS	

meetings	or	corresponded	with	us.	

The	DOE	staff	was	generally	supportive	of	HOME's	outreach	efforts,	but	there	were	a	couple	of	snafus.	

At	the	Cashmen	Center	hearing,	employees	of	the	Las	Vegas	Convention	and	Visitors	Authority,	which	

operates	Cashmen	Center,	tried	to	corral	HOME	representatives	into	a	taped	off,	outdoor	"free	speech"	

area	that	was	in	the	sun	and	reflected	light	from	the	center	windows,	in	95	degree	heat.	That	issue	was	

resolved	and	HOME	was	allowed	to	have	a	table	inside	the	center	with	access	to	the	visiting	public.	

The	issue	of	access	was	somewhat	repeated	in	Pahrump	when	employees	of	the	Nugget	refused	to	allow	

HOME	to	table	outside	the	room	hosting	the	DEIS	hearing.	The	employees	cited	space	concerns,	

although	there	were	already	a	number	of	(empty)	tables	in	the	same	hallway	for	use	by	casino	patrons.	

DOE	employees	again	allowed	HOME	to	table	within	the	hearing	area,	which	resolved	the	issue.	

HOME	representatives	were	grateful	for	the	cooperation	of	the	DOE	employees.	

HOME	or	other	groups	that	wish	to	offer	additional	information,	concerns	and	perspectives	on	the	

issues,	or	to	otherwise	inform	the	public,	need	to	be	assured	access	inside	or	outside	the	immediate	

hearing	area.	This	is	common	for	BLM	DEIS	hearings,	for	example.			

DIGITAL COMMENT PROCESS 

We	experienced	two	significant	problems	with	DOE’s	online	comment	process.	First,	comments	

submitted	by	email	were	not	generally	accepted	by	the	SWEIS	Documents	Manager	until	November	

30th.	This	is	far	and	away	the	most	accessible	method	for	people	to	use,	particularly	those	in	rural	areas	

using	dial-up	access	to	the	Internet,	which	includes	most	of	the	NTS	area	of	impact.	Second,	the	online	

comment	form,	the	DOE	preferred	format	by	far,	was	not	updated	to	include	the	extended	date	of	

December	2	until	November	30th,	at	our	insistence.		So,	for	the	entire	month	of	November,	anyone	

directed	to	the	site	to	comment	would	believe	that	it	was	too	late.	

THE DRAFT SWEIS DOCUMENT AND NEPA REQUIREMENTS 

DOE SHOULD IDENTIFY A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

By	failing	to	identify	their	Preferred	Alternative,	DOE	makes	it	much	more	difficult	to	analyze	the	

SWEIS.	We	have	no	clear	sense	of	the	DOE’s	priorities.	We	can	only	note	that	DOE	did	not	state	a	

preferred	alternative	in	1996	either,	but	later	chose	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative	in	every	

program	category.	

HOME	advocates	the	selection	of	different	Alternatives	for	different	programmatic	areas,	throughout	

our	comments	on	the	SWEIS.	

46-1

cont’d

46-2

46-3

46-2	 Comments were accepted as they arrived. The first electronic comment received was

dated August 31, 2011, and electronic comments continued to be accepted throughout

the comment period, with the last dated December 2, 2012. DOE/NNSA did not have

a preference regarding the method in which comments were submitted. Comments

were received by fax, U.S. Postal Service, email, and telephone.

	 The comment period extension from 90 to 126 days for the Draft NNSS SWEIS was

announced September 29, 2011, in a press release from the DOE/NNSA NSO and

on the NNSS SWEIS webpage. The press release included hundreds of people and

organizations. Flyers/notices with the changed date were mailed to the NNSS SWEIS

distribution list via the U.S. Postal Service and email. Additionally, notice of the

extended comment period was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2011

(FR 2011-27287).

46-3	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had not

identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore,

none was identified in that document. As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this

NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS 

as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred

Alternative, a “hybrid” composed of portions of all three alternatives, is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-121

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

3 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

SWEIS DOCUMENT STRUCTURE WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW 

All	consultants	working	with	HOME	on	the	analysis	of	this	document	found	the	document	structure	

extremely	disjointed	and	difficult	to	approach	in	any	consistent	way.	Data	on	specific	issues,	such	as	

historic	contamination,	or	specific	program	impacts,	had	to	be	chased	down	throughout	all	the	volumes	

and	beyond,	to	additional	cited	documents	that	were	frequently	difficult	to	locate.	Had	we	had	a	longer	

comment	period,	a	more	programmatic	approach	to	data	presentation	and	better	access	to	cited	

documents,	understanding	and	analysis	of	the	Draft	SWEIS	would	have	led	to	better	comments	overall.	

As	suggested	throughout	this	review,	HOME	is	left	with	more	questions	about	the	past	and	potential	

environmental	impacts	of	NNSA	programs	at	the	NTS	and	off-site	locations	in	Nevada.		The	description	

of	activities	surrounding	the	National	Security	Mission,	the	principle	mission	of	the	NNSA-NV	

facilities,	is	not	complete	enough	to	allow	a	complete	meaningful	evaluation	of	the	environmental	

impacts.		For	example,	the	amount	of	fissile	material	(principally	plutonium)	and	how	it	is	used	in	the	

experiments	as	part	of	the	National	Security	Mission	is	not	clear,	so	the	toxic	waste	and	how	it	is	

handled	cannot	be	evaluated.		There	is	a	discussion	of	reasonably	foreseeable	accidents	involving	

plutonium	at	the	DAF,	for	example,	which	does	state	the	maximum	amount	of	plutonium	involved	in	

such	an	accident,	but	it	is	not	clear	if	this	is	the	upper	bounding	amount	of	plutonium	at	the	facility.	This	

kind	of	incomplete	and	unclear	discussion	coupled	with	deficiencies	and	unsupported	analysis	in	

Chapter	4	left	HOME	less	than	confident	regarding	the	environmental	analysis	in	general.	

Chapter	5	of	the	SWEIS	is	not	organized	for	effective	analysis.		It	would	have	been	better	to	organize	

the	impacts	analysis	by	proceeding	through	all	types	of	impacts	for	each	alternative	instead	of	

examining	the	impact	category	for	all	alternatives	as	presented	in	the	SWEIS.		The	current	structure	is	

clumsy	for	the	reviewer,	since	it	requires	the	reader	to	jump	from	one	alternative	to	the	other	

constantly.		It	is	standard	practice	to	review	all	of	the	impacts	of	one	alternative,	typically	beginning	

with	the	no	action	alternative,	and	then	move	to	the	next	alternative.		In	this	way	the	reader	can	stay	

focused	on	one	proposal	at	a	time.		In	our	view	the	structure	in	the	SWEIS	is	fatiguing	and	can	set	up	the	

reader	to	miss	aspects	of	the	analysis	through	confusion.	

The	overriding	purpose	of	an	EIS	is	to	provide	the	needed	information	and	analysis	to	facilitate	the	best	

environmental	decision	regarding	the	proposal	under	examination.		The	decision	should	be	through	an	

informed	public	process.		To	meet	this	challenge	the	document	must	be	accessible	to	the	public,	

including	those	not	previously	familiar	with	the	proposal.	The	combination	of	incomplete	information,	

unsubstantiated	conclusions,	and	structure	of	the	impact	analysis	seriously	undermines	the	purpose	of	

the	SWEIS.	

 NEPA REQUIRES A REAL “NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE IN THE SWEIS 

	By	law,	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	requires	the	development	of	reasonable	

alternatives	to	the	“preferred	or	proposed	action,”	and	that	one	proposed	action	be	a	“no	action”	

alternative	(10	CFR	Part	1502.14).		The	SWEIS1

	has	an	unusual	way	of	identifying	the	alternatives,	

 

1

 DOE/NNSA, Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, July 2011 (DOE/EIS0426D). To be referred to as the SWEIS. 

46-4

46-5

46-4	 DOE/NNSA considered numerous ways to organize and present the large amount

of information contained in the SWEIS, including the organization favored by the

commentor. Among the methods of presenting the information, DOE/NNSA felt

that the method selected would be most easily followed. In addition, DOE/NNSA

provided tables (Chapter 3, Tables 3–4 through 3–7) that summarize impacts across the

alternatives by resource in the manner suggested by the commentor. 

As stated in DOE/NNSA’s Notice of Availability for this NNSS SWEIS (76 FR 204),

electronic copies of all but a few of the references (i.e., those for which copying

would violate copyright laws) were made available in DOE reading rooms and public

libraries in 18 cities in Nevada, as well as one each in Utah and Arizona, and were

also available via the Internet at the DOE/NNSA NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov). 

Electronic copies of additional references used to prepare this Final NNSS SWEIS are

also available at the same sites.

	 Specific information regarding fissile materials, such as amounts maintained on site

or used in tests and experiments, may not be addressed in a nonclassified document. 

However, Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.11, 5.2.11, 5.3.11, and 5.4.11, of this NNSS SWEIS

include estimates of the volumes of LLW/MLLW, TRU wastes, hazardous/toxic

wastes, and nonhazardous sanitary wastes that may be generated by activities under the

National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense Missions at

each DOE/NNSA facility in Nevada. Additionally, DOE/NNSA waste management

procedures and facilities are described in Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.11, 4.2.11, 4.3.11,

and 4.4.11.

	 The description of the accidents associated with the Device Assembly Facility (DAF)

correctly reflects the amount of plutonium that would be involved in a reasonably

foreseeable accident. Therefore, this represents the magnitude of impacts that could

reasonably be expected from a severe accident at DAF. The total amount of plutonium

at the DAF is not necessarily indicative of the magnitude of impacts that could occur as

a result of reasonably foreseen accidents.

46-5	 DOE/NNSA believes the No Action Alternative in this NNSS SWEIS fully complies

with current NEPA requirements and guidance (i.e., Council on Environmental

Quality [CEQ] “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act” [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508], CEQ’s “Forty

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s New National Environmental Policy

Act Regulations” [46 FR 18026], and DOE “National Environmental Policy Act

Implementing Procedures” [10 CFR Part 1021]).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-122

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

4 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

where	continued	activities	“as	is”	at	the	various	Nevada	NNSA	sites	is	presented	as	the	“no	action”	

alternative.		The	“project”	already	exists,	but	the	“no	action”	alternative	is	typically	associated	with	any	

impacts	in	the	absence	of	the	project.	The	SWEIS	does	not	analyze	the	equivalent	of	the	“no	action”	

alternative,	unlike	in	the	1996	EIS,	and	even	in	the	original	1977	EIS	for	the	NTS.2

	An	example	of	this	

inappropriate	“no	action”	designation	use	is	the	analysis	the	damage	to	2,650	acres	of	endangered	desert	

tortoise	habitat	in	constructing	a	Commercial	Solar	Power	Generation	Facility	under	the	No	Action	

Alternative	on	page	5-125,	which	is	clearly	an	impact	as	a	result	of	a	yet	to	be	action.	In	this	way	the	

SWEIS	is	deficient,	and	HOME	contends	that	it	is	illegal	under	NEPA	law	at	this	point,	by	not	including	

the	equivalent	of	the	“no	action”	alternative.			

DOE/NNSA	concluded	without	explanation	that	“NNSA	will	not	consider	shutting	down	the	NNSS	

because	it	does	not	meet	the	agency’s	purpose	and	need.3

”	However,	an	environmental	impact	statement	

is	intended	to	establish	how	the	project	affects	the	environment	and	to	analyze	whether	alternatives	exist	

that	will	entail	less	of	an	impact.		Furthermore,	the	EIS	should	provide	a	basis	of	judgment	as	to	whether	

the	impacts	from	the	project	are	unacceptably	high,	and	if	so,	require	an	alternative	action,	specific	

mitigation	procedures,	or	that	there	be	no	action	at	all.			

The	NEPA	process	is	not	intended	to	cater	to	the	agency’s	“purpose	and	need”	but	rather	“...	to	help	

public	officials	make	decisions	that	are	based	on	understanding	of	environmental	consequences,	and	

take	actions	that	protect,	restore,	and	enhance	the	environment,”	(10	CFR	Part	1500.1).		The	“absence	of	

the	project”	alternative,	which	in	the	most	conservative	sense	would	be	as	stated	in	the	1996	EIS,

	“Alternative	2	–	Discontinue	Operations	–	All	current	and	planned	program	activities	and	NTS	

operations	would	be	discontinued	under	this	alternative.		Only	environmental	monitoring	and	

site-security	functions	necessary	for	human	health,	safety,	and	security	would	be	maintained.”4

The	1996	EIS	also	considered	a	less	extreme	alternative,		

“Alternative	4	–	Alternate	Use	of	Withdrawn	Lands	–	All	defense-related	activities	and	most	

Work	for	Others	program	activities	would	be	discontinued	at	the	NTS.		Certain	programs	and	

activities	that	are	not	currently	included	in	NTS	mission	responsibilities	are	also	evaluated.		This	

alternative	could	include	other	activities,	such	as	the	relinquishment	of	portions	of	the	NTS	that	

would	be	dependent	upon	future	land-use	designations	and	withdrawal	status.”4

The	SWEIS	does	not	sufficiently	discuss	why	such	alternatives	were	eliminated	from	consideration	as	

required	by	law,	“...	for	alternatives	which	were	eliminated	from	detailed	study,	briefly	discuss	the	

reasons	for	their	having	been	eliminated,”	(10	CFR	Part	1502.14).		The	brief	statement	in	the	SWEIS	

quoted	above	and	the	referenced	discussion	in	section	1.5	of	the	SWEIS	do	not	provide	a	basis	of	

understanding	as	to	why	alternatives	like	those	analyzed	in	the	1996	EIS	were	not	considered.

 

2

 ERDA, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, September 1977. 3 SWEIS, pp 1-12 – 1-13. 

4

 DOE, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, August 1996, pg. 

1-4. 

46-5

cont’d

	 As noted by the commentor, in its 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996), DOE

considered a Discontinue Operations Alternative and an Alternate Use of Withdrawn

Lands Alternative. DOE/NNSA’s reasons for not addressing similar alternatives in this

NNSS SWEIS were addressed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of the Draft NNSS SWEIS and

may be found in Section 3.6 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-123

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

5 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

AN ALTERNATIVE SHOULD ANALYZE RESTORATION OF USABLE PUBLIC LANDS 

HOME	supports	the	inclusion	of	an	alternative	to	be	analyzed	as	part	of	the	SWEIS,	which	entails	a	

partial	restoration	of	the	NTS	to	public	or	tribal	use,	or	the	preparation	of	that	restoration	with	or	without	

the	existing	missions.		It	is	unclear	from	the	SWEIS	whether	all	of	the	withdrawn	land	is	still	needed	for	

the	existing	missions	of	the	NTS,	and	whether	those	missions	are	still	important	to	the	public.		However,	

in	order	to	make	this	assessment,	complete	information	is	needed	regarding	the	contamination	and	if	any	

areas	are	clean	and	suitable	for	public	use.

PROGRAMATIC PRIORITY AND COST DATA NEEDED TO COMPARE ALTERNATIVES 

The	SWEIS	should	provide	enough	financial	budget	information	for	the	reader	to	evaluate	the	

significance	of	specific	programs,	both	within	the	Test	Site	mission,	and	relative	to	our	national	budget	

as	a	whole.	There	is	no	data	in	the	SWEIS	that	shows	the	resource	allocation	in	cost	for	of	each	of	the	

programs.	For	instance,	the	public	has	no	idea	what	costs	are	incurred	for	the	various	Stockpile	

Stewardship	experiments,	or	for	environmental	restoration	projects.		HOME	has	independently	

determined	from	DOE	FY2012	budget	request	information	that	about	12.5%	of	DOE/NNSA’s	request	

for	the	NTS	is	for	clean-up	of	contaminated	soils	and	groundwater	contamination	studies,	which	is	too	

low	a	priority.		It	would	also	be	useful	to	know	what	clean-up	activities	that	roughly	$59	million	can	

buy,	such	as	the	cost	to	drill	a	well	downgradient	of	an	underground	nuclear	test,	and	the	follow	up	

radionuclide	migration	analysis. Without	this	information,	there	is	no	way	to	fully	realize	the	

breakdown	of	resources	for	each	alternative.		The	SWEIS	under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	

(NEPA)	should	provide	sufficient	information	for	an	evaluation	of	the	alternatives,	and	to	determine	

whether	there	is	an	alternative	that	still	needs	to	be	considered,	and	whether	a	dropped	alternative	is	

justified.		

GENERAL SITE-WIDE LAND USE CONCERNS AND ISSUES 

NATIVE LAND RIGHTS, ACCESS AND INCLUSION IN DECISIONS 

HOME	appreciates	DOE/NNSA’s	inclusion	of	the	comments	from	the	Consolidated	Group	of	Tribes	

and	Organizations	(CGTO)	throughout	the	SWEIS	document.		With	a	few	minor	exceptions,	we	

generally	agree	with	the	positions	taken	in	all	of	these	comments,	and	urge	DOE/NNSA	to	be	genuinely	

guided	by	these	views.	HOME	also	greatly	appreciates	DOE/NNSA’s	ongoing	efforts	to	work	

collaboratively	with	the	CGTO	on	the	NTS	Resource	Management	Plan,	including	developing	

mitigation	strategies.5

HOME	continues	to	advocate	that	the	U.S.	follow	its	own	and	international	laws	in	upholding	the	

Western	Shoshone	Treaty	of	Ruby	Valley,	ratified	by	Congress	in	1863.		This	would	include	restoring	

the	NTS	site	as	much	as	possible	and	returning	much	of	it	to	Shoshone	guardianship.	HOME	supports	

the	Western	Shoshone	in	their	efforts	through	the	United	Nations	and	other	venues	to	hold	the	U.S.	

 

5

 SWEIS pg. 7-1 

46-6

46-8

46-7

46-6	 To provide the public with a better understanding of areas of contamination at the

NNSS, DOE/NNSA has revised Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 and 4.1.6.2, of this

Final NNSS SWEIS to include additional information on the current knowledge of the

extent of soil and groundwater contamination resulting from nuclear weapons testing

activities. 

Returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for other use is

inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land was withdrawn

for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part of the USAF

Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to its remote

location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. As activities

on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn (i.e., the original

and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries) to ensure sufficient

land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain adequate buffers

between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and otherwise sensitive

testing, experimental, and training activities on site.

	 Returning NNSS land to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national

security needs, as well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. 

Consequently, there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these

two primary uses.

	 Although DOE/NNSA activities require the entire NNSS (about 1,360 square miles),

these activities are not inconsistent with periodic visits by the public (including

American Indians for purposes related to their cultural affiliation with the lands of

the NNSS) or certain commercial activities proposed to be developed on the site

(e.g., commercial solar power generation facilities). Public visits and commercial

activities are and would be conducted under the safeguards and security protocols of

DOE/NNSA, which limit the frequency and nature of public visits and could restrict

commercial activities from time to time. For this reason, DOE/NNSA is able to allow

properly cleared and escorted public visitation and the development of commercial

projects without hindering its national security activities while continuing to protect the

offsite public.

46-7	 CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.23) state: “If a cost-benefit analysis relevant

to the choice among environmentally different alternatives is being considered for the

proposed action, it shall be incorporated by references or appended to the statement

as an aid in evaluating the environmental consequences.” CEQ NEPA regulations

go on to say, “For purposes of complying with the Act [NEPA], the weighing of
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-124

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

6 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

accountable.		However,	recognizing	that	this	issue	is	not	going	to	be	resolved	soon,	we	therefore	submit	

these	comments	on	the	SWEIS	for	management	of	these	lands	in	the	interim.		

Additionally,	Shoshone	oppose	any	further	ground	disturbance	on	their	treaty	lands.	Whenever	safe,	

access	to	sacred,	cultural	and	resource	sites	should	be	provided	for	traditional	Native	use.		Shoshone	and	

Paiute	tribal	entities	should	be	included	in	land	and	resource	management,	including	historic	and	

cultural	resources.	

MINIMIZING NEW CONTAMINATION & THE SPREAD OF HISTORIC CONTAMINATION 

The	Nevada	desert	and	its	inhabitants	are	slowly	healing	from	over	60	years	of	immensely	toxic	and	

destructive	human	activities.		All	living	things	must	have	access	to	healthy	habitat	and	safe	drinking	

water	at	all	times-	it	is	not	a	human	right	to	destroy	the	home	ranges	and	water	sources	for	wildlife.	

Whenever	possible,	throughout	the	full	range	of	programs	at	NTS,	HOME	feels	that	new	lands	should	

not	be	disturbed.	Undamaged	land	and	endangered	species	habitat	should	be	protected.	Whenever	not	

toxic	to	employees	and	others,	all	activities,	trainings	and	installations	should	be	conducted	on	

previously	disturbed	lands.	Conversely,	care	must	be	taken	to	minimize	disturbance	where	belowsurface	contamination	would	be	exposed,	except	for	specific	mitigation.	

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MISSION 

CLEANUP ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

In	general,	HOME	supports	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative	for	Environmental	Restoration.		For	

example,	the	NTS	region	is	prone	to	flash	flooding	and	wildfire	that	can	carry	contamination	off-site.		

The	SWEIS	did	not,	but	should	address	the	issue	of	wildfire.		In	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative,	

there	are	no	proposals	for	new	or	expanded	Environmental	Restoration	activities.		Additional	cleanup	

and	environmental	restoration	would	decrease	the	danger	of	surface	contamination	being	carried	off-site	

in	smoke	from	fires.					

In	general,	HOME	also	supports	all	mitigation	measures	discussed	in	the	7.0	Mitigation	Measures	

section.	We	especially	advocate	the	use	of	native	plantings	and	water	catchment,	rather	than	the	use	of	

polymers	and	other	soil	amendments.	We	strongly	support	the	program	to	protect	nesting	raptors	from	

electrical	transmission	poles,	particularly	if	transmissions	lines	are	upgraded	or	expanded.	As	stated	

elsewhere,	we	always	advocate	that	“DOE	use	areas	disturbed	by	past	activities	for	staging,	parking	and	

equipment	storage”6

	and	would	expand	that	policy	to	include	not	just	construction	phases,	but	siting,	

trainings,	and	programmatic	activities	in	general.	

However,	DOE/NNSA	incorrectly	treats	the	“No	Action”	alternative	as	if	it	were	an	“absence	of	a	

project”	alternative,	which	is	typical	of	most	NEPA	actions,	where	the	project	has	yet	to	be	

implemented.		Under	this	approach	the	regions	withdrawn	under	NNSA-NV	and	the	existing	facilities	

are	considered	a	baseline,	which	leads	generally	to	a	less	than	expected	impact	result	for	the	no	action	

 

6

 SWEIS pg.7-3 

46-8

cont’d

46-9

46-10

46-11

46-12

the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a

monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative

considerations.” The vast majority of activities conducted by DOE/NNSA in Nevada

support national security and are not driven by a need for economic return. For this

reason, DOE/NNSA did not and does not intend to prepare a cost-benefit analysis as

part of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA believes that the analyses in this NNSS SWEIS

are sufficient to provide its decisionmakers with adequate information for making

a selection among the alternatives. Further, the alternatives analyzed identify the

reasonable range of missions, programs, projects, and activities that may be expected

to occur at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada over the next 10 years.

46-8	 The DOE/NNSA NSO American Indian Consultation Program interacts with the 16

culturally affiliated Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute/

Shoshone Tribes represented by CGTO. Throughout the SWEIS, CGTO provided their

perspectives, which are valued by DOE/NNSA.

	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.

	 NSA/NSO accommodates CGTO requests for access associated with their connections

to the land whenever possible. Efforts are made to work collaboratively with CGTO

on identification of land management activities and protection of cultural resources. 

Additionally, DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with

DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within

this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-125

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

7 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

alternative	in	most	cases.		The	correct	baseline	for	analysis	would	be	prior	to	actions	on	these	regions,	so	

prior	to	1951.		The	1977	EIS	only	dedicated	about	3	pages	to	the	pre-1951	period,	where	the	use	of	the	

NTS	areas	was	“mainly	comprised	mining,	grazing,	and	hunting.”	The	EIS	continues	to	indicate	that	

mining	and	prospecting	created	“locally	severe	disturbances,	but	the	total	impact	of	these	activities	on	

the	environment	has	been	slight.”	The	impact	of	grazing	was	described	as	“evidently	small	and	is	now	

indiscernible.”7

		Clearly	a	detailed	and	accurate	baseline	is	unavailable.		However,	DOE	could	have	

developed	an	approximate	baseline	based	on	similar	types	of	regions	that	have	not	seen	significant	

development.		Even	a	comparison	of	some	untouched	areas	within	the	NTS	to	similar	developed	areas	

could	provide	the	public	a	better	picture	of	the	impacts	of	the	current	activities.

The	lack	of	a	true	baseline	description	results	in	a	confusing	analysis	in	the	SWEIS.		Chapter	4	

(Affected	Environments)	of	the	SWEIS	mixes	impacts	from	past	actions	with	unimpacted	areas	in	

describing	the	current	environmental	status	of	NNSA-NV	sites,	so	the	discussion	in	this	chapter	is	really	

the	true	baseline	(environment	if	no	government	activities	had	taken	place)	with	the	impacts	layered	on	

top.

The	SWEIS	creates	a	separation	between	possible	alternatives	and	impacts	from	past	actions	by	treating	

the	existing	environment	as	the	“environmental	baseline.”		Impacts	from	past	actions	are	connected	to	

the	existing	“National	Security/Defense	Mission”	and	“Waste	Management	Program,”	and	so	when	the	

SWEIS	discusses	impacts	to	NNSA-NV	areas	the	“past	actions”	impacts	should	be	included,	since	they	

are	part	of	the	same	mission	or	program.		The	public	needs	to	have	a	clear	picture	of	how	each	

mission/program	at	NNSA-NV	sites	has	and	will	impact	the	environment,	but	the	current	structure	and	

presentation	in	the	SWEIS	does	not	allow	the	public	this	important	evaluation.		The	SWEIS	is	a	

document	for	decision	making,	and	one	possible	decision	that	our	government	(US	citizens)	could	make	

is	that	the	environmental	impacts	from	the	National	Security/Defense	Mission	(or	any	other	mission)	is	

too	great	and	this	program	should	be	changed	or	even	eliminated.			

The	environmental	clean-up	programs	(soils	and	water)	are	actually	mitigation	procedures	to	reduce	

existing	impacts.		Under	this	definition	these	programs	can	be	evaluated	from	a	mitigation	of	impacts	

perspective.		The	public	then	has	a	better	way	to	engage	around	this	EIS	process	by	evaluating	if	these	

programs	are	actually	mitigating	impacts,	and	if	so,	to	what	extent.		The	metric	is	then	presented	to	the	

public	on	impact	mitigation	(clean-up)	goals	for	their	review.	

The	SWEIS	does	acknowledge	impacts	from	the	resumption	of	underground	testing	under	the	“Resource	

Commitments,	Unavoidable	Adverse	Effects”	section.		Structurally,	resumption	of	testing	should	be	

included	in	the	cumulative	impacts	section	as	a	foreseeable	action,	otherwise	it	is	not	a	foreseeable	

action	and	is	not	included	in	the	analysis.	The	existence	of	an	unavoidable	impacts	section	implies	to	

HOME	that	impacts	discussed	in	Sections	5	and	6	of	the	SWEIS	(Environmental	Consequences	and	

Cumulative	Impacts)	are	avoidable,	but	there	is	no	discussion	of	how.		Clearly,	if	the	programs	that	

result	in	impacts	discussed	in	Sections	5	and	6	are	shut	down,	then	the	associated	impacts	could	be	

avoided;	however,	the	SWEIS	does	not	give	this	as	an	alternative	for	the	public	to	consider.		The	SWEIS	

structure	is	confusing	in	this	way	and	misleading.		Here	again,	there	should	be	an	“absence	of	the	

project”	alternative	to	allow	an	evaluation	of	minimum	impacts.	

 

7

 ERDA, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, September 1977, pp.2-11-2-12. 

46-12

cont’d

46-12

cont’d

46-13

46-14

46-9	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources. DOE/NNSA

agrees with the commentor that care must be taken to minimize disturbance where

below-surface contamination would be exposed.

46-10	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for the Expanded Operations

Alternative for environmental restoration. As noted in the response to comment 46-3,

above, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part

of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. However, as stated in Chapter 3,

Section 3.1.2.2, and Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, among other places within this

NNSS SWEIS, the Environmental Restoration Program is driven by the FFACO. For

this reason, the extent of characterization, cleanup, and monitoring is essentially

the same under all three alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS (although the Expanded

Operations Alternative does assume cleanup to background levels at several soils

sites on the Nevada Test and Training Range, primarily for purposes of estimating the

maximum amount of LLW that may be generated by the Soils Project). The pace of

fulfilling the goals and requirements established in the FFACO is driven in part by the

availability of funding provided by Congress. 

The commentor is correct in stating that additional remediation of contaminated sites

would reduce the levels of contaminants contained in smoke from wildfires on the

NNSS. However, evidence from monitoring of air emissions from wildfires on the

NNSS and other modeling confirms that radioactivity released from wild fires on the

NNSS would not result in hazards off site. Additional information has been added

in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the potential impacts from wildland fires. 

During some wildland fires that occur on the NNSS, DOE/NNSA deploys highvolume air samplers to supplement data from the routine sampling network. These

supplemental samplers were deployed during fires in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2011. 

None of these sampling activities has indicated substantially elevated levels of

manmade radionuclides as a result of the fires. For example, results of sampling

during a 2002 fire indicated the presence of cesium-137, plutonium-239 and -240, and

americium-241, but in concentrations that were less than 4 percent of the concentration

that would result in a dose of 10 millirem per year (DOE/NV 2003). In 2005, there
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-126

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

8 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The	Cumulative	Impacts	(Section	6)	of	the	SWEIS	does	not	include	all	of	the	impacts	from	the	

above	ground	testing	period.		The	zone	of	cumulative	impacts	from	past	action	is	insufficient,	

since	the	fallout	from	the	above	ground	testing	impacted	people	and	the	environment	across	the	

United	States	and	in	fact	globally.		For	all	other	actions	at	NNSA-NV	site,	the	50	mile	Region	of	

Influence	(ROI)	is	likely	to	be	adequate,	barring	possible	long-term	groundwater	contamination	

to	off-site	locations.			Therefore,	HOME	generally	accepts	the	50	mile	ROI,	but	the	SWEIS	

needs	to	include	all	of	the	impacts	from	the	above	ground	testing.		There	is	considerable	data	on	

Iodine	-131	impacts	in	the	NCI/NIH	study8

	that	includes	fallout	maps	and	specific	radionuclide	

release	data,	which	is	included	in	Chapter	4	of	SWEIS,	and	HOME	recommends	that	the	map	

above	also	be	included.		Additionally,	these	impacts should	be	acknowledged	as	cumulative	

impacts.		

MAXIMALLY EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL 

The	SWEIS	generally	defines	the	Maximally	Exposed	Individual	(MEI)	as	“A	hypothetical	individual	

whose	location	and	habits	result	in	the	highest	total	radiological	or	chemical	exposure	(and	thus	dose)	

 

8 National	Cancer	Institute,	National	Institutes	of	Health,	Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the 

American People from Iodine-131 in Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests,	October	1997.

46-15

46-15

cont’d

46-16

was a series of 31 lightning-caused wildfires, none of which resulted in samples with

activity higher than normally observed. None of the fires occurred in areas with the

highest levels of legacy radioactivity in soil, but DOE/NNSA conducted a special

evaluation of the onsite and offsite radiation doses that may have occurred if a fire had

spread into an area with high surface contamination, such as the SMOKY site in Area 8

of the NNSS. That evaluation found that the radiation dose 2.5 miles downwind of

the SMOKY site would be 1 millirem and the highest offsite dose would be around

0.1 millirem at 24.8 miles from the SMOKY site (DOE/NV 2006). As noted in the

cited report, “...[t]his finding helps confirm that radioactivity released from wild fires

on the [NNSS] would not result in hazards offsite.”

46-11	 The commentor’s preference for specific impact mitigation and activity siting strategies

is noted. DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with

DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within

this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

46-12	 DOE/NNSA does not agree that the affected environment of the No Action Alternative

should be that of the period before 1951. As noted in the response to comment 46‐5,

above, CEQ clearly recognizes that “no action” does not necessarily imply a preproject condition for the potentially affected environment. Where a program,

project, or activity may be ongoing, such as those addressed in this NNSS SWEIS,

CEQ considers it as, “continuing with the present course of action until that action is

changed.” Therefore, the description of the affected environment in this NNSS SWEIS

is appropriate.

46-13	 The commentor is correct that CEQ defines mitigation in part as “Rectifying

the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring that affected environment”

(40 CFR 1508.20(c). However, DOE/NNSA views its Environmental Restoration

Program as one of its primary activities. Proposed activities for the Environmental

Restoration Program are described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and 3.3.2.2,

for each of the three alternatives. Implementation of the proposed environmental

restoration activities, which are conducted under the auspices of the FFACO, would

result in environmental impacts that must be addressed and, where practicable,

mitigated. Those activities include: drilling characterization and monitoring wells

under the UGTA Project, which may affect cultural and biological resources, among

others; decontamination and demolition of contaminated buildings, which generates
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-127

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

9 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

from	a	particular	source	for	all	exposure	routes	(inhalation,	ingestion,	external	exposure).”		This	

definition	is	further	refined	in	some	instances,	but	it	is	not	clear	to	HOME	who	the	MEI	would	be	for	the	

general	public	living	near	NNSA-NV	location,	especially	in	evaluating	historical	radiological	health	

effects.			In	a	groundbreaking	study	conducted	by	Nuclear	Risk	Management	for	Native	Communities,	it	

was	determined	that	the	traditional	Native	American	lifestyle	in	rural	downwind	communities	from	the	

Nevada	Test	Site	was	the	most	exposed	due	to	multiple	“close	to	the	Earth”	pathways,	such	as	

consumption	of	wild	game	and	harvesting	of	native	plants.9

		DOE/NNSA	should	review	this	work	and	

include	the	lifestyle	discussed	therein	as	the	MEI	for	“downwind”	impacts.	

CHARACTERIZING, QUANTIFYING AND MAPPING HISTORIC CONTAMINATION 

A	primary	emphasis	must	be	for	DOE/NNSA	to	fully	characterize	the	extent	of	contamination	

and	illustrate	the	results	of	the	analysis	in	one	or	more	maps	to	clarify	the	locations.		For	those	

sites	where	characterization	is	incomplete	there	should	be	a	marker	to	show	that,	so	that	the	

public	knows	what	has	yet	to	be	done	that	NNSA	is	aware	of.			Overall,	The	SWEIS	should	

supply	as	complete	a	picture	of	the	existing	contamination	as	possible,	in	a	form	that	is	

understandable.

The	preponderance	of	environmental	impacts	at	the	NTS	and	off-site	locations	is	from	the	overt	

nuclear	weapons	testing	period	of	1952	to	1992,	with	overall	2,000	–	3,000	curies	in	the	soil	and	

130	million	curies10	in	the	groundwater.		This	is	largely	remnant	radioactivity	in	the	soil	and	

subsurface	including	underground	water	systems,	which	varies	markedly	around	the	site.		The	

SWEIS	gives	incomplete	information	regarding	this	residual	contamination,	which	varies	

markedly	around	the	NNSA	sites.	

Soils	Characterization

Chapter	4	is	intended	to	describe	the	“environmental	baseline,”	but	the	picture	presented	is	

incomplete	and	unclear.			It	seems	that	some	areas	remain	highly	contaminated	while	others	appear	

to	be	uncontaminated.		For	example,	as	a	result	of	the	“Safety	Tests”	conducted	between	1954	and	

1963,	levels	of	plutonium	in	the	soil	have	been	measured	at	over	1,000	picocuries	per	gram,	over	5	

times	the	previous	agreed	(1997)	clean-up	level.	This	would	translate	to	an	annual	exposure	of	about	

100	millirems	for	a	rancher	in	those	locations.		The	“Double	Track”	test	was	relatively	close	to	the	

Nellis	Air	Force	Base	north-western	boundary,	and	relatively	close	to	public	lands.		It	is	not	clear	

from	the	SWEIS	what	if	any	action	has	been	taken	at	these	highly	contaminated	safety	test	

locations.

On	the	other	hand	Areas	30,	29,	and	26	of	the	NTS	may be	uncontaminated.		Clean-up	remains	an	

important,	if	not	the	most	important	program	(from	HOME’s	perspective)	at	the	NNSA-NV	

locations.		Fully	characterizing	and	disclosing	the	contamination	will	allow	the	public	to	know	

where	clean-up	actions	are	needed	and	what	areas,	if	any,	have	the	potential	to	be	returned	to	public	

use.

 

9

 Nuclear Risk Management for Native Communities; Best contact is Virginia Sanchez (Chair), Duckwater Shoshone 

Tribe, P.O. Box 140068, Duckwater , NV 89314, 775-683-0227.

10 This figure is quite uncertain and based upon information from the 1996 FEIS, and updated information contained in 

the Environmental Reports.

46-16

cont’d

46-16

cont’d

46-18

cont’d

46-17

46-18

46-19

various kinds of wastes, including radioactive waste; and disturbance and removal

of contaminated soils, which may affect cultural and biological resources, generate

radioactive wastes, and produce air emissions, both from vehicle/equipment exhausts

and suspension of particulate matter in the air. Further, not all environmental

restoration activities will result in removal of contamination. Many soils sites may

be closed in place without removing contaminated soil or partially remediated and

then closed in place (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.4.1); under the UGTA Project, a

regulatory boundary will be established in consultation with NDEP, and a long-term

closure monitoring well network will be designed and installed to ensure public health

and safety, as discussed Section 4.1.6.2. 

DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with DOE’s

requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within this

mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

46-14	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0. The discussion of unavoidable impacts resulting

from conducting an underground nuclear test in Chapter 8, “Resource Commitments,”

Section 8.1.1.1.1, has been deleted from this Final NNSS SWEIS. The impacts

of nuclear weapons testing at the NNSS are addressed in Chapter 6, “Cumulative

Impacts,” not as reasonably foreseeable future actions, but as past actions. Chapter 7,

“Mitigation Measures,” of this NNSS SWEIS presents the proposed mitigation

measures that would be implemented by the DOE/NNSA to avoid, minimize, rectify,

reduce, eliminate, or compensate for potential adverse impacts on the environment 

resulting from any of the three alternatives. Impacts remaining after application of

mitigation measures are considered unavoidable and are addressed in Chapter 8,

pursuant to CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.16. As noted in responses to

comments 46‐5 and 46‐12, above, DOE/NNSA properly did not consider an “absence

of the project alternative” in this NNSS SWEIS.

46-15	 As defined in 40 CFR 1508.7, cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment

that result from “the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions....” The impacts of radioactive

fallout from past nuclear weapons testing were identified far beyond a 50-mile radius
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-128

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

10 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

Upon	examination	of	the	soils	sites	illustrated	in	Appendix	6	(see	figure	below),	Federal	Facility	

Agreement	&	Consent	Order	(FFACO)11,	it	is	clear	that	well	defined	areas	of	contamination	exist,	

and	a	similar	map	exists	for	industrial	sites.	There	is	no	overall	mapping	of	the	contaminated	areas	in	

the	SWEIS;	however,	there	are	references	to	a	flurry	of	other	documents	that	contain	some	of	this	

data.		The	SWEIS	states	that	there	are	approximately	100	radioactive	soils	sites12,	and	there	is	some	

data	given	as	to	the	radioactivity	“remaining”	at	these	safety	test	locations.		After	reading	the	section	

on	radioactive	contamination,	one	is	left	wondering	where	all	these	sites	are	and	what	the	extent	of	

contamination	is?		It	is	also	not	explained	what	“closed”	means	–	what	is	the	level	of	clean-up	at	a	

closed	site?	

As	the	primary	public	document	on	the	NNSA-NV	sites	(NTS,	etc.)	the	SWEIS	should	give	the	

public	a	clear	picture	of	the	level	of	contamination	and	its	distribution	about	the	NTS	and	off-site	

locations.		The	general	public	does	not	have	the	luxury	of	time	to	review	the	numerous	citations	

within	the	SWEIS	to	track	down	where	is	the	contamination.		Thus,	DOE/NNSA	must	provide	clear	

maps	and	concise	description	to	show	areas	of	contamination	and	the	nature	of	that	contamination.		

It	is	clear	to	HOME	in	reviewing	other	documents	including	previous	Environmental	Reports13	that	

gamma	spectrographic	analysis	(Thermoluminescent	Dosimetry,	TLD)	has	been	done	over	

significant	portions	of	the	NTS.		These	documents	include	maps	showing	surveyed	locations,	but	

none	of	this	is	illustrated	in	the	SWEIS.		Furthermore,	all	this	data	could	be	summarized	in	

radiographic	activity	maps,	which	could	be	detailed	by	radioisotope.			The	SWEIS	should	combine	

this	TLD	data	with	other	soils	analysis,	including	the	industrial	soil	sites,	to	provide	as	complete	a	

picture	of	contamination	as	possible.		For	those	sites	where	characterization	is	incomplete	there	

should	be	a	marker	to	show	that,	so	that	the	public	knows	what	has	yet	to	be	done.			These	maps	and	

associated	text	should	allow	a	layperson	to	understand	where	is	the	contamination,	how	much,	and	

what	has	yet	to	be	analyzed.		Chapter	4	of	the	SWEIS	needs	to	revised	to	include	this	information.	

The	SWEIS	should	also	explain	the	nature	of	the	soils	analysis.		Are	samples	drawn	from	various	

depths	per	sampling	location?	Furthermore,	there	is	no	disclosure	of	the	program	costs	and,	in	

particular,	anticipated	costs	of	full	characterization	and	clean-up.	

 

8 The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the United States 

Department of Energy and the United States Department of Defense in the Matter of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, March 

15, 1996. 

9 SWEIS, pg. 4-58. 

13 DOE/NNSA, Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003, DOE/NV/11718—971, October, 2004, Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2008, DOE/NV/25946-790, September, 2009. 

46-19

cont’d

from the NNSS, as noted by the commentor. However, based upon the cited definition

of cumulative impacts, there are no activities proposed at the NNSS that would have

a detectable or measurable effect beyond that radius. Therefore, there could be no

cumulative impact with fallout from previous nuclear weapons testing, and there is no

reason to address them in the analysis in this NNSS SWEIS. 

The commentor also mentions possible long-term groundwater contamination to offsite

locations. Based upon the current knowledge of groundwater flow direction and rate

at and in the region surrounding the NNSS, it is extremely unlikely that groundwater

outside of the 50-mile cumulative impact analysis region could be affected by any

past, present, or proposed future activity at the NNSS. Effects of underground nuclear

testing are addressed in Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts,” Section 6.3.6.2, of this

NNSS SWEIS.

46-16	 DOE/NNSA has added an analysis of a special receptor identified as a “subsistence

consumer” in Appendix G of this SWEIS. This receptor was selected for inclusion to

address a scenario in which a person derives essentially all of his/her diet from food

that is harvested locally, including game animals. Such a scenario accounts for the

exposure pathways that would contribute the most significant dose to the receptor.

46-17	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4‐20

and 4‐21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around

the NNSS, respectively. Because of the new information provided in Section 4.1.6.2,

DOE/NNSA has revised the potential cumulative impacts from radiologically

contaminated groundwater at the NNSS (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2).
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-129

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

11 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

Groundwater	Contamination	Characterization	

Similar	to	the	situation	with	the	soils	program	the	SWEIS	does	not	present	a	clear	picture	of	the	

groundwater	contamination	at	the	NTS.		The	first	formal	work	began	around	1972	with	the	EPA’s	

Long	Term	Hydrological	Monitoring	Program	(LTHMP),	DOE,	Nevada	Operations	Office,	and	later	

in	1989	created	the	Underground	Test	Area	Project	(UGTA).		HOME	is	surprised	that	after	almost	

40	years	there	is	not	more	demonstrated	understanding	about	the	extent	of	the	groundwater	

contamination	represented	in	the	SWEIS.		Table	4-32	in	the	SWEIS	lists	all	the	wells	on	the	NTS,	

which	is	much	less	useful	than	if	a	map	or	multiple	maps	were	presented	showing	the	locations	of	

46-20

46-18	 The commentor cites dated information regarding the radiological source term

remaining at the NNSS. As noted in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, Groundwater,

the most recent estimate of the underground source term at the NNSS was about

132 million curies as of September 22, 1992, based on a 2001 study by Bowen et al. 

Only a portion of this source term would be available as part of the hydrologic source

term. The hydrologic source term is that portion of the overall underground source

term that is available for transport in the groundwater. As noted in Appendix H,

Section H.2, between 30 and 38 percent of underground nuclear tests were conducted

close enough to the groundwater to potentially contribute to the hydrologic source

term. Of the radionuclides produced by an underground nuclear detonation, only those

that are readily soluble in water and/or are available to be transported (i.e., those not

encapsulated within the melt glass in the detonation cavity or otherwise immobile) may

become part of the hydrologic source term.

	 A recent estimate indicates that, as of January 2012, there are about 1,614 curies

of radioactivity remaining in NNSS surface soils (Kidman 2012). As noted in the

response to comment 46‐17, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS

to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface soils and groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, and Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.2, the FFACO

provides the process for identifying sites that have potential historic (legacy)

contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and instituting

closure actions. Additional information on environmental restoration is included in

Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, Environmental Restoration Program. Additionally,

a website (www.nv.energy.gov/envmgt) has been created to provide additional

information concerning the NNSS Environmental Restoration Program. 

46-19	 Since 1996, only one of the safety test sites on USAF land has been remediated, the

Double Tracks site. Information regarding the Double Tracks site may be found as part

of the description of Soils Project sites in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.4.1, of this SWEIS. 

A new figure depicting the area of remaining radiological contamination at the Double

Tracks site has been added to Section 4.1.5.4.1 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. Double

Tracks is the site of a nuclear weapons safety test located on Nevada Test and Training

Range, about 14 miles east of the town of Goldfield, Nevada. It was remediated in

1996 to a level of less than 400 picocuries per gram of soil. This level of remediation

is considered appropriate for current land use in the area. All of the Soils Project sites

are subject to decisions made in consultation with NDEP under the FFACO, including

appropriate levels of characterization, monitoring, and remediation. DOE/NNSA will
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-130

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

12 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

the wells and the underground nuclear explosion locations. For example, the comprehensive well 

map that was presented during the “open house” meeting labeled “Monitoring & Hydrogeologic 

Investigation Wells and Springs of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)” should be included in 

the SWEIS. Using this kind of map along with the general groundwater flow map the public could 

see how the UGTA program is analyzing groundwater impacts from the underground tests. 

After reviewing the information provided in the SWEIS it is not clear just what the UGTA project 

has established. As stated in the SWEIS, “The UGTA program evaluates the extent of radionuclide 

groundwater contamination due to past underground nuclear testing through hydrogeologic 

investigation and characterization, groundwater flow and transport modeling, and groundwater 

sampling and monitoring.”14 There is some information regarding the presence of tritium, including 

the discovery of tritium in one off-site well. DOE/NNSA should be able to generate a groundwater 

tritium iso-concentration map of the NTS, given all the sampling locations for tritium suggested in 

the SWEIS. (120 active groundwater wells). This would help in public understanding of the extent 

of tritium contamination at NTS. 

Characterization efforts for the migration of radioactive elements other than tritium is not well 

represented. The SWEIS states, “Most investigators have concluded that, exclusive of tritium, much 

of the radioactivity released during an underground nuclear test remains confined in the melted and 

fused rock in the detonation cavity, particularly the refractory isotope species, such as plutonium, 

rare earth elements, zirconium, and alkaline earth elements.”15 This statement is not supported by 

evidence in the SWEIS, nor are there any citations pointing to experimental data to support it. Few 

members of the public will have the time or technical understanding to “hunt” through and decipher 

DOE/NNSA electronic documents to find for themselves what evidence there is to support the above 

statement. HOME did spend some time to review some of the studies (although not cited in the 

SWEIS) on radionuclide migration from underground nuclear test shots. It seems clear that 

radionuclide migration is a very complex process that varies in terms of the type of aquifer and its 

associated geochemistry. There is evidence of radionuclide migration in addition to tritium, but the 

picture is not clear.16 What is important here is to provide the public with the state of knowledge 

with some data in support of any conclusions drawn in the SWEIS. The discussion in the under 

“Groundwater Monitoring and Quality” and in Appendix H should be revised. 

It is also not clear from the SWEIS that DOE/NNSA has rigorously conducted characterization 

studies much closer to the source (underground nuclear explosion location) in order to fully 

understand the nature of radionuclide migration. HOME is aware (but not because of information in 

the SWEIS) that some studies have been done as cited above, but again the following statement 

which is applied to tritium contamination is not supported for other radioactive elements, “Due to the 

distance between existing water supply wells at the NNSS and the underground tests, DOE believes 

that groundwater use at the NNSS has little or no effect on the migration or spread of contamination 

 

14 SWEIS, pg. 4-90. 

15 SWEIS, appendix H, pg. H-9. 

16 For example: Hoffman, D. C., R. Stone, W.W. Dudley, Jr., “Radioactivity in the Underderground Environment of the 

CAMBRIC Nuclear Explosion at the Nevada Test Site, Informal Report LA-6877-MS,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 

Alamos New Mexico, 1977; Q. Hu, D. K. Smith, “Field-Scale Migration of 99Tc and 129I at the Nevada Test Site UCRL-PROC203482,” 2004 Materials Research Society Spring Meeting, April 9, 2004.; Gregory J. Nimz, “Underground Radionuclide 

Migration at the NTS,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Joseph L. Thompson Isotopes and Nuclear 

Chemistry Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1992. 

46-20

cont’d

46-20

cont’d

46-21

cont’d

46-21

continue to meet with the USAF and NDEP to determine the final closure scenarios for 

Double Tracks and other sites on USAF lands (i.e., Clean Slate 1, 2, and 3; Project 57; 

and Small Boy).

Soils sites are considered closed under the FFACO when they meet site-specific 

criteria. Closure of a site does not necessarily mean that contamination has been 

removed. Some sites are closed in place. That is based on the judgment of NDEP and 

DOE/NNSA that all or some of the contaminants are of such a nature and in such a 

condition that it would be safer and less damaging to the environment to leave them in 

place and monitor the site. Clean closure of a site would assume that all contamination 

is removed and there is no need for further monitoring or regulatory jurisdiction of the 

site.

As noted in the response to comment 46-17, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this 

Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface 

and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS and 

TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and 4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to 

include additional information regarding the location and extent of both radiological 

and chemical surface soil contamination. Figures depicting areas of soil contamination 

also have been added to these sections.

The sampling and analysis necessary for characterizing areas of contaminated soil is 

determined under the FFACO by DOE/NNSA and NDEP. Characterization plans are 

site-specific and consider a number of factors, including site history (i.e., the kinds of 

activities that occurred at the site that may have caused the contamination) and soil 

type. 

Although the cost of any project or activity is a factor in decisionmaking, it is 

not a useful discriminator of environmental impacts and is not addressed in this 

NNSS SWEIS. The actual activities that are undertaken under the Environmental 

Restoration Program are driven by the FFACO, but the pace of accomplishment may 

be affected by the level of funding appropriated by Congress.

46-20 As noted in the response to comment 46-17, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the current knowledge of the 

extent of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. 

In response to comments, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2 

have been revised, based on information developed under the FFACO and in 

coordination with NDEP, to better describe the extent of groundwater contamination at 

the NNSS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-131

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

13 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

from	underground	nuclear	testing.		Groundwater	at	the	NNSS	is	deep	and	slow	moving,	which	

affords	protection	to	adjacent	areas...”17

Groundwater	movement	was	extensively	studied	as	part	of	the	Yucca	Mountain	Project,	which	

focused	on	an	aquifer	and	volcanics	similar	in	nature	to	the	aquifer	for	many	of	the	underground	

nuclear	explosions.		Unlike	the	conclusion	in	the	SWEIS,	the	data	from	the	Yucca	Mountain	studies	

shows	a	widely	varying	water	transport,	which	due	to	the	fracturing	of	the	rock,	had	fast	pathways.18

In	addition	was	the	“unexpectedly”	rapid	plutonium	migration,	1.3	kilometers	in	~30	years,	reported	

in	1999	from	the	“Benham”	test	shot	in	Pahute	Mesa.19		While	the	concentration	of	plutonium	was	

small,	~1.5	picocuries/liter,	the	observation	calls	into	question	previously	assumed	rates	of	

radionuclide	migration.		Unlike	the	relatively	short	half-life	of	tritium	(~12.33	yr)	the	half	life	of	

plutonium	is	long	enough	that	at	this	rate	it	could	easily	appear	in	off-site	wells.		There	are	

potentially	other	radioactive	elements	with	longer	half-lives	(cesium-137	was	also	observed	in	1999	

for	same	well)	that	could	be	a	public	health	risk.	Overall	the	SWEIS	needs	to	present	a	more	

complete	and	clear	picture	of	what	is	understood	and	what	has	yet	to	be	shown	regarding	the	

potential	risk	of	radionuclide	and	daughter	product	migration	in	the	groundwater	from	the	NTS.

DOE/NNSA	need	to	clear	up	a	discrepancy	in	the	total	radionuclide	inventory	as	part	of	the	

underground	testing	program.		Appendix	H	of	the	SWEIS	reports	131	million	curies,	but	HOME	

understand	that	over	300	million	was	stated	at	a	UGTA	meeting	in	2001.20			The	SWEIS	goes	on	to	

state,	“The	inventory	in	Table	H–2	represents	an	upper	limit	of	the	radionuclides	that	are	potentially	

available	for	transport	in	the	groundwater.”		So,	is	the	131	million	figure	really	the	radioactive	

inventory	as	a	result	of	testing	below	the	water	table?		The	SWEIS	does	not	give	any	data	on	the	

break	down	the	130	million	curies	into	the	various	radioactive	elements	that	are	estimated	to	still	

exist	underground	and	is	to	be	used	to	evaluate	groundwater	contamination.	

Page	4-72	of	the	SWEIS	presents	a	table	of	tritium,	gross	alpha,	and	gross	beta;	Table	4–22	

“Radiological	Results	for	E-Tunnel	Waste	Water	Disposal	System	Discharge.”		Although	the	levels	

are	within	existing	permit	parameters	they	are	still	very	high,	and	there	should	be	an	explanation	of	

the	source	of	the	radioactivity.			What	program	is	creating	this	radioactive	waste?		HOME	found	

independently	that	tunnel	seepage	contains	high	tritium	activities	as	well	as	strontium-90,	cesium137,	plutonium-238,	plutonium-239/240,	and	americium-241.21		Why	is	this	information	not	

reported	in	the	SWEIS?		This	waste	from	the	E-tunnel	drains	into	a	series	of	holding	ponds,	but	there	

is	no	discussion	of	what	happens	to	the	waste	from	the	holding	ponds.		Is	it	evaporated?		Are	the	

holding	ponds	lined?		These	questions	should	be	addressed	in	the	SWEIS.	

 

17 SWEIS, pg. 4-93. 

18 Lui, Beiling, June Fabryka-Martin, Andy Wolfsberg, Bruce Robinson, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

NM, and Pankaj Sharma, PRIME Laboratory, Physics Dept., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, “Significance of 

Apparent Discrepancies in Water Ages Derived From Atmospheric Radionuclides at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” Proceedings of 1995 

American Institute of Hydrology, Annual Meeting, May 1995, Denver, CO.; Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 

transcripts from the September 16, 2003 meeting, Amargosa Valley, Nevada. 

19 A. B. Kersting, D. W. Efurd, D. L. Finnegan, D. J. Rokop, D. K. Smith & J. L. Thompson, “Migration of Plutonium in 

Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site”, NATURE, VOL 397, JANUARY 7, 1999, pg. 56. 

20 Bangerter, Robert Presentation at UGTA Peer Review meeting in Las Vegas, June 12, 2001

21 Highest measured activities (pCi/L): tritium = 946,000, strontium-90 = 1.49, cesium-137 = 62.7, plutonium-238 = 0.44, 

plutonium-239/240 = 4.96, americium-241 = 0.26 (U.S. Dept. of Energy, 2003, pages 5-41 – 5-42; U.S. Dept. of Energy, 

2004, page 3-14, and U.S. Dept. of Energy 2005, pages 4-16 and 4-17). 

46-21

cont’d

46-21

cont’d

46-23

cont’d

46-22

cont’d

46-24

cont’d

46-22

46-23

46-24

46-21	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.2, and Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, DOE/

NNSA’s UGTA Project is conducted pursuant to the FFACO and in consultation with

the NDEP. A brief summary of UGTA Project activities is included in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2. DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, determines the locations

for new groundwater characterization and monitoring wells based on sampling results

from existing wells and state-of-the-art predictive modeling. The wells are designed

to state-of-the-art standards to ensure they achieve their purpose(s). Both the UGTA

Project and DOE/NNSA’s RREM Program analyze water samples for a wide range of

radionuclides associated with underground nuclear testing.

	 Tritium is not the only radioactive element of concern in groundwater monitoring and

characterization at the NNSS, but because it was the radioactive species created in the

greatest quantities during underground nuclear testing and is widely believed to be the

most mobile in groundwater, it is the primary target analyte for both the UGTA Project

and the RREM Program. For this reason, tritium is the primary radionuclide discussed

in this NNSS SWEIS. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised to include more information regarding

both the UGTA Project and RREM Program groundwater sampling programs,

including the lists of typical radioisotopes analyzed. DOE/NNSA has and will

continue to track and report results of groundwater characterization and monitoring

that demonstrate the transport of any of the noted elements. Further, the data obtained

from the ongoing groundwater characterization and monitoring are used in developing

and refining the models used by DOE/NNSA and NDEP to site new characterization

and monitoring wells and improve groundwater models.

	 In 1992, Ernest A. Bryant from Los Alamos National Laboratory published The 

Cambridge Migration Experiment: A Summary Report (LA-12335-MS). This

report detailed the “Cambric Experiment,” which was a long-term (October 1974

through August 1991) experiment that consisted of first measuring the distribution

of radioactive materials in water and rock in the vicinity of the 1965 Cambric

underground nuclear test explosion and then inducing an artificial hydraulic gradient

by pumping water from a nearby well (91 meters from the well used to characterize

the initial source term). The water samples pumped from the test well were regularly

analyzed for the presence of radioactive species that might have migrated from

the explosion cavity. Among other things, the Cambric Experiment demonstrated

that tritium migrates at about the same rate as groundwater relative to most other

contaminants. Other radionuclides that exhibited migration with the groundwater

during the Cambric Experiment included krypton-85 (a noble gas) , chlorine-36,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-132

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

14 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORTATION & STORAGE 

The	issues	of	waste	transportation	and	storage	are	linked	because	cleanup	involves	collecting	

contaminated	soils,	equipment,	etc.,	safely	containing	it,	and	placing	it	in	a	storage	facility.		The	lowlevel	waste	sites	at	NTS	contain	much	waste	that	has	been	collected	and	contained	from	the	site	itself.		

Cleanup	and	restoration	activities	at	NTS	should	continue,	and	should	be	expanded	so	as	to	contain	and	

isolate	radiation	contamination	on	the	site	and	reduce	the	possibility	of	releases	from	the	site	to	air	and	

water.		We	advocate	that	the	storage	of	waste	streams	allowed	at	NTS	be	minimized	and	disposed	onsite	whenever	and	wherever	possible.		We	also	support	waste	consolidation	on-site	to	minimize	

transport,	as	well	as	continued	monitoring	of	groundwater	and	plugging	of	unneeded	boreholes	in	areas	

3	and	5.	

However,	the	majority	of	waste	stored	or	disposed	there	is	from	other	DOE	weapons	complex	sites	

nationwide.	The	SWEIS	mentions	over	20,000	truckloads	in	recent	years.	In	the	interest	of	avoiding	Las	

Vegas,	these	shipments	have	major	impacts	on	the	small	rural	roads	leading	to	the	Test	Site.		Estimates	

of	future	waste	disposal,	based	on	1997-2010	current	levels	(for	both	NTS	waste	and	waste	transported	

from	other	DOE	nuclear	weapons	sites),	is	15	million	cubic	feet	of	Low-Level	Waste	and	900,000	cubic	

feet	of	Mixed	Low-Level	Waste.		

HOME	advocates	that	NTS	low-level	waste	sites	should	prioritize	accepingt	wastes	from	cleanup	

activities,	rather	than	be	available	to	take	waste	generated	by	new	waste-producing	projects.		The	

Expanded	Operations	Alternative	proposes	new	projects	that	will	create	more	waste,	and	also	increases	

the	current	waste	production	from	on-going	projects.		HOME	opposes	such	projects	and	believes	that	the	

production	of	new	radioactive	wastes,	such	as	the	“approximately	24	cubic	meters	of	TRU	waste	per	

year”22	from	the	JASPER	facility	should	be	minimized	as	much	as	possible.	NTS	should	not	be	seen	as	

an	unlimited	waste	dumping	area	that	encourages	future	waste	production.	

GTCC WASTE DISPOSAL 

Overall,	HOME	opposes	GTCC	waste	disposal	at	NTS.	HOME	feels	that	the	evaluation	of	GTCC	

storage	in	general	is	premature,	since	the	vast	majority	of	the	waste	will	not	exist	for	at	least	20	

years,	and	the	Blue	Ribbon	Commission	should	have	adequate	time	to	explore	the	disposal	of	all	

high	level	nuclear	waste	and	GTCC	waste.	GTCC	waste	was	originally	slated	for	disposal	at	Yucca	

Mountain	Repository,	a	very	different	kind	of	facility.	This	type	of	radioactive	waste	is	quite	

dangerous,	where	the	use	of	remote	handling	equipment	is	needed	in	some	cases.	It	will	comprise	

about	98%	of	the	radioactivity	from	commercial	nuclear	reactors.		

We	believe	that	in	most	cases,	the	safest	method	to	address	short-term	and	intermediate-term	(100	

years)	concerns	with	GTCC	waste	is	to	store	it	on-site	where	generated	and	not	dump	it	on	any	

particular	centralized	location.		Instead	of	the	disposal	options	outlined	in	the	SWEIS23,	DOE	should	

consider	a	storage	option	called	Hardened	On-Site	Storage	(HOSS).	HOSS	is	similar	to	one	of	the	

disposal	concepts	(vaults)	that	DOE	is	considering,	except	that	it	is	for	storage,	not	disposal.	HOSS	

would	solve	some	security	concerns	inherent	to	the	GTCC	issue,	and	could	also	be	used	to	store	the	

 

22 SWEIS, pg. 5-104. 

2323 SWEIS, pg. 6-5 

46-25

46-26

46-27

46-28

46-28

cont’d

46-27

cont’d

iodine-129, technetium-99, and ruthenium-106. As noted above, each of these, with

the exception of krypton-85, are included in the list of radioisotopes analyzed by either

the UGTA Project or RREM Program.

	 Additionally, many wells have been drilled downgradient of the test cavities showing

a migration trend of tritium transport at distance, as well as other radionuclides

transporting short distances over the same period of time. Chapter 4, Figure 4–21

displays the locations of various wells used for monitoring groundwater at the NNSS

and nearby offsite areas.

46-22	 The Final NNSS SWEIS has been updated to include information regarding the

potential for plutonium migration in groundwater in and around Pahute Mesa in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2. This information includes conclusions reached by

Kersting et al. (1998) regarding the movement of plutonium associated with colloids

in and around Pahute Mesa, as well as more-recent testing results and conclusions

made by Smith et al. (2003) and Eaton et al. (2007). Kersting et al. noted, “...this is

the first time Pu has been shown to be transported by groundwater and for a significant

distance.” In a study subsequent to the discovery of plutonium at well EC-20-5,

Smith et al. (2003) noted that, “...general experience from the U.S. nuclear testing

program based on radiochemical diagnostic data collected from a variety of test

matrices suggest that only a small fraction (5 to 10 percent) of the total plutonium from

an underground nuclear detonation would be available for transport in groundwater.” 

46-23	 As stated in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, the underground

radioactive source term as of September 23, 1992, is about 132 million curies,

based on a study by scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory (Bowen et al. 2001). This is the most up-to-date

estimate available. This 132-million-curie source term is the total estimated level of

radioactivity in the NNSS underground environment. Not all underground nuclear tests

were conducted near enough to the water table to cause groundwater contamination,

as explained in Appendix H, Section H.2, of this NNSS SWEIS. Appendix H has been

revised to include a new table that contains the summary of radionuclide totals in

curies as they existed on September 23, 1992.

46-24	 Information has been added to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, of this Final NNSS SWEIS

describing the nature of the E-Tunnel system, wastewater, and basins. The purpose

of this section is to summarize permitting requirements associated with NDEPapproved wastewater surface impoundments to describe requirements likely to

continue over the next 10 years of NNSS operation. The NDEP Water Pollution
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-133

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

15 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

“spent	nuclear	fuel”	at	the	reactor	sites	as	well,	thus	allowing	a	dual	purpose	for	these	storage	

facilities.		There	is	also	the	problem	of	transportation	of	the	waste	to	Nevada,	since	there	is	no	rail	to	

the	site,	and	routing	would	need	to	go	through	Las	Vegas	or	on	small	unimproved	rural	roads	in	

Nevada	and	California.

While	HOME	recognizes	that	wastes	exist	from	nuclear	reactor	facilities,	any	discussion	of	the	longterm	problem	of	the	GTCC	waste	from	reactors	should	address	the	issue	of	source	creation.		If	there	

are	no	new	reactors	being	planned	or	built,	then	the	preponderance	of	the	GTCC	waste	will	be	

eliminated,	and	thus	this	possible	scenario	should	analyzed	through	the	separate	GTCC	EIS	process.

NATIONAL SECURITY / DEFENSE MISSION

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP & MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING, DEVELOPMENT & DISMANTLING 

The	SWEIS	states	"The	primary	purpose	of	continuing	operation	of	the	[Test	Site]	is	to	provide	support	

for	NNSA's	nuclear	weapons	stockpile	and	stewardship	missions"24		However,	these	activities	have	been	

declining	in	recent	years,	and	this	downward	trend	should	continue	or	escalate.		Congress	has	repeatedly	

rejected	paying	for	new	nuclear	weapons	designs	and	expanded	plutonium	pit	production,	and	there	has	

been	much	public	discussion	recently	about	the	U.S.	adopting	the	long-term	national	security	goal	of	a	

nuclear	weapons-free	future.	Further	environmental	damage	and	federal	expenditure	on	nuclear	

programs	is	inconsistent	with	that	goal.	Polls	have	documented	that	the	majority	of	the	American	people	

feel	that	nuclear	weapons	programs	should	continue	to	be	scaled	back	until	eliminated	completely.

However,	verification	of	compliance	with	international	weapons	treaties	and	reducing	and	dismantling	

aging	U.S.	arsenals	is	important,	and	is	consistent	with	U.S.	goals.	

HOME	therefore	does	not	support	any	weapons	testing	programs	that	do	not	lead	to	the	reduction	and	

dismantlement	of	the	U.S.	nuclear	arsenal,	such	as	dynamic,	shock	physics,	hydrodynamic	and	

subcritical	experiments25.	While	we	certainly	expect	to	see	the	safe	storage	and	maintenance	of	the	

nuclear	armory	as	long	as	it	exists,	we	do	not	see	a	real	need	for	these	types	of	experiments	

demonstrated	to	serve	that	objective.	The	enormous	financial	and	environmental	costs	of	such	nuclear	

materials,	tests	and	the	waste	they	produce	is	not	in	the	best	interests	of	the	United	States.	

In	all	three	alternatives	presented,	the	possibility	of	resuming	underground	nuclear	weapons	testing	

needs	to	be	thoroughly	analyzed.		The	discussion	of	impacts	from	resumption	of	testing	amounts	to	four	

paragraphs	totaling	less	than	a	page	of	text.			This	is	not	an	analysis.		Using	the	150	kiloton	anticipated	

explosion	power	limit,	a	conservative	estimation	could	be	done	of	the	radionuclides	and	radioactivity	

that	would	be	injected	in	the	underground	environment.		In	addition,	determining	the	extent	of	testing	

that	would	be	below	the	water	table	and	the	anticipated	radionuclide	release	into	the	groundwater	is	very	

important.		Certainly,	over	40	years	of	experimentation	and	analysis	of	the	groundwater	and	

 

24 SWEIS, pg. 1-4. 

25 SWEIS, pg. 3-12-13. 

46-28

cont’d

46-29

cont’d

46-30

46-29

Control Permit associated with the E-Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System Discharge

(Number: NEV 96021) requires monitoring of tritium, gross alpha, and gross beta,

as well as several nonradiological parameters, which is why current data on those

parameters are reported in this SWEIS. Thus, aside from tritium, historic data on other

radiological constituents are not included in this discussion. Data on other radiological

constituents have not been collected since 2007, and there is no plan to restart

collecting such data. 

46-25	 As addressed in this NNSS SWEIS (e.g., see Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and

3.3.2, as well as Appendix A, Sections A.1.2.2, A.2.2.2, and A.3.2), DOE/NNSA is

conducting environmental restoration at NNSS in accordance with Federal and state

statutes and regulations, including the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by

DOE, DoD, and the State of Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying

sites that have potential historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved

corrective actions, and instituting closure actions. The NNSS Environmental

Restoration Program is organized into three projects: the UGTA Project, Soils

Project, and Industrial Sites Project. The Environmental Restoration Program also

addresses DOE/NNSA’s Borehole Management Program. Environmental restoration

activities would continue under all alternatives, although the pace of cleanup could

be accelerated under the Expanded Operations Alternative. Under the No Action

and Reduced Operations Alternatives, DOE/NSO would continue implementing the

UGTA Project to characterize and monitor groundwater, develop groundwater flow and

transport models, develop closure strategies, and develop up to 50 new groundwater

and monitoring wells; close all identified Soils Project sites under the FFACO by the

end of 2022; complete remediation, decontamination, and decommissioning of FFACO

industrial sites by the end of 2018; and plug all unneeded boreholes by the end of 2013. 

Environmental restoration activities under the Expanded Operations Alternative

include an examination of the impacts of implementing a stricter cleanup standard for

certain Soils Project sites than that assumed under the No Action Alternative. The

impacts include the possible generation of up to approximately 11,000,000 cubic feet

of additional LLW that was assumed to be disposed at the NNSS. 

46-26	 DOE/NNSA is committed to reducing impacts associated with LLW/MLLW

transportation to the NNSS. 

The transportation of radioactive waste typically would occur on Federal and state

highways when required. To mitigate impacts on affected Nevada counties, a grant

program was established. This program is funded by DOE and administrated by the
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-134

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

16 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

underground	testing	should	yield	some	specific	impact	information	for	contemporary	use	in	impact	

modeling.

EXPLOSIVES TESTING 

HOME	supports	collaborative	efforts	toward	nuclear	weapons	treaty	verification	world-wide,	including	

training	for	missions	that	would	detect	and	dismantle	weapons.	However,	we	do	not	think	it	serves	U.S.	

interests	politically,	financially	or	environmentally	to	continue	to	develop	additional	weapons	systems.		

HOME	generally	opposes	weapons	testing	programs,	both	nuclear	and	large-scale	conventional	

explosives,	including	development	and	demonstration	related	to	military	missions,	training	for	invasion,	

occupation	or	war,	fuel-air	explosives	and	rocket	development	and	testing.	

HOME	further	believes	that	no	resumption	of	nuclear	or	any	other	explosives	testing	should	be	

considered	until	previous	contamination	to	soil	and	groundwater	is	fully	characterized,	mapped	and	

analyzed.	Of	the	Alternatives	presented,	the	Reduced	Operations	Alternative,	which	would	disturb	the	

soils,	plant	life,	wildlife	and	surface	drainage	of	only	430	acres	for	“explosive”,	“dynamic”	and	

“biological”	experiments,	is	far	preferable	to	Current	Operations	at	700	acres,	or	Expanded	Operations,	

which	would	disturb	3,335	acres.

HOME	also	strongly	advocates	that	no	additional	acreage	be	contaminated	by	the	use	of	Depleted	

Uranium	(DU)	munitions.	Many	independent	studies	now	show	that	DU	munitions	are	proven	to	cause	

significant	health	problems	worldwide,	especially	among	children,	and	its	use	should	be	completely	

banned.	Many	U.S.	veterans	are	now	suffering	health	effects	known	to	have	been	caused	by	exposure	to	

DU	munitions	from	the	first	Gulf	War.		

HOME	is	also	concerned	about	releases	of	potentially	lethal	chemicals	and	“biological	simulants”26	used	

in	weapons	testing	and	training	exercises.		The	final	SWEIS	should	adequately	explain	exactly	what	

chemicals	are	being	considered	for	use	and	what	the	potential	environmental	and	health	impacts	might	

be.	We	cannot	help	but	concur	with	what	was	probably	a	typo,	concerning	Allowable	Chemical	

Concentration	that	“would	have	a	low	probability	of	morality.”27

HOME	also	believes	that	in	the	event	of	testing	or	experimentation	with	biological	or	chemical	weapons	

that	does	take	place,	more	information	must	be	made	publicly	available	regarding	the	release	of	

chemicals	and	biological	simulants	before	such	activities	begin.		Tests	should	be	evaluated	and	approved	

publicly,	allowing	informed	consent	for	any	environmental	impacts.	

TREATY VERIFICATION, EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAMS

In	general,	HOME	supports	all	training	efforts	on	a	reasonable	scale	to	better	train	Emergency	

Responders	to	identify	and	cope	with	potential	radiological	emergencies.	However,	like	other	programs,	

HOME	advocates	for	choosing	locations	and	methodologies	that	will	minimize	the	impacts	to	

previously	undisturbed	land,	to	contaminated	land,	and	to	either	sensitive	habitat	or	habitat	for	rare	or	

 

26 SWEIS, pp. A-16-17. 

27 SWEIS, pg. A-17, Table A-1. 

46-30

cont’d

46-31

cont’d

46-32

46-31

State of Nevada. The program aids the affected counties in preparing for all kinds of

emergencies.

	 Note that this NNSS SWEIS analysis indicates only minor impacts on Nevada State

Route 160 in Nye County. Chapter 4, Table 4–11, of this NNSS SWEIS shows the level

of service in year 2008 and the level projected to year 2020. Chapter 5, Table 5–19,

and the supporting text show that there would be no degradation in the level of service

compared to that projected for 2020 from the traffic volume on State Route 160 that

would be associated with the NNSS SWEIS alternatives. 

46-27	 Disposal of LLW and MLLW at NNSS is in accordance with programmatic decisions

reached pursuant to the WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200). In accordance with the WM 

PEIS ROD (65 FR 10061) issued on February 25, 2000, DOE decided to continue

onsite disposal of LLW at NNSS and certain other DOE sites and to establish regional

disposal capacity at the NNSS and the Hanford Site. Specifically, in addition to

disposing their own LLW, the NNSS and the Hanford Site would dispose LLW

generated at other DOE sites, provided the waste met their respective WAC. DOE

decided to treat MLLW at a number of DOE sites, with disposal at either the NNSS

or the Hanford Site. Neither decision precludes DOE’s use of commercial disposal

facilities consistent with DOE Orders and policy. Only a small percentage of

the LLW/MLLW generated by DOE is disposed of at the NNSS. Approximately

90 percent of DOE’s LLW/MLLW is disposed of at the site where they are generated. 

About half of the remaining quantities are disposed of at commercial facilities.

	 The increase in the volume of LLW/MLLW between the No Action and Expanded

Operations Alternatives is largely due to sources other than new NNSS projects or

increased levels of operation at the NNSS. As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–49, the

volume of onsite-generated waste increases by 300,000 cubic feet between the No

Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives. The large difference in waste disposal

volumes between the two alternatives is from an assumed extensive removal of

contaminated soil from cleanup activities at Nevada locations outside NNSS, with

shipment to the NNSS for disposal, and to increased projections of wastes that may

be shipped to NNSS from authorized out-of-state generators. The text in Chapter 3,

Section 3.2.2.1, was revised to more clearly indicate the sources of the larger quantity

of waste that would be disposed of under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

As addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.11.2.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, there may

be other options for addressing the soil contamination other than removing it and

shipping it to the NNSS for disposal. In accordance with agreements between DOE
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-135

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

17 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

endangered	species.		We	support	the	use	of	existing	facilities	for	training	and	disposition	purposes,	and	

do	not	believe	after	reading	the	SWEIS	that	new	facilities	or	sites	are	appropriate	or	required.	

In	particular,	HOME	supports	efforts	developed	to	verify	compliance	with	the	Comprehensive	Test	Ban	

Treaty	and	other	arms	control	initiatives,	including	aerial	monitoring	systems	for	detection	and	

measurement	of	radioactive	material.	HOME	also	supports	cooperation	and	networking	of	existing	U.S.	

and	international	agencies,	the	work	of	the	NEST	Team	as	it	assists	FBI	and	the	State	Dept.	in	search	

and	recovery	missions	involving	nuclear	materials	internationally,	as	well	as	the	Federal	Radiological	

Monitoring	and	Assessment	Center	in	its	work	to	respond	to	radiological	emergencies	within	the	United	

States.	We	also	support	the	Radiological	Assistance	Program	for	first	response	and	assessment	of	

radiological	emergencies	and	the	Accident	Response	Group	to	manage	and	resolve	accidents.	

HOME	also	supports	the	Disposition	Forensics	Program	in	the	analysis	and	disposition	of	improvised	

nuclear	devices	and	the	training	programs	required	to	maintain	readiness	capability.		We	would	like	to	

see	further	clarification	in	the	Final	SWEIS	regarding	the	intent	of	the	following	statements	(italics	

added):

“The	Federal	Bureau	of	Investigation	has	lead	responsibility	for	nuclear	forensics	in	response	to	

a	radiological	event	within	the	United	States.	However,	for	the	most	part,	the	scientific	expertise	

and	laboratory	facilities	for	the	nuclear	forensics	and	the	assets	for	collection and storage of 

radiological samples	reside	in	the	DOE	complex.	

The	NNSS	has	unique	facilities	and	capabilities	for	staging,	as well as experimentation with,

nuclear	materials	and	would	provide	a	centralized	location	where	currently	dispersed	nuclear	

forensics	capabilities	would	be	integrated.”28

	HOME	understands	the	threat	of	improvised	nuclear	devices	in	today’s	world,	and	appreciates	these	

efforts	to	establish	a	consistent	approach.	However,	we	would	not	support	the	use	of	actual	radiological	

materials,	the	construction	of	improvised	nuclear	devices	or	other	experimentation,	or	the	development	

of	new	facilities	for	testing	or	training	purposes.			

NON-DEFENSE MISSION

ENERGY USE, CONSERVATION, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESEARCH AND FACILITIES

Overall,	HOME	supports	all	the	NTS	efforts	to	increase	on-site	energy	conservation	proposed	under	all	

alternatives,	as	well	as	the	increased	reliance	on	energy	coming	from	renewable	sources.	Future	ground	

disturbance	at	NTS	should	be	handled	very	carefully	because	of	Desert	Tortoise	habitat,	and	some	areas	

have	below-surface	contamination	that	would	be	exposed.		Additionally,	it	is	noted	that	nearby	Paiute	

and	Shoshone	Indians	oppose	any	further	ground	disturbance	on	these	treaty	lands.

 

28 SWEIS pp. A-12-13. 

46-32

cont’d

46-32

cont’d

46-33

and other Federal and state agencies, these options may include stabilization in place

or use of environmental restoration disposal sites established nearer the points of

contamination. The projections of wastes from out-of-state sources are considered

upper-bound estimates, and their generation would depend on programmatic and

regulatory decisions, funding, and other considerations that are outside the scope of

this NNSS SWEIS. DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires that

all DOE radioactive waste generators implement a Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Program to minimize the generation of waste. Although, for purposes of

conservative NEPA analysis, it was assumed that the out-of-state wastes would all be

disposed at NNSS, waste managers at DOE sites proactively seek to use commercial

disposal facilities if the facilities are compliant, cost-effective, and have WAC under

which they are able to accept the DOE waste.

	 As noted above, DOE/NNSA sites, including the NNSS, implement Waste

Minimization and Pollution Prevention Programs to minimize the generation of waste. 

Nonetheless, certain experimental activities, such as those conducted at the Joint

Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Facility (JASPER), would generate TRU waste. 

These wastes would be disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, not at the NNSS.

46-28	 Alternatives for the management or disposal of GTCC waste are not within the scope

of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE determined that preparation of the GTCC EIS was needed

for several reasons, as summarized at the GTCC EIS website (www.gtcceis.anl.gov/

eis/shy/index.cfm). The Draft GTCC EIS (DOE/EIS-0375), which is being prepared

in compliance with NEPA and other statutes, such as the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Amendments Act) and the Energy Policy Act

of 2005, was issued for public comment on February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10574). The

comment period for that EIS ended in June 2011; however, this comment has been

forwarded to the DOE Document Manager of the GTCC EIS for consideration.

	 The NNSS is one of the candidate sites evaluated in the Draft GTCC EIS. DOE

has not yet made a decision regarding GTCC waste disposition. Therefore, rather

than evaluating GTCC waste management at the NNSS as a mission assigned to the

NSO, it is discussed as a reasonably foreseeable future action in this NNSS SWEIS

in Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts.” Section 6.2.1.2 includes a description of the

facility, and Section 6.3 presents the cumulative impacts of the activities evaluated in

this NNSS SWEIS and other activities, including construction and operation of a GTCC

disposal facility. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-136

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

18 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

Alternative	Energy	Research	

The	recommendation	of	using	NTS	lands	for	small-scale	demonstration	energy	research	projects	not	

possible	elsewhere	seems	like	a	good	idea	to	maximize	energy	availability,	reduce	cost,	and	provide	

electricity	that	can	be	utilized	without	extending	transmission	lines.		Research	and	development	

programs	for	solar	power	that	minimize	water	usage	are	especially	important	to	the	Western	U.S.		These	

on-site	development	projects	can	also	help	model	and	increase	the	development	of	new	de-centralized	

power	sources	that	reduce	the	need	for	transmission	lines	elsewhere.		

Research	projects,	as	well	as	installations	of	systems	that	conserve	energy	will	have	long-term	

economic,	employment,	and	academic	value	as	well.	Each	alternative	presented	has	some	level	of	this	

activity	that	will	have	benefits	to	the	Test	Site,	the	Western	U.S.,	and	the	world.		HOME	prefers	the	

Expanded	Operations	Alternative	for	energy	research.	

On	Site	Electrical	Generation	Facilities	

While	HOME	supports	renewable	energy	development	as	an	excellent	redirection	of	previously	

disturbed	land	use	at	the	NTS,	large	scale	facilities	with	major	transmission	lines	are	not	generally	the	

best	approach.	For	on	site	use,	solar	panels	are	best	installed	on	NTS	rooftops,	over	parking	areas,	and	

on	previously	disturbed	ground	surfaces	wherever	possible.

HOME	advocates	specifically	for	development	of	energy	systems	that	minimize	the	use	of	water	and	

large	scale	transmission	lines.	Development	of	local	electrical	power	generating	systems	is	preferable	to	

large	scale	systems,	to	reduce	unnecessary	use	of	natural	resources	and	impacts	to	health	and	habitat.	

Use	of	previously	disturbed	areas	for	such	experiments	and	installations	is	far	preferable	to	destruction	

of	new	areas	and	endangered	species	habitat.	However,	care	should	obviously	be	taken	to	minimize	the	

disturbance	of	contaminated	areas	as	well.		

HOME	notes	that	the	land	identified	in	Area	25	for	the	installation	of	a	possible	commercial	solar	

electrical	generating	facility	is	generally	sandier	soil	that	makes	poor	habitat	for	tortoises.		This	seems	

like	a	good	choice,	as	long	as	future	flash	flooding	is	unlikely	to	carry	disturbed	materials	away.	We	

support	the	construction	of	additional	solar	power	generation	in	Area	25	which,	upon	completion,	would	

supply	a	portion	of	its	generating	capacity	to	support	NTS	needs,	with	the	balance	supplied	to	the	

outside	commercial	grid.	HOME	advocates	for	a	modest	installation	at	that	site,	similar	to	the	250	

megawatt	facility	outlined	in	the	“No	Action”	Alternative.	Since	NTS	itself	has	a	power	typically	

averaging	“20	megawatts	with	a	peak	demand	of	27	megawatts”29,	this	would	make	a	significant	

contribution	to	the	regional	grid	system.	HOME	does	not	support	the	development	of	on-site	electrical	

generation	solely	for	the	purpose	of	increasing	experiments	that	use	a	higher	level	of	voltage	than	the	

current	grid	system	can	sustain.		Combined	with	conservation	measures,	continued	maintenance	of	the	

existing	on-site	distribution	system	as	well	as	some	significant	system	upgrades	as	specified	to	achieve	

more	energy	efficiency,	this	approach	would	work	on	a	reasonable	scale,	both	in	terms	of	financial	and	

environmental	impacts.		

 

29 SWEIS, p. 5-30 

46-34

46-36

46-35

46-29	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are outside

the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA acknowledges the preference of the

commentor that DOE/NNSA not conduct dynamic, shock physics, hydrodynamic, and

subcritical experiments; however, these tests and experiments are necessary to continue

to ensure the safety and reliability of the remaining nuclear weapons in the Nation’s

stockpile and to support the current policies of the United States.

46-30	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0. Because conducting an underground nuclear test is

not proposed in this NNSS SWEIS, the analysis suggested by the commentor is not

required. The discussion of impacts from an underground nuclear weapons test in

Chapter 8, Section 8.1.1.1, was inadvertently included in the Draft NNSS SWEIS and

has been deleted from this Final NNSS SWEIS. Although conducting an underground

nuclear test is not proposed under any of the alternatives, DOE/NNSA provided a

generic description of such testing and impacts on the underground environment,

including groundwater, in Appendix H. Appendix H is an informational presentation

only and is in no way to be construed as an impact analysis of underground nuclear

testing. In addition, Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts,” addresses the impacts from past

underground nuclear testing.

46-31	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s preferences for weapons dismantlement

and opposition to development and/or testing of new nuclear or conventional weapons

systems. These issues are matters of national policy and outside the scope of this

NNSS SWEIS. The commentor’s preference for implementation of the Reduced

Operations Alternative is also noted. As stated in the response to comment 46-3,

above, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as

part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred

Alternative is described in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

	 Although resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing is not proposed

under any of the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS (a clear statement to this effect

has been added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0), tests and experiments using conventional

explosives are proposed. DOE/NNSA would avoid conducting explosives testing

in areas considered radiologically contaminated and would ensure that no activity

or combination of activities at the NNSS would result in exceeding the radioactive
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-137

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

19 HOME comments on NTS Draft SWEIS

Additional	alternative	energy	and	conservation	proposals	that	HOME	supports	include	research	on	

greenhouse	gases,	including	policies	for	low-carbon	emissions,	projects	that	promote	and	implement	

water	reuse	strategies	and	water	conservation,	and	the	composting	of	organics.	

Geothermal	Energy	Production		

In	general,	HOME	opposes	geothermal	energy	production,	having	studied	it	at	other	sites.	Geothermal	

energy	production	is	a	source	of	major	water	waste	and	pollution,	as	well	as	degradation	of	rare	Native	

sacred	sites	where	hot	springs	emerge	from	the	Earth.	Since	the	SWEIS	notes	that	the	NTS	does	not	

have	any	quality	hot	water	sites,	this	seems	a	poor	energy	generation	choice	for	DOE/NNSA	to	pursue.	

Solar	and	wind	energy	are	far	more	appropriate	for	development	in	Nevada.		

CLOSING DESIGNATED AREAS 

HOME	supports	the	idea	of	Reduced	Operations	Zones	for	Areas	18,	19,	20,	29	and	30,	as	specified	in	

the	Reduced	Operations	Alternative.30	While	these	areas	undoubtedly	have	some	contamination,	as	

stated	earlier,	we	advocate	the	thorough	evaluation	and	public	disclosure	of	all	potential	contamination,	

followed	by	return	of	any	lands	deemed	safe	enough	to	tribal	and	public	use,	whenever	possible.	

=============================

Thank	you	for	this	opportunity	to	review	DOE/NNSA’s	extensive	research	and	to	share	our	views	on	

this	important	matter.	We	look	forward	to	the	publication	of	the	Final	Site-Wide	Environmental	Impact	

Statement	for	the	Nevada	Test	Site.	

John	Hadder	 Jennifer	Olaranna	Viereck	 Judy	Treichel	

President,	Board	of	Directors	 Executive	Director	 Director	

 

30 SWEIS, pg. S-11. 

46-36

cont’d

46-37

46-38

emissions limit of 10 millirem per year exposure to the hypothetical MEI (40 CFR 61

Subpart H). As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–52, of this NNSS SWEIS, under the

Expanded Operations Alternative, the total calculated dose to the MEI would be

4.8 millirem per year, less than one-half of the regulatory standard.

	 As noted in the response to comment 46-17, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this

Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface

and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS and

TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and 4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to

include additional information regarding the location and extent of both radiological

and chemical surface soil contamination. Figures depicting areas of soil contamination

also have been added to these sections.

	 As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.1, and Appendix A, Section A.2.1.1, of this

NNSS SWEIS, under the Expanded Operations Alternative, up to three 40-acre depleted

uranium test and experiment areas may be established within Areas 2, 4, 12, or 16

of the NNSS. Tests and experiments conducted in these areas would use depleted

uranium in combination with explosives. The areas where these tests and experiments

would be conducted are in the north-central portion of the NNSS and, therefore, are

remote from any areas where the public could be affected. DOE/NNSA analyzed the

potential impacts on human health from conducting the proposed depleted uranium

tests and experiments, as described in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.1.2, and Appendix G,

Section G.2.3.1. As shown in Table 5–52, the annual radiation dose to the MEI from

all proposed activities under the Expanded Operations Alternative is estimated to be

4.8 millirem per year, or less than one-half of the 10 millirem per year standard set

by the EPA in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of

Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.” Radioactive

emissions from the proposed depleted uranium experiments would result in an

estimated dose to the MEI of about 0.62 millirem per year (i.e., about 13 percent of the

total dose to the MEI from NNSS activities under the Expanded Operations Alternative

and 6.2 percent of the EPA standard). As shown in Appendix G, Figure G–1, the

location of the MEI for the depleted uranium tests and experiments was considered to

be on the boundary of the NNSS, just over 9 miles east of the experiment location in an

area well removed from any regular human activity or residence.

	 The word “morality” in the second row and right-hand column in Appendix A,

Table A–1 has been changed to “mortality.”

Under all three alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA would

conduct experiments involving releases of various chemicals and biological simulants. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-138

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

Appendix A, Section A.1.1.3, includes a description of the parameters under

which these releases may be conducted, including a list of the specific biological

simulants that may be released. The release parameters described, along with other

administrative controls, are designed to prevent harm to humans and the environment. 

Based on DOE/NNSA’s experience over more than 20 years of conducting experiments

and training using releases of chemicals, the release parameters are successful in

protecting human health and safety, and monitoring by qualified biologists since 1996

has not demonstrated any significant differences between vegetation and wildlife

communities inside and outside the impact areas for large-scale releases on Frenchman

Flat. The phrase “would have a low probability of mortality” is not a typographical

error.

	 Environmental impacts from releases of chemicals and biological simulants are

addressed in two EAs: Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials Spill 

Center, Nevada Test Site (DOE/EA‐0864) (DOE 2002) and Final Environmental 

Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases of Chemicals at 

the Nevada Test Site (DOE/EA-1494) (DOE 2004) and were incorporated into this

NNSS SWEIS. Copies of these EAs are available on the DOE/NNSA NSO webpage at

www.nv.doe.gov.

46-32	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the stated preferences of the commentor. As noted in the

response to comment 46‐3, above, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on

the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. 

DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS.

	 As noted in the sentences immediately following the quoted passage from Appendix A,

page A‐12, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation Disposition Forensics Program

would deploy a small number of personnel to the NNSS for training and exercises or

for an actual incident, as needed. All activities would take place in existing facilities

at the NNSS.” To properly train personnel to conduct nuclear forensics on an actual

improvised nuclear device, it would likely be necessary to provide them with the

opportunity to gain experience with samples of actual radioactive materials that may be

used in such a device. For this reason, DOE/NNSA would continue to store radioactive

materials and use them as needed for training, exercises, and other purposes; DOE/

NNSA does not propose to construct an operational improvised nuclear device.

46-33	 DOE/NNSA does try to minimize ground disturbance (see the response to

comment 46-9). Mitigation measures related to minimizing ground disturbance,

habitats, and cultural resources are found in Chapter 7, Sections 7.7, Biological
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-139

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

Resources, and 7.10, Cultural Resources. DOE/NNSA agrees with the commentor that

care must be taken to minimize disturbance where below-surface contamination would

be exposed.

46-34	 The commentor’s support for solar energy systems that minimize the use of water and

large-scale transmission lines is noted.

46-35	 The commentor’s preference for energy research and installation of energy

conservation systems is noted.

46-36	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for solar energy systems that

minimize the use of water, as well as for large-scale transmission lines that are

constructed in previously disturbed areas, particularly Area 25. Also noted is the

commentor’s support for other alternative energy and conservation measures and

research.

46-37	 The pilot-scale “enhanced geothermal system” described under the Expanded

Operations Alternative would not tap into or affect hot springs or hot groundwater

(none of which have been identified on the NNSS), and thus would not be a source

of water pollution or degradation of American Indian sacred sites where hot springs

emerge. The theoretical system, as described in Appendix A, Section A.2.3.2, would

involve the injection of water into boreholes penetrating deep “dry” hot rock (i.e., over

356 degrees Fahrenheit) that naturally contains no mobile water, then recovering the

injected water after it is heated, passing it through a steam turbine engine to generate

electrical energy, and then recirculating the water back through the hot rock for

reheating. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2, and Section A.2.3.2, because

there are no specific proposals for geothermal exploration or development on the

NNSS at this time, additional NEPA review would be required before such work could

be conducted.

46-38	 DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s preference for implementation of the limited use

zone designation for Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 at the NNSS, as described under the

Reduced Operations Alternative in Chapter 3, Sections 3.3. and 3.3.3.1.

	 As noted in the response to comment 46-17, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this

Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface soils

and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS and

TTR. Further detail on the Environmental Restoration Program may be found at www.

nv.energy.gov/envmgt. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-140

Commentor No. 46 (cont’d): John Hadder, Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, 

Judy Treichel, HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth)

	 Returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for other use is

inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land was withdrawn

for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part of the USAF

Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to its remote

location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. As activities

on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn (i.e., the original

and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries) to ensure sufficient

land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain adequate buffers

between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and otherwise sensitive

testing, experimental, and training activities on site.

	 Returning NNSS land to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national

security needs, as well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. 

Consequently, there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these

two primary uses.

	 Although DOE/NNSA activities require the entire NNSS (about 1,360 square miles),

these activities are not inconsistent with periodic visits by the public (including

American Indians for purposes related to their cultural affiliation with the lands of

the NNSS) or certain commercial activities proposed to be developed on the site

(e.g., commercial solar power generation facilities). Public visits and commercial

activities are and would be conducted under the safeguards and security protocols of

DOE/NNSA, which limit the frequency and nature of public visits and could restrict

commercial activities from time to time. For this reason, DOE/NNSA is able to allow

properly cleared and escorted public visitation and the development of commercial

projects without hindering its national security activities while continuing to protect the

offsite public.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-141

Submitted: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 09:07:

Name: Mary L. Ross

E-mail (optional):

Organization:

Comment:

I am distressed to think that we are even considering further testing of nuclear

weaponry. Experts have verified that our current nuclear stockpile is adequate and

that testing is unnecessary.

After over 40 years and over one thousand tests, we know what nuclear weapons

are capable of doing to the environment and all living things globally, not just in the

Los Alamos area. Unfortunately, we knew the devastating effects upon persons,

livestock, soil, and water early in the testing process and continued to experiment

on the unwilling in the name of protection and patriotism. It is ironic that no other

nation attacked the United States with a nuclear weapon and under the perceived

threat of such said attack we bombed our own homeland a thousand times over. 

Our soils are now contaminated as is our water, livestock, and our people. Most

of the downwinders are dead and unable to speak for the grave injustices imposed

upon US citizens. Most people in this country do not know our sordid nuclear

history. Personally, I began studying our nuclear history when the Fukushima

incident awakened me to the presence of radioisotopes in the immediate

environment, despite the thousands of miles that separate me from Japan.

Since the tsunami, I have followed any data I might find. That grossly inadequate

display of poor detection and distribution of timely information speaks to the

inappropriate nature of reinstating weapons testing. Our radiation detection

systems are abysmally inadequate. Either that, or the agencies involved in the

monitoring of radiation in the atmosphere and in the food and water supplies are

not watching out for the best interests of the general public and rather the interests

of those who stand to lose from information being shared with the populace. 

People have been having their own soil samples tested and some have found that

the Fukushima fallout is significant. Others have found that more significant is the

continued presence of radioactivity from past weapons testing.

We are skating through this volatile chapter in our history with the fate of future

generations in the hands of a few who tend to fudge numbers, raise safe levels,

hide releases, and engage in sleazy back room politics. We can no longer

endanger the planet by upping the levels of exposure for ages to come.

Commentor No. 47: Mary L. Ross

47-1 47-1	 The United States has not conducted a nuclear weapon test since September 1992,

when a moratorium was imposed by President George H.W. Bush. In the absence

of underground nuclear weapons testing, DOE/NNSA developed the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management Program to increase understanding of the basic

phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, to provide better predictive

understanding of the safety and reliability of weapons, and to ensure a strong

scientific and technical basis for future U.S. nuclear weapons policy objectives. 

Because of the success of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program,

the United States has not needed to conduct an underground nuclear weapon test

to support certifying the safety and reliability of the stockpile since 1992. For this

reason, although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed

by the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-142

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 47 (cont’d): Mary L. Ross

Please no more weapons testing. And please, to those who hold the health of 

this planet in their hands, remember that we are all “stakeholders” and stewards of

this precious environment. Let us be admired for our protection of that which is so

utterly vulnerable. May we not regret taking actions that we cannot remedy.

Mary Ross

47-1

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-143

Commentor No. 48: Tom Seaver, Chair, 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 14:42:

Name: I. S. Town Advisory Board

E-mail (optional):

Organization: 

Comment: 

Indian Springs Town Advisory Board

P. O. Box 12 * 719 Gretta Lane * Indian Springs NV * 89018-0012

(702) 879-3004 * Fax (702) 879-3006

Advisory Board Members: Tom Seaver, Chair * Jayme Brown, Vice Chair Ann

Brauer * Lisa Crow * David Rohde * Secretary: Michelle McClary

December 1, 2011

By Email to: National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site

Office Attn: NNSS SWEIS

PO Box 98518

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

To Whom It May Concern:

The Indian Springs Town Advisory Board supports the NO ACTION alternative for

the regional transportation system section of the Draft Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement for the Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in

Nevada (4.1.3.2.1). This would preserve the transportation routes noted on Figure

4-6 in Chapter 4, page 4-26.

Thank you for considering our comment.

Sincerely,

Tom Seaver, Chair

48-1

48-1	 DOE/NNSA notes the preference of the Indian Springs Town Advisory Board to

“preserve the transportation routes noted on Figure 4–6 in Chapter 4, page 4-26,” (i.e.,

the Constrained Case) of the Draft NNSS SWEIS. In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the

Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments

of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to

avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case

that considered routes within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered

are within the bounds of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect

major changes and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have

occurred over the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to

understand the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing

options (which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since the

1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate those

differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of transportation

routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding

specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing

routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC

are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle

between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-144

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 16:04

Submitted by: E-mail (optional): rmajors@mail.com

Name: Robert Majors

E-mail (optional): rmajors@mail.com

Organization: Nevada Desert Experience

Comment:

I do not support the plans to continue nuclear testing, on any scale, in Nevada or

the United States. The uses for this type of technology are not ethical nor are they

economical. More importantly, while we are attempting to make things better we

are slowly destroying our deteriorating environment. I believe that our actions, even

at the least level of morality, should be to focus on the problems our country is

currently facing.

Commentor No. 49: Robert Majors,

Nevada Desert Experience

49-1 49-1	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0. DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s issue with

nuclear technology; however, addressing U.S. policy regarding such technology is

beyond the scope of this NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-145

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 11:36

Name: Jane Feldman

E-mail (optional): feldman.jane@gmail.com

Organization: Part One of TwoToiyabe Chptr, Sierra Clb

Comment: 

Part One of Two

Thank you for the extended opportunity to participate in decision-making about

the future of the Nevada Test Site, now called the Nevada National Security Site

(NNSS). The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club has 5,000 members in Nevada

and eastern California, and our outreach extends to 40,000 members and friends

who have taken action with us.

Although there are many issues of importance, the following issues dominate the

thinking within the Sierra Club.

1. The Sierra Club has a vision of a clean energy future for America, a future that is

free of both fossil fuels and radioactive fuels.

We oppose any activity at the NNSS or anywhere else that is directed to develop

a nuclear fuel capability, including but not limited to research on advanced nuclear

reactors and reprocessing irradiated fuel. The Enhanced Operation Alternative is

particularly troubling because it proposes a variety of new projects and expansion

to on-going projects that result in a significantly larger burden of high-level

radioactive waste. This cannot be allowed to take place. The first step in managing

dangerous high-level radioactive waste is to stop generating it.

We support activity at the NNSS that is directed to directed to research, develop

and deploy hardened on-site storage (HOSS) of irradiated fuel. Irradiated fuel is

accumulating in dangerous quantities in overcrowded and unhardened cooling

pools at nuclear reactors all over the country. We understand the flawed nature

of the work to force permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. The Sierra Club and

a host of other environmental organizations formally endorse the HOSS storage

principles to containerize and safely store irradiated fuel as close as possible to the

site of its generation. It would be a great service to the country to implement HOSS

storage of high-level radioactive waste where ever it is accumulating.

We oppose any activity that would require that irradiated fuel or other radioactive

material to be transported over long distances to the NNSS or any other site. This

is one of the reasons that we oppose the Exhanced Operation Alternative.

Commentor No. 50: Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

50-1 50-1	 DOE/NNSA is not currently proposing to conduct or support any projects involving

advanced nuclear reactors and/or reprocessing irradiated fuel at the NNSS or its other

facilities in Nevada. There are also no projects proposed under any of the alternatives

in this NNSS SWEIS that would generate HLW. Storage and/or disposal of SNF and/

or HLW is not a DOE/NNSA mission at the NNSS. The commentor’s opposition

to transportation of irradiated fuel or other radioactive material is noted. As noted

in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA supports research and

development of clean, renewable energy, and incorporates that support under each of

the alternatives (see Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.2, 3.2.3.2, and 3.3.3.2).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-146

Commentor No. 50 (cont’d): Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

We eagerly endorse activity at the NNSS directed to develop clean, renewable 

energy, including solar, wind and geothermal technologies. In particular, we would 

be interested in seeing programs for small-scale energy research projects, solar 

power that minimizes water usage, and decentralized power sources that reduce 

the need for transmission lines 

2. Dangerous radioactive contamination of surface soils. An over-riding concern 

of pursuing any activity at the NNSS is avoiding the radioactive contamination on 

soil surfaces that is a legacy of both the above-ground and below-ground testing of 

nuclear devises at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 60s. 

Deploying solar or wind installations at the NNSS would require a significantly large 

footprint of disturbed surface soils. It will be a challenge to locate, characterize, and 

avoid disturbance to prevent radionuclides from becoming air-born. 

We want to consider the surface contamination in some detail. Over 900 nuclear 

bomb tests occurred at the Nevada test site in the mid 20th century. The DOE also 

conducted numerous “safety” experiments that did not produce nuclear explosions 

but did create significant surface contamination of plutonium. Nuclear rocket tests 

added additional radioactive contamination. 

We understand that the contamination from above ground testing along with 

the safety shots and cratering events left an estimated 27,000 acres (42 square 

miles) of surface soils contaminated at levels in excess of 40 pico curies per gram 

(John B. Walker and Paul J. Liebendorfer. Long-Term Stewardship at the Nevada 

Test Site. 1998 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Federal 

Facilities) 

Underground tests did not stop until 1992 and the US Dept. of Energy (DOE) 

admits that of the 723 underground tests that were detonated, at least 114 of them 

released significant radioactivity into the atmosphere. Other scientists think that 

number is much higher and in fact think that it is rare that underground testing 

does not release atmospheric radioactivity. Surface soil contamination from 

underground tests only added to the radioactivity levels mentioned above. 

The DOE has stated that it is not possible to fully define the level of residual 

contamination that remains from the atmospheric testing program, but admits 

that radioactive isotopes that are still in Great Basin soil include americium, 

plutonium, uranium, cobalt, cesium, strontium, and europium (op cit, Walker and 

Liebendorfer). Some of these radioactive elements are alpha-emitters, some of the 

most carcinogenic sustances known. Illustrating this point: since 1943 the military 

has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium as a gas. In a document dated 

October 30, 1943 and declassified June 5, 1974, three major scientists from the 

Manhattan Project, Drs. James Conant, A. H. Compton, and H. C. Urey wrote to 

50-1

cont’d

50-2

50-2	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination.

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Potential radiological impacts on the population from operation of DOE/NNSA

facilities in the state of Nevada are presented in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.12, 5.3.12,

and 5.4.12. The calculated risks indicate that the most likely outcome of operations

would be no additional latent fatal cancers in the populations living within 50 miles

of DOE/NNSA facilities. However, based on the premise that there is some risk

associated with any radiation dose, there is a small risk of a single latent fatal cancer in

the population for each year of operations with radioactive emissions.

	 As discussed in Appendix G, Section G.1.1.6, DOE/NNSA analyzed the potential

radiological impacts in accordance with approved methodologies using conservative

assumptions that would tend to overestimate the severity of impacts. DOE/NNSA

used a conversion factor of 0.0006 fatal cancers per rem, in accordance with

recommendations of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards

(ISCORS). As noted in Section G.1.1.6, recent publications by both the National

Research Council’s Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Committee and

the International Commission on Radiological Protection, support the continued use of

the ISCORS-recommended risk values.

	 Under DOE/NNSA’s Environmental Restoration Program, areas of soil contamination

are characterized, remediated, as necessary, and monitored. Those activities are

conducted under the auspices of the FFACO and in consultation with NDEP.

Characterization of potentially contaminated sites includes sampling to determine the

specific substances that may be present and their concentrations and locations within

the site, as well as to provide a basis for any further action that may be determined to

be necessary. Sampling and analysis conducted as part of the characterization of a site

is guided by knowledge of the history of an area and the potential contaminants. The

contaminants identified by the commentor would be included in the characterization

plan if appropriate. NDEP actively participates in developing characterization plans,

provides oversight for characterization work, and reviews the results.

	 As a routine part of its project planning process, DOE/NNSA considers the presence of

potentially contaminated soils and avoids them, unless the proposed activities require
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-147

Commentor No. 50 (cont’d): Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, who was the head of the atom bomb project,

concerning “Radioactive materials as a military weapon.” (That document can be

found here: www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm ) In that

document they stated:

“As a gas warfare instrument the material (uranium) would be ground into particles

of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired

projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by

personnel.”

The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is

extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in

a person’s body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such

a casualty.

Uranium was also recommended as a permanent terrain contaminant which could

be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural

land with radioactive dust.

One millionth of a gram of uranium yields 1,000 alpha particles per day, each alpha

particle carries over 4 million electron volts, and it takes only 6-10 electron volts

to break a DNA strand. Because of its mass and energy alpha particles are 20 to

1000 times more dangerous to living tissue than beta or gamma radiation (A. Rytz,

At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 47, 205(1991)

Some of these radioactive elements also bioconcentrate as they rise up the food

chain, reaching concentrations as much as thousands of times higher in meat and

milk, including human breast milk. Humans reside at the top of the food chain,

especially human embryos.

Once inside the human body these radioactive elements continue to

bioconcentrate, accounting for their distinctive carcinogenic patterns and enhancing

the toxicity of low dose exposures. Strontium concentrates in bone, bone marrow

and teeth, resulting in bone cancers and leukemia. Cesium resembles potassium,

which is ubiquitous in every cell. It concentrates in brain, muscle, ovary and

testicles, leading to brain cancer, muscle cancers (rhabdomyosarcomas), ovarian

and testicular cancer and, most importantly, can mutate genes in the eggs and

sperm causing genetic diseases in future generations.

Plutonium is the most deadly of alpha emitters. If inhaled into the lung it is

transported from the lung to thoracic lymph nodes where it can induce Hodgkins

disease or lymphoma. Because it is an iron analogue it combines with the iron

transporting protein and concentrates in the liver, causing liver cancer, and

the bone marrow causing bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It also

50-2

cont’d

entry into a contaminated site. Such activities would include site characterization,

monitoring, and remediation; field training of first responders for dealing with events

in a contaminated area; and similar kinds of activities. When entering a radiologically

contaminated area, appropriate precautions are taken to protect the health and safety of

the workers and ensure that any exposures would be as low as reasonably achievable. 

Disturbance of contaminated soils is avoided, but if it were necessary to conduct an

activity that could cause such disturbance (i.e., soil site remediation), appropriate

measures would be taken to prevent resuspension of radionuclides to the extent

practicable by using dust suppression techniques.

	 DOE/NNSA also conducts air monitoring for demonstrating compliance with

“National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon from

Department of Energy Facilities” (10 CFR 61, Subpart H). These regulations limit

the release of radioactivity from a DOE facility to 10 millirem per year to the MEI. 

The NESHAP requirement is for exposure to a member of the public which, because

the public is not allowed unrestricted access to the NNSS, would be someone off site. 

As explained in Appendix G, Section G.2.1.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, for purposes of

the analysis, the MEI is a hypothetical person that would be located on the boundary

of the NNSS, but remote from any inhabited or regularly visited area. As discussed

in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12, DOE/NNSA uses the results of sampling performed on

site (where radionuclide concentrations would be higher than at offsite locations) to

demonstrate that doses to an MEI would be below the regulatory limit. The results

of monitoring demonstrate that radioactive emissions to the air from the NNSS are

consistently a fraction of the 10-millirem per year standard. DOE/NNSA reports

annually to EPA on estimated radioactive emissions from the NNSS. A more-detailed

description of radiological air monitoring and results is presented in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.8.3, of this NNSS SWEIS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-148

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 50 (cont’d): Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian

cancer, and/or mutate genes to induce genetic disease in future generations.

Plutonium can cross the placental barrier which protects the embryo. Once lodged

within the embryo, one alpha particle could kill a cell that would form the left side of

the brain, or the right arm, like thalidomide did years ago.

The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, so it can cause harm for 500,000 years;

inducing cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for the rest of time,

not only in humans, but in all life forms.

There is little doubt that current dust storms from the NNSS already deliver

radioactive isotopes downwind to the environment and the people living there. A

2009 masters thesis study was conducted using soil samples from the Washington

County area to determine if Cesium 137 still exists in the area in detectable

amounts. 102 soil samples were collected and analyzed. Only one of the 102 soil

samples did not have detectable amounts of Cesium. The author stated, “Several

of the samples contained levels substantially higher than earlier estimates would

have predicted. This leads us to conclude that doses to the public from the testing

could also have been higher than earlier thought.” (http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/

xmlui/handle/1957/9293)

As with particulate air pollution, science has established that there is no safe level

of radioactivity exposure. The National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report VII from 2005 states, “A comprehensive review of

available biological and biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold” (LNT) risk

model, that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a

threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in

risk to humans.”

Radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the

cellular mutation caused by the last. One mutation, in one gene, in a single cell, if

unrepaired, can result in a fatal cancer. Many cancers, especially solid tumors, and

other genetic diseases have a latency period of many decades. Utah residents

are still showing up with new cancers from the original nuclear testing program

decades ago. (Comments by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, http://

www.uphe.org/evidence-archive)

Even small increases in risk per person become significant public health hazards in

the aggregate, when large numbers of people are exposed. In other words, when

millions of people are exposed to slightly increased risks, there will be thousands of

new victims.

It should be emphasized that cancer is not the only health risk of radiation

exposure. Cardiovascular disease causing heart attacks, strokes and diseases

50-2

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-149

Commentor No. 50 (cont’d): Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

consequent to immunosuppression are all correlated to radiation exposure, as are

any diseases related to chromosomal dysfunction, such as birth defects. Children

are much more susceptible to radiation caused health affects and human embryos,

especially during early gestation, are perhaps thousands of times more at risk for

genetic mutations from radiation exposure than are adults. There are over 2,600

diseases described in the medical literature caused by genetic mutations. Mutated

genes are passed down from generation to generation in perpetuity, impacting the

health of future generations.

To summarize: the radioactive contamination from nuclear testing still present in

surface soils and dust generated there has medical ramifications that will never

cease. It will affect the health and viability of future generations forever, inducing

epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease.

To characterize the dangerous radioactive surface contamination, a thorough soil

sampling of the entire landscape anticipated to be disturbed is required. In addition

to sampling for the radionuclides mentioned above, to protect public health, the soil

sampling should include an assessment of the concentrations of all the primary

heavy metals, especially mercury, zeolites in general, erionite in particular, and

microorganisms, especially coccidiodomycosis. Depending on the results of the soil

sampling, independent third parties should be employed to make a comprehensive

study of what those concentrations will translate into regarding public health

impacts

3. Surveys for biological resources Since the NNSS has had tightly controlled

access for a number of decades, there has been little human impact to native

Mojave Desert ecological communities. These biological resources need to be

surveyed, inventoried and protected.

The entirety of the NNSS is expected to be good-to-excellent habitat for the desert

tortoise, a species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Activity

should be conducted on previously disturbed lands, and any take of desert tortoise

and impacts to its habitat will need to be mitigated fully in perpetuity in accordance

with the Endangered Species Act.

The NNSS is almost certainly host to a variety of other animals and plants that

are protected, sensitive or rare, and are listed as species to be monitored and

protected by federal or state authorities. The resources need to be carefully

surveyed, inventoried, described and protected.

4. Restoring Native American access

The Sierra Club formally recognizes (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/

justice.aspx) that to achieve our mission of environmental protection and a

50-2

cont’d

50-3

50-4

50-3	 DOE/NNSA agrees with the commentor’s statement that biological resources on

the NNSS need to be surveyed, inventoried, and protected. For this reason, and as

described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7, of this NNSS SWEIS, the flora and fauna of the

NNSS have been and continue to be surveyed and inventoried, sensitive species are

monitored, and protection is afforded to sensitive and otherwise regulated species. 

These activities are conducted by a staff of highly qualified wildlife and plant

ecologists. In addition to the Chapter 4 descriptions of NNSS flora (Section 4.1.7.1),

fauna (Section 4.1.7.2), threatened and endangered species (Section 4.1.7.3), and other

species of concern (Section 4.1.7.4), Appendix F provides lists of sensitive species of

plants and animals known to occur on or near the NNSS, lists of all species of plants

and animals that have been reported on the NNSS, and maps showing the locations

of sensitive plant populations. Further, DOE/NNSA maintains several programs,

as described in Section 4.1.7, as well as in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, to ensure full

consideration of biological resources in all of its activities. Again, as described in both

Section 4.1.7.3 and Section 5.1.7, issued a Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009) for the

desert tortoise at the NNSS. That NNSS Biological Opinion provides the parameters

under which DOE/NNSA must conduct its activities in desert tortoise habitat on the

NNSS and the acceptable “take” of both tortoises and their habitat. As explained in

Sections 4.1.7.3 and 5.1.7, the USFWS considers the tortoise population density on the

NNSS to be very low.

50-4	 As part of its American Indian Consultation Program, the DOE/NNSA NSO included

tribal input into this NNSS SWEIS. CGTO recommendations are carefully reviewed

and considered. The DOE/NNSA NSO strives to accommodate the recommendations

of CGTO to the extent practicable as part of the overall American Indian Consultation

Program. The DOE/NNSA NSO also tries to accommodate the tribes’requests for

access as much as possible within the constraints of the DOE/NNSA missions. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-150

Commentor No. 50 (cont’d): Jane Feldman, Energy Chair, 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

sustainable future for the planet, we must attain social justice and human rights

at home and around the globe. We fully support and urge that Native Americans

have access to sacred cultural sites on the NNSS, in ways that protect both the

people and the environment from injury and damage. Native Americans also must

be incorporated into and have full voice in land and resource management decision

making.

5. Completely halt the development and deployment of nuclear weapons

The Sierra Club policy is very clear on this issue: Since 1981, our policy has said

that “because the use of nuclear weapons in modern warfare would result in

unprecedented destruction to the global environment on which human and all life

depends for survival, the Sierra Club expresses grave concern over the lack of

progress in completing nuclear arms reduction agreements and urges all nations

by bilateral and multilateral agreements to halt any further development, testing,

and further deployment of nuclear weapons. We urge all nations to develop a longterm program to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles.” (http://www.sierraclub.org/

policy/conservation/nuc-weapons.aspx)

This means that nuclear weapons programs must be scaled back until eliminated

completely. Further environmental damage and federal expenditure on nuclear

programs is inconsistent with that goal.

We adamantly oppose the expanded weapons and explosives testing, the use of

depleted uranium (DU) munitions, and release of dangerous contaminants from

biological warfare experiments.

Sincerely

Jane Feldman 

Energy Chair 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

50-4

cont’d

50-5 50-5	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are outside the

scope of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA acknowledges Sierra Club’s opposition to

expanded weapons and explosives testing, the use of depleted uranium, and the release

of dangerous contaminants from biological warfare experiments. However, it should

be noted that DOE/NNSA does not propose releasing any biological warfare agents at

any DOE/NNSA site in the state of Nevada. As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this

NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS 

as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred

Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-151

Commentor No. 51: David Corcoran, 

SOA Watch

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 16:49

Name: David Corcoran

E-mail (optional): dcorcor@sbcglobal.net

Organization: SOA Watch

Comment:

Stop making nuclear bombs and get rid of the ones we have. We are our own

worst enemy. 51-1 51-1	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are outside the

scope of this NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-152

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 18:17

Name: Ellen Murphy

E-mail (optional): ellenkavanagh@yahoo.com

Organization: Veterans for Peace

Comment: 

Dear NNSA,

I want you to know that I have read and I support the positions and 

recommendations of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations.

It’s easy to be influenced by one’s work culture and not get, as they say, “outside

the box.”

I trust these positions and recommendations, and, I’m sorry to say, I have not a lot

of trust in yours. Change my mind!

Sincerely, Ellen Murphy

Commentor No. 52: Ellen Murphy, 

Veterans for Peace

52-1 52-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates and considers all comments relating to the Draft 

NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-153

Submitted: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 20:38

Name: Ben Innes

E-mail (optional): binnes@qwestoffice.net

Organization:

Comment:

I have often referred to the Nevada Test Site as the “Nation’s litter box.” It should

be treated as a litter box. Cleaned as much as possible, recognize that it has

done and is still doing its job and it should not be expanded or moved. Thus

uncontaminated areas remain uncontaminated. Nothing is done that might harm

the groundwater or neighboring land.

We have a litter box, acknowledge it and don’t make things worse.

Commentor No. 53: Ben Innes 

53-1 53-1	 The commentor’s preferences for remediating contaminated areas and limiting

future activities that could result in contamination are noted. As presented in

Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and 3.2.2, DOE/NNSA proposes to continue its

Environmental Restoration Program under all three alternatives considered in this

NNSS SWEIS. The greatest portion of the NNSS is not contaminated, as shown in

Figure 4–11, which was added to this Final NNSS SWEIS to provide interested readers

with additional information regarding radioactively contaminated soils at the NNSS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-154

Submitted: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 21:29

Name: Jovita Harrah

E-mail (optional):

Organization: Pax Christi and NDE

Comment:

It is time for the US to end the development, maintainance and testing of nuclear

weapons. America is telling other countries to desist from developing nuclear

weapons while they are making and improving their own. This is wrong. Socially,

politically and spiritually. END THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TRADE !!!

Commentor No. 54: Jovita Harrah, 

Pax Christi and NDE

54-1 54-1	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-155

Submitted: Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 07:38

Name: Ron Greene

E-mail (optional): hummingbird8088@yahoo.com

Organization: NTS Guide Service

Comment:

From: Ronald Bruce Greene

525 Colver Road Apt 2

hoenix Oregon 97520 

xxx) xxx-xxxx

To: Ms Linda Cohn

SWEIS Document Manager 

US DOE 

PO Box 98518 

Las Vegas Nevada 89193-8518

RE: NNSS, SWEIS, DOE/EIS-0426D

Dear Ms. Cohn,

There are portions of SWEIS that rightly fall into each option category; No Action,

Expanded Operations and Reduced Operations.

No Action option: Continued (or expansion of) clean-up and monitoring of residual

nuclear material should continue site-wide.

Expanded Operations option: The renewable energy projects at the southwest

corner of NNSS should go forward on as large a scale as possible. This includes

the 5megawatt solar array and the geothermal project and research center. Note:

special care should be given to reduce and mitigate any negative watershed

impacts.

Reduced Operations option:

1) Stockpile stewardship tests should be at the minimum level and should focus on

a nuclear weapon free planet.

2) No new facility construction.

3) Discontinue the Big Explosives Experimentation Facility.

4) Move forward to close the northwest sections including Oak Spring, Captain 

Jack Spring, Topapah Spring, Tipapah Spring, Rainier Mesa, Pahute Mesa, 

Buckboard Mesa, Forty Mile canyon, the Calico Hills and Shoshone Peak. Note:

Restore Western Shoshone Nation access to these areas.

Commentor No. 55: Ronald Bruce Greene, 

NTS Guide Service

55-1

55-2

55-1	 The commentor’s suggestions regarding alternatives in this SWEIS are noted.

55-2 As part of the NNSA/NSO American Indian Consultation Program, DOE/NNSA

works with tribes affiliated with the geographic region of the NNSS through the

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO). A large part of this

consultation entails visits to the NNSS and its many culturally significant locations. 

These visits have included overnight camping at areas identified by CGTO for

further study. Such visits will continue to be provided as part of the American Indian

Consultation Program under the safeguards and security protocols of DOE/NNSA,

which are designed to allow public visitation of the NNSS without hindering its

national security activities while continuing to protect the offsite public.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-156

Commentor No. 55 (cont’d): Ronald Bruce Greene, 

NTS Guide Service

In a special note I would like to say that when the Western Shoshone signed 

the Ruby Valley Treaty giving the US the right to build roads and forts through

their territory I’m certain the didn’t mean that to include a 6500 square mile “fort”

centered on there summer home range. In the spirit of making restitution to Native

Americans for the genocide waged against them by the US Government, every

effort should be taken to restore their rights in this area in as large a magnitude,

and as quickly as areas can be made safe.

Sincerely’

Ron Greene

55-3 55-3	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-157

Commentor No. 56: Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-1

56-2

56-1	 In

Chapter5

,

Section5.1.3.1,o

f

theDraft NNSSSWEIS(andthisFinal NNSSSWEIS), 

DOE/NNSAanalyzedshipmentsofLLW/MLLWfortwocases:aConstrainedCase

thatretainedcurrentrestrictionst

o

avoidroutesi

n

greatermetropolitanLasVegas,

Nevada,andanUnconstrainedCasethatconsideredrouteswithingreatermetropolitan

LasVegas.Theroutesconsideredarewithintheboundsofexistingregulatory

parametersandlegalconstraintsandreflectmajorchangesandupgradest

o

the

LasVegasValleyhighwayinfrastructurethathaveoccurredoverthepast1

5

years. 

B

y

includingtheseanalyses,DOE/NNSAsoughtt

o

understandthedifferencesi

n

potentialenvironmentaleffectsbetweendifferentroutingoptions(whichincorporated

changestolocaltransportationinfrastructuresincethe1996NTSEIS[DOEEIS-0243,

August1996]wascompleted),communicatethosedifferencest

o

thepublic,andseek

stakeholdercommentso

n

therangeo

f

transportationroutes.DOE/NNSAalsostated

thati

t

didnotintendt

o

makeanydecisionsregardingspecificwastetransportation

routesviathisNEPAprocess.Anychangestoexistingroutingwouldbemadethrough

revisionstotheNNSSWAC.RevisionstotheWACareundertakenincoordination

withNDEP,pursuanttotheAgreementinPrinciplebetweentheStateofNevadaand

theDOE/NNSANSO(StateofNevada2011). 

WhileDOE/NNSA’senvironmentalanalysesshowednomeaningfuldifferencesin

potentialenvironmentaleffectsbetweentheConstrainedandUnconstrainedCases,

thepreponderanceofstakeholdercommentsrecommendedthatDOE/NNSAretain

highwayroutingrestrictionstoavoidshipmentsofLLW/MLLWthroughgreater

metropolitanLasVegas(ConstrainedCase).I

n

considerationo

f

theenvironmental

analysesandstakeholdercomments,andafterconsultationwithNDEPa

s

parto

f

theWACrevisionprocess,DOE/NNSAdeterminedthatitwouldretainthehighway

routingrestrictionsforshipmentsofLLW/MLLW;therefore,therewouldbenoneedto

revisetheWACinthisregard(DOE2012).

	 DOE/NNSA

performstransportationanalysest

o

determinecomparativerisksamong

alternativesusingriskscalculatedfortheentireroute.Theriskovertheentire

transportationroutei

s

generallynotdominatedb

y

onespecificlocalarea;therefore,

analysisofspecificlocalhazardsonmanypossibleroutesisneitherpracticalnor

necessaryforthepurposesofthisNNSSSWEIS.ThetransportationofLLW/MLLW

andotherradioactivematerialswoulduseexistinghighwaysandrailroads.Because

nonewlandacquisitionandconstructionwouldberequiredtoaccommodatethese

shipments,thisSWEISfocuseso

n

potentialimpactso

n

humanhealthandsafety

andthepotentialforaccidentsalongshipmentroutes.I

t

shouldb

e

notedthatthe

transporto

f

radioactivematerialsandwastesoccursdailyo

n

theNation’shighways,

includinghighwaysinLasVegas,asaresultofcommercialandgovernmentactivities
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-158

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-3

56-4

(e.g., materials for nuclear medicine); therefore, the transportation activities analyzed

in this NNSS SWEIS do not present a new or unique hazard that would require specific

locations along a route to be analyzed or analysis of other aspects such as local

environmental or socioeconomic impacts. 

56-2	 To ensure a conservative analysis (i.e., to ensure impacts are not underestimated),

this NNSS SWEIS cumulative impacts analysis was generally based on the Expanded

Operations Alternative for potential DOE/NNSA activities, as described in Chapter 6,

Section 6.1. The potential cumulative exposures and health risks for transportation are

shown in Table 6–6. Similarly, the cumulative impacts analysis for each applicable

resource area related to transportation of radioactive waste (i.e., traffic, air quality, and

human health) were based on the Expanded Operations Alternative. For instance, the

cumulative impacts on air quality in Clark County are addressed in Section 6.3.8.1.2

and include emissions from DOE/NNSA transportation of radioactive materials and

waste derived from the impact analysis presented in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.8.2,

5.2.8.1, 5.3.8.2, and 5.4.8.2. 

DOE/NNSA does not propose construction of any rail-to-truck (i.e., intermodal)

transfer sites in Clark County or anywhere else. Rail-to-truck transfer sites included in

this NNSS SWEIS transportation analysis are currently existing operational facilities. 

This point has been clarified in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, Transportation, for both the

Constrained and Unconstrained Cases.

56-3	 Worst-case scenarios are by their very nature extremely unlikely to occur; thus, their

analysis would not prove helpful to decisionmakers. For example, not even the

CEQ regulations require the analysis of worst-case scenarios. This requirement was

withdrawn in April 1986 (51 FR 15618).

	 As noted in the response to comment 56-2, the cumulative impacts analysis was

based on the Expanded Operations Alternative for potential DOE/NNSA activities. 

As such, the impacts that would result from transportation were considered in the

cumulative impacts analysis for each applicable resource area. DOE/NNSA evaluated

the potential impacts of transportation accidents in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.3.1.1,

5.1.3.1.2, and 5.1.3.1.3, and of facility accidents in Sections 5.1.12.2.1, 5.1.12.2.2,

and 5.1.12.2.3. Because accidents are considered singular events, they were not

included in the cumulative impacts analysis. 

56-4	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-159

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-5

56-6

56-7

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had

not identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS;

therefore, none was identified in that document. As stated in Section 3.4 of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS 

as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred

Alternative is described in Section 3.4.

56-5	 Please refer to the response to comment 56-4, above, regarding the lack of a

preferred alternative in the Draft NNSS SWEIS. The commentor also suggests

that DOE/NNSA provide a second public comment period for consideration of the

Preferred Alternative identified in this Final NNSS SWEIS. As required by CEQ

regulations (40 CFR 1506.10), DOE/NNSA will not make a decision on the actions

proposed in this NNSS SWEIS until at least 30 days following publication in the

Federal Register of the EPA notice of filing. CEQ refers to the period of time between

the notice of filing of a final EIS and issuance of a decision by an agency as a “review

period.” Comments received on the Final NNSS SWEIS during the review period will

be evaluated and addressed in the ROD.

	 Cumulative impacts are analyzed in Chapter 6 of this NNSS SWEIS. 

As noted in Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.11, 4.2.11, 4.3.11, and 4.4.11, DOE/NNSA

generates and/or manages a variety of waste streams at its facilities in the state

of Nevada, including LLW/MLLW, TRU waste, nonradioactive hazardous waste

regulated under RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), wastes containing asbestos or

polychlorinated biphenyls regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act

(15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), explosive wastes, and nonhazardous wastes, including

sanitary solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and hydrocarboncontaminated soil and debris. In Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.11, 5.2.11, 5.3.11, and 5.4.11

of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA identified potential waste streams that may be

generated by its operations over the next 10 years, the expected volumes, and their

expected disposition pathways (i.e., disposal onsite, disposal at permitted/approved

offsite facilities, recycling, etc.).

56-6	 The approach to the transportation analysis performed for this NNSS SWEIS is

consistent with analyses performed for other DOE/NNSA NEPA analyses. As

stated in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has analyzed

two transportation cases: one that reflects the existing commitment (Constrained

Case) and one that permits shipments through the greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada (Unconstrained Case). This analysis was undertaken to develop a greater
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-160

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-7

cont’d

56-8

56-9

56-10

understanding of the potential environmental consequences of shipping such waste

along the analyzed routes, including through and around metropolitan Las Vegas, by

comparing the impacts that would occur under different alternatives. Conservative

assumptions were used throughout the analysis to prevent an understatement of the

potential impacts. The results provide a reasonable estimate of the relative magnitude

of impacts that could occur. 

The analysis of incident-free impacts incorporates the population, projected

to 2016, residing within 0.5 miles of the analyzed routes within Clark County. 

The consequences of potential accidents with the greatest impacts (maximum

foreseeable accident) on routes near Las Vegas were calculated with the results

shown in Appendix E, Table E–16, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. This analysis used

the 2016-projected census data and used generic atmospheric conditions as described

in Appendix E, Section E.6.4, because an accident could occur at any location along

a route. To estimate the most-conservative (greatest) impacts, neutral atmospheric

conditions were assumed when calculating impacts on the population within a

50‐mile radius of the accident, and stable atmospheric conditions were assumed when

considering impacts on an MEI. 

The traffic analysis presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.2, and its subsections,

incorporates the number of waste shipments under each alternative. As stated

in Section 5.1.3.2.4, only Mercury Highway (on the NNSS) would experience a

substantial increase in traffic (by approximately 80 percent) and degradation in level of

service (from Level A to Level B). No other roadways in the region would experience

a change in level of service. Shipments are expected to meet all U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) regulations, with the same shipment types as those that have

been historically received at NNSS. Road conditions (e.g., state of repair, geographic

conditions) are not normally considered by DOE in NEPA-related transportation

analyses. The routes that are analyzed are primarily interstate and state highways, and

it was assumed that these roads meet the minimum standards for commercial truck

traffic. 

Historically, occasional rail shipments of LLW with transfer to trucks for transport

to NNSS have occurred. The rail cargos are transferred to trucks at a transfer

station (e.g., at Parker, Arizona) to complete shipment to NNSS. Because this mode

of transport may be used in the future, an analysis of rail shipment to NNSS was

conducted in this NNSS SWEIS to determine the overall route impacts and compare

them to the results obtained for only truck transport. To envelope the impacts

associated with rail shipments, DOE assumed that all waste shipments would occur
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-161

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-11

56-13

56-12

56-10

cont’d

by rail, with the cargo transferred at five different transfer station locations, as

described in Appendix E. The transfer station locations to be analyzed were selected

to cover the geographic area where a transfer station facility might be located and to

maximize possible impacts. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, has been revised in the Final 

NNSS SWEIS to state that DOE does not plan on establishing or promoting any transfer

station facility; thus, a detailed analysis of the operations at a transfer station facility

is beyond the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. If a commercial carrier decides to use a

transfer station facility, then that carrier must abide by applicable laws and regulations

governing those operations. It should be noted that DOE did publish two reports

regarding operations at transfer station facilities. In the first report, Life-Cycle Cost 

and Risk Analysis of Alternative Configurations for Shipping Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999a), and as shown in Table E–15 of this

NNSS SWEIS, the dose to a transfer station facility worker would be up to 3.4 × 10-4

person-rem per container transferred. In a second report, Intermodal and Highway 

Transportation of Low-level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999b),

accident consequences associated with a large fire near LLW shipping containers

were provided. The consequences to a population within 50 miles would be no (up

to 1.7 × 10-4) fatalities for a population of about 195,000 people. DOE has added this

information to Appendix E of the Final NNSS SWEIS.

	 DOE/NNSA has added additional information to Appendix E, Section E.3.3, regarding

emergency response to better explain Federal emergency response programs and

how they relate to local response to an accident. The Transportation Emergency

Preparedness Program was established by DOE to ensure its operating contractors

and state, tribal, and local emergency responders are prepared to respond promptly,

efficiently, and effectively to accidents involving DOE shipments of radioactive

material. This program is a component of the overall emergency management system

established by DOE Order 151.1C. The following assistance is provided: emergency

planning and guidance; training material development and delivery; emergency drills

and exercises; centralized emergency notification; support to emergency responders

(radiological surveys, technical assistance, and public information); and post-incident

assessment (along with other agencies). In addition, for all accidents, the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for establishing policies for

and coordinating civil emergency management, planning, and interaction with Federal

Executive agencies that have emergency response functions.

	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to

provide a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA,

the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-162

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-13

cont’d

56-14

56-17

56-15

56-16

Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed

annual grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en

route to the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the

counties to undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability

assessments; acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks,

and communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency

services buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders

for emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/

NNSA NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country,

including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.

	 CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.23) state: “If a cost-benefit analysis relevant

to the choice among environmentally different alternatives is being considered for the

proposed action, it shall be incorporated by references or appended to the statement

as an aid in evaluating the environmental consequences.” CEQ NEPA regulations

go on to say, “For purposes of complying with the Act [NEPA], the weighing of

the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a

monetary cost‐benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative

considerations.” The vast majority of activities conducted by DOE/NNSA in Nevada

support national security and are not driven by a need for economic return. For this

reason, DOE/NNSA did not and does not intend to prepare a cost-benefit analysis as

part of this NNSS SWEIS. The analyses in this NNSS SWEIS are sufficient to provide

DOE/NNSA decisionmakers with adequate information for making a selection among

the alternatives.

	 In consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments,

DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for

shipments of LLW/MLLW. DOE/NNSA’s determination regarding continuing

existing transportation routing restrictions is described in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, of

this Final NNSS SWEIS. The major tourist areas of downtown Las Vegas, therefore,

would continue to be avoided.

	 With regards to accident liability, the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 (revised in 1967,

1975, and 1988 and extended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) requires all NRC

licensees and DOE contractors to enter into agreements of indemnification for personal

injury and property damage due to any nuclear or radiological incident, regardless of

who may be liable. Section 604 of the act limits the indemnity provided by DOE for

its contractors to $10 billion for each nuclear incident, including legal costs, subject to

adjustment for inflation.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-163

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-17

cont’d

56-19

56-18

56-7	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

56-8	 As stated in response to comment 56-1, above, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP as part of the

WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

56-9	 As indicated in the response to comment 56-1, DOE/NNSA did not intend for specific

waste transportation routes to be decided through the NEPA process. Instead, the

analysis was to evaluate the impacts of differing levels of NNSS operations and, in the

case of waste transportation, typical transportation routes were assumed in the analysis. 

However, as shown in Chapter 4, Figure 4–6, some carriers choose to use California

Route CA-127 as an approach to the NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-164

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-19

cont’d

56-20 

	 Please refer to the response to comment 56-6 regarding the analysis of traffic impacts

along routes analyzed in the SWEIS. No changes to the level of service would

occur to Nevada State Route 160 from implementation of any of the alternatives,

as shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–19. DOE revised Appendix E, Section E.11.3,

in the Final NNSS SWEIS to state that, according to DOE’s Radioactive Material 

Transportation Practices Manual for Use with DOE O 460.2A (DOE M 460.2-1A),

the carrier should consider conditions at the point of origin and along the entire route;

this includes consideration of traffic congestion and roadwork along routes. While

this NNSS SWEIS analyzes specific routes, other routes may be used. Taking into

consideration that using California Route CA-127 instead of Nevada State Route 160

would add travel distance for some shipments, but that the more-urbanized area of

State Route 160 near Interstate 15 would be avoided, it would be expected that the

incident-free and accident dose and risk for the whole route would not significantly

change.

56-10	 Please see the response to comment 56-1 regarding the rationale for analyzing the

routes considered in the Unconstrained Case and for not analyzing impacts on specific

locales along transportation routes. 

Impacts on the resident population within 0.5 miles of the routes analyzed for the

Unconstrained Case are presented in Appendix E, Table E–17, of this NNSS SWEIS. 

As stated in Appendix E, Section E.4, the analysis uses Web-TRAGIS modeling

to calculate the population densities along each route. The TRAGIS results were

escalated to a projected population density representative of 2016 using state-level

population growth rates derived from the difference between the 2000 census and

2010 census. Because the Web-TRAGIS model uses census block population data, the

estimated population densities do not include people that temporarily occupy a location

or newly developed areas. However, the analysis of impacts on an MEI provides a

conservatively high estimate of the risks that could be imposed on anybody as a result

of transportation activities. The attachments included with the comment document

provided estimates of populations, not impacts, along the transportation routes and

cannot be directly compared to those used in this NNSS SWEIS.

56-11	 As stated in the response to comment 56-6, DOE does not plan on establishing or

promoting any transfer station facility; thus, a detailed analysis of the operations at a

transfer station facility is beyond the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA agrees

with the commentor that use of rail would reduce the number of shipments to the

Las Vegas, Nevada, region, but the number of truck shipments occurring from the
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-165

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

transfer station to NNSS would not be reduced. Appendix E, Section E.7, of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS has been revised to make this clarification. 

Note that the analysis of rail shipments in this NNSS SWEIS assumed that all LLW/

MLLW would be transported by rail to the Las Vegas region to provide a comparison

to the use of only trucks. If rail were used more in the future, it would replace truck

transport for a portion of the waste sent to the NNSS, but trucks would also continue

to be used. The analysis in this NNSS SWEIS was predicated on the assumption that,

if future waste shipment were received by rail, existing infrastructure would be used

and no new land acquisition and construction would be required to accommodate

these shipments, either for rail lines or transfer facilities. Without the need for

construction or modification of transportation infrastructure, physical impacts on most

environmental resources (e.g., biological resources, surface water) from transportation

activities would not be distinguishable from baseline conditions. Therefore, the impact

assessment for waste transportation in this SWEIS focuses on potential impacts on

human health, as this provides the clearest means of comparing and contrasting the

alternatives.

	 If a commercial carrier decides to use a transfer station facility, then that carrier must

abide by applicable laws and regulations governing those operations. For shipments

containing Class 7 materials, the shipper is required to consider time of day when

scheduling shipments. 

56-12	 DOE/NNSA does not propose to construct an intermodal facility in the Las Vegas

Valley or in any other location. Under both the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases

analyzed in this SWEIS, waste shippers would make use of existing facilities for

intermodal transfer. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, has been revised to clarify this point. 

While the exact routing of any particular waste shipment cannot be predicted at this

time, DOE/NNSA has included representative routing assumptions in its analyses

based upon past practices and current transportation infrastructure. In Section 5.1.8,

Air Quality, DOE/NNSA has provided estimates of average annual emissions of

criteria pollutants associated with waste transportation (considering both mostly rail

and mostly truck scenarios; see Tables 5–34, 5–39, and 5–42) and has also estimated

peak annual emissions associated with transportation, specifically for travel through

Clark County (see Tables 5–33, 5–37, and 5–41). DOE/NNSA has also estimated

greenhouse gas emissions associated with all its proposed activities under each

alternative, broken into Scope 1/2/3 sources as required by Executive Order 13514 (see

Tables 5–36, 5–40, and 5–44).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-166

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-13	 NNSS does not have any procedural restrictions on the number of shipments that can

be received per day. Based on current operations levels at NNSS, the site can receive

up to about 25 shipments per day. In 2010, about 15 shipments per day were received. 

NNSS constantly coordinates with waste generators and would manage the receipt of

a large number of shipments within the site’s operational capabilities. If the number

of shipments related to the Expanded Operations Alternative were to be received,

adjustments to NNSS waste receipt capabilities would be needed. 

This NNSS SWEIS recognizes that there is some level of risk associated with any

aspect of the transport of radioactive waste, including transfer of waste containers

at a rail-truck transfer site. Activities unique to the rail-truck transfer locations are

the movements of containers to or from railcars to trucks, with the possibility of a

dropped container. Accidents that could occur along other portions of the transport

route include collisions at a range of speeds, some of which would result in forces

greater than those of an accident at the transfer station. These are encompassed in

the range of accident impacts included in the analysis. In addition, the transportation

analysis includes analysis of a severe accident occurring in a high-population area

(see Appendix E, Section E.7.1). Based on accident statistics, the probability of

such a severe accident occurring in an urban area in Nevada is less than 1 chance in

10 million.

	 As stated in Appendix E, Section E.4.2, it was assumed for this analysis that all truck

shipments received would be within the Federal gross vehicle weight limit of 80,000

pounds, which is the weight limit for a standard semi-trailer truck. Further, for rail

transport, it was assumed that each railcar would carry two such standard semi-trailers. 

NNSS periodically receives overweight or oversized shipments that require state

permits. The originating sites must obtain applicable state permits to transport these

types of shipments and coordinate with state and local officials as required by the

permits. 

As discussed in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, specific requirements for Type A packages

are detailed in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I. Commonly used Type A packages include

55-gallon drums and steel boxes. The shippers only use packages that are approved for

the purpose intended. The packages can be transported by either truck or rail mode. 

The NNSS SWEIS analysis considers the total amount of waste shipped in all packages

in a truck or a railcar when evaluating the consequences of an accident. Therefore, the

differences in the accident impact forces in a truck or rail accident are already included

in the consequence analysis. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-167

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

	 For radioactive material shipments that exceed highway route controlled-quantity

limits, the carrier must operate vehicles only over preferred routes and notify affected

states and tribes regarding when these shipments will occur. For such shipments,

DOE uses a satellite tracking and communications system to track shipments during

transport; this system would be used to immediately report an incident. In addition,

for all accidents, DHS is responsible for establishing policies for and coordinating civil

emergency management, planning, and interaction with Federal Executive agencies

that have emergency response functions in the event of a transportation incident.

56-14	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide

a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State

of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko,

Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual

grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to

the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to

undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability assessments;

acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and

communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency services

buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for

emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA

NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country,

including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.

	 DOE/NNSA acquires grant funding every year by charging its national network of

waste generators a 50-cent fee for every cubic foot of waste disposed at the NNSS. 

While it must be recognized that projected budgets are only estimates and actual

funding levels could be much less due to unplanned reductions in the waste volumes

to be disposed, DOE/NNSA provides a minimum of $250,000 (total) for each year

the grant program is in effect. This funding is provided to ensure maintenance of

emergency management programs during temporary reductions in waste volumes. 

For these reasons, DOE/NNSA does not anticipate that changes in appropriations for

DOE/NNSA programs in the near term will have a material impact on the funding

available for the grant program.

56-15	 Comment noted. As noted in the response to comment 56-6, DOE/NNSA does

not plan on establishing or promoting any rail-to-truck transfer facility. Chapter 1,

Section 1.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS was revised to clarify this point.

56-16	 Worst-case scenarios are, by their very nature, extremely unlikely to occur; thus, their

analysis would not be helpful to decisionmakers. The CEQ regulations no longer
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-168

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

require the analysis of worst-case accident scenarios; this requirement was withdrawn

in April 1986 (51 FR 15618).

	 Nonetheless, waste shipments must meet the NNSS WAC which stipulate, among other

requirements, that the waste be free of liquids. The radioactive wastes would not be in

a form that would be readily transported by water through storm drains and dispersed

in Lake Mead. Please refer to the response to comment 56-13 regarding shipment of

Type A packages. Radioactive wastes that have higher radionuclide activity would be

transported in Type B containers, as required by Federal regulations; these containers

meet rigorous requirements to prevent release of contents, as presented in Appendix E,

Section E.3.1.

56-17	 The No Action Alternative, described in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 reflects the use of

existing facilities and ongoing projects to maintain operations consistent with those

experienced in recent years at the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. In this

regard, it provides the baseline against which the Expanded Operations and Reduced

Operations Alternatives may be assessed. The Expanded Operations Alternative,

described in Section 3.2, incorporates DOE/NNSA’s best judgment as to potential

new programs, projects, and activities and estimated levels of operations over the next

10 years. The Reduced Operations Alternative, described in Section 3.3, represents

DOE/NNSA’s estimate of the lowest level of operations that may be expected to

occur over the next 10 years. These three alternatives represent a range of reasonable

alternatives based on the requirements of DOE/NNSA missions at facilities in the state

of Nevada.

	 DOE/NNSA structured each alternative to allow a reader to compare the alternatives

and impacts for specific missions and programs across the alternatives. Although

each alternative includes common elements with the others, each is designed to be

considered independently of each other. For instance, decommissioning of specific

facilities in Mercury are considered under the No Action Alternative; however, in

addition to decommissioning of facilities, reconfiguring Mercury (i.e., constructing

new replacement facilities that are larger, provide greater capabilities, or are located on

previously undisturbed land) is considered under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

DOE/NNSA also structured the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS to provide flexibility

for DOE/NNSA in identifying potential impacts of specific missions and programs

to facilitate the agency’s ability to select a “hybrid” preferred alternative that could

incorporate elements from two or all three of the alternatives. A description of the

Preferred Alternative and the rationale for its selection may be found in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-169

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

56-18	 DOE is not required, nor does it intend, to construct or operate a repository at Yucca

Mountain. Accordingly, in the absence of a DOE proposal to construct and operate

a repository, NEPA review of the former Yucca Mountain Repository Project in this

SWEIS is not required. 

56-19	 DOE/NNSA analyzed all relevant DOE/NNSA proposed actions. The impacts

resulting from the potential siting of a GTCC waste disposal site at the NNSS are

addressed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3, for all relevant resources. Potential cumulative

impacts from transportation of GTCC waste are included in the analysis of cumulative

transportation impacts in Section 6.3.3 (see Table 6–5). Likewise, potential cumulative

impacts from land disturbance (see Table 6–4) associated with development and

operation of a GTCC waste facility at the NNSS are addressed in appropriate

sections of Chapter 6, including geology and soils (Section 6.3.5), biological resources

(Section 6.3.7), and cultural resources (Section 6.3.10). Cumulative impacts related

to waste management resulting from a potential GTCC disposal facility at the NNSS

are addressed in Section 6.3.11. DOE/NNSA notes that impacts on the air and climate

resource area resulting from construction and operation of a GTCC disposal facility

at the NNSS were not addressed in the Draft NNSS SWEIS. Section 6.3.8 has been

revised to include those potentially cumulative impacts.

	 The proposed actions in three of the other four documents listed are related to the

former Yucca Mountain Repository Project and are no longer being proposed by DOE. 

Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2, of this NNSS SWEIS notes that the Administration decided

to cease funding and activities related to the development of a repository at Yucca

Mountain, while developing alternative storage and disposal approaches for SNF and

HLW. Based on this decision by the Administration, DOE withdrew its construction

authorization application for disposal of SNF and HLW. DOE recognizes that a writ

of mandamus has been filed to compel NRC to act on DOE’s license application. 

However, even if NRC were ordered to make a decision on the license application,

DOE is not required, nor does it intend to, construct or operate a repository at Yucca

Mountain. Accordingly, in the absence of a DOE proposal to construct and operate

a repository, NEPA review of the former Yucca Mountain Repository Project is not

required. 

Although the Yucca Mountain Repository Project has been cancelled and there is not

a specific proposal for remediation of the former site, DOE/NNSA recognizes that, at

some point in the future, specific remediation is likely to be proposed. Accordingly, the

cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 6 has been revised to include a programmaticlevel analysis of the potential impacts of such a remediation project, based on the
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-170

Commentor No. 56 (cont’d): Susan Brager, Chair, 

Clark County Commissioners

analyses in the Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and Yucca Mountain SEIS

(DOE/EIS-0250-S1). 

The final document listed by the commentor, the Global Nuclear Energy Program 

(GNEP) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (GNEP Programmatic EIS),

was issued as a draft by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy in October 2008. Impacts on

southern Nevada resulting from the alternatives addressed in that programmatic EIS

would have resulted from transportation of SNF and HLW to the formerly proposed

Yucca Mountain Repository and disposal therein. The GNEP Programmatic EIS was

cancelled in April 2009 before being finalized. Therefore, the Global Nuclear Energy

Program is not a reasonably foreseeable future action.

56-20	 The potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect) of each alternative in

this SWEIS are described in Chapter 5. Under each alternative, the potential impacts

on each environmental resource are addressed at the alternative level, mission level,

and program level. This SWEIS also addresses the potential cumulative effects of all

reasonably foreseeable DOE-proposed actions in Chapter 6. Additional information

related to this comment may be found in the responses to comments 56-17 and 56-19

above.

	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this SWEIS, CEQ regulations for implementing

NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred alternative or

alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had not identified

a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore, none

was identified in that document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described

in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. As required by CEQ regulations

(40 CFR 1506.10), DOE/NNSA will not make a decision on the actions proposed in

this NNSS SWEIS until at least 30 days following publication in the Federal Register of

the EPA notice of filing. CEQ refers to the period of time between the notice of filing

of a final EIS and issuance of a decision by an agency as a “review period.” Comments

received on the Final NNSS SWEIS during the review period will be evaluated and

addressed as appropriate in the ROD.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-171

Commentor No. 57: Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-1

57-2

57-1	 DOE/NNSA has noted the alternatives rating and has provided responses to specific

concerns below.

57-2	 DOE/NNSA looks forward to continuing its relationship with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-172

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-173

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-174

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-3

57-3	 Information in the Draft NNSS SWEIS regarding potential impacts on water resources

is documented at a level commensurate with the level of detail available for future

projects and activities. In some cases, project details, such as specific geographic

locations, infrastructure needs, and construction footprints, have not yet been fully

defined, and some assumptions and options have been applied for purposes of

analysis. In these cases, project-specific NEPA reviews (tiered from this SWEIS) will

be conducted in the future. Project-specific analyses that tier from this SWEIS will

use the latest information available regarding wetlands and other surface waters on

the NNSS, and site-specific surveys will be included in the project planning process. 

DOE/NNSA intends to initiate a more aggressive campaign of investigating and

describing wetlands and other potentially federally jurisdictional “waters of the United

States” in the future; however, this will be a longer-term effort that will not yield

results in a time frame for inclusion in this SWEIS. As new information becomes

available, DOE/NNSA will integrate it into applicable planning and management

documents. As suggested by the commentor, additional available information about

the characteristics of known wetland areas on the NNSS has been added to Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.1, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

All of the mitigation measures suggested by the commentor have been added to

Chapter 7, Section 7.6, of the Final NNSS SWEIS as potential measures that could be

applied to future projects. These measures will be considered in the mitigation action

plan, which will use adaptive management as a primary means for controlling adverse

environmental effects. Ultimately, selection of specific measures for future projects

will be tailored to the final design and location of each project and may be adjusted

during project implementation.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-175

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-3

cont’d

57-4

57-4	 Groundwater quality at the NNSS for both drinking water sources and other nondrinking water sources, in terms of both radiological and chemical constituents, is

described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 of this Final NNSS SWEIS Section 4.1.6.2

describes the measures implemented by the NNSS to maintain the integrity of the

groundwater and associated aquifers. Maintenance of the quality of waters that

are currently clean is managed through the implementation of the Groundwater

Protection Management Plan. The Groundwater Protection Management Plan includes

measures such as ensuring the continued sustainable use of groundwater throughout

the installation, closing, or buffering of wells to prevent groundwater contamination

from testing activities; locating equipment maintenance and fueling areas away

from groundwater wells; and conducting periodic groundwater sampling to identify

adverse impacts on groundwater during current operations. As discussed in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.6.2, there would be no adverse impacts on groundwater quality under any

of the alternatives. Also, as noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7, DOE/NNSA monitors

wetland areas on the NNSS, regardless of their jurisdictional status and conducts preactivity surveys to ensure that sensitive habitats, such as springs, seeps, ponds, and

other wetland features would not be impacted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-176

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-4

cont’d

57-6

57-5

57-5	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.0, of this NNSS SWEIS, although there is no specific

proposal for a commercial solar power generation facility at this time, DOE/NNSA

considered the potential for such a facility under each of the alternatives. The analyses

for a potential solar power generation facility are not meant to support the development

of any particular solar power generation technology, but to provide DOE/NNSA

decisionmakers with information upon which to base a future decision to either support

or not support a commercial solar power generation facility at the NNSS. This is a

continuation of the decision that was made in the 1996 NTS EIS ROD, which stated, in

part, “...DOE will continue to support the Solar Enterprise Zone concept for Southern

Nevada which includes locating up to 1000 megawatts of solar power generation

among the evaluated sites.”

Although the commentor is correct that there is a trend toward photovoltaic solar

power generation facilities in lieu of other solar power generation technologies, the

use of parabolic trough CSP technology in the analyses was based on the fact that

such technology does have greater impact on certain resources, particularly water use,

than photovoltaic systems and would, therefore, produce more conservative impact

estimates. Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3.2, and Appendix A, Section A.1.3.2, have been

revised to clearly state the rationale for using CSP technology in the analyses and the

relatively lower impacts on some resources of photovoltaic technology.

57-6	 Chapter 9, Section 9.1.1, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to include

a description of the process DOE/NNSA uses in evaluating proposed actions and

determining an appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation. In addition,

notations in the text in Chapter 3, Table 3–1, and the Summary, Table S–1, are

annotated (by footnote “a” with explanation at the bottom each table) to show proposed

activities that were evaluated at a more programmatic level and for which additional,

project-specific NEPA review would be required. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-177

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-6

cont’d

57-7

cont’d

57-7

57-8

57-7	 DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with DOE’s

requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within this

mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

57-8	 Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, of this NNSS SWEIS acknowledges the protection afforded

migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and of bald and golden eagles

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Sections 5.1.7.3, 5.1.7.2.3,

and 5.1.7.3.3 describe potential impacts on sensitive and protected species, including

migratory birds. DOE/NNSA maintains a staff of qualified plant and animal ecologists

who conduct pre-activity and other surveys related to biological resources on the

NNSS, monitor various species that live on the NNSS, and maintain a constant

surveillance of the NNSS biota. Because golden eagle nesting is rare on the NNSS

(only two nests have been documented since 1968), NNSS ecologists take special note

of them when they do occur. As stated in the above noted sections, if an active nest

of a sensitive or otherwise protected or regulated bird species may be impacted by a

proposed activity, DOE/NNSA would first seek to avoid the impact by postponing the

activity until after the young birds fledge. If avoidance is not possible, DOE/NNSA

would consult with the USFWS before taking any action that would affect the nest or

nesting birds. DOE/NNSA will consult with the USFWS to determine if, given the

very low incidence of eagle nesting at the NNSS if development of an eagle protection

plan is necessary and if so, develop such a plan. A description of DOE/NNSA’s

procedures for avoiding/mitigating impacts on nesting birds has been added in

Chapter 7, Section 7.7, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-178

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-8

cont’d

57-8

cont’d

57-10

cont’d

57-9

57-10

57-9	 Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, and Chapter 7, Section 7.7, of this Final NNSS SWEIS have

been revised to include information regarding DOE/NNSA’s practices to control

the introduction and spread of noxious weeds at the NNSS and how it meets the

requirements of Executive Order 13112. DOE/NNSA believes that its noxious weed

control procedures are effective in controlling the introduction and spread of many

species of noxious weeds and will evaluate the need for a more formal plan to direct its

efforts in this regard.

57-10	 This NNSS SWEIS assesses the range of ongoing, proposed, and potential projects

and activities that may be developed or undertaken over the next 10 years. It is

unlikely over the course of the next 10 years that climate change effects would have

any measurable adverse impacts on activities at the NNSS. In the longer term,

some climate change effects could affect some activities at the NNSS, particularly

experiments involving releases of large quantities of chemicals as part of the

Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex where wind direction and speed

can affect the ability to conduct the releases (see Section A.1.1.3, fifth bullet under

“Nonproliferation projects and counterproliferation research and development”). 

However, it is generally too speculative to predict which activities might be

occurring at the NNSS over longer periods of time (e.g., 100 years or longer). 

One notable exception is the long-term performance of waste disposal facilities. 

DOE/NNSA considered the potential effects of climate change, including changing

patterns of precipitation, on long-term disposal system performance in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.12.1.4, Waste Disposal Facilities Performance Assessments, of this SWEIS.

The impact on climate change from DOE/NNSA activities at its facilities in Nevada are

addressed in Sections 5.1.8, 5.2.8, 5.3.8, and 5.4.8 of this SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-179

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-10

cont’d

57-10

cont’d

57-11 57-11	 All of these recommended measures have been added to Chapter 7, Section 7.8, of

this Final NNSS SWEIS as potential measures applicable to future projects and will be

incorporated into a mitigation action plan. Many of the measures or recommendations

are already incorporated into a standard dust management plan used at the NNSS and

are also typical of permit requirements enforced by the State of Nevada for projects

involving surface disturbance of 5 acres or more. Ultimately, the application of

specific measures to each future project will be influenced by the final design and

siting of the project and may be adjusted during project implementation to achieve the

desired controls.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-180

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

57-11

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-181

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-182

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 57 (cont’d): Kathleen Martyn Goforth, Manager, 

Environmental Review Office, Communities and Ecosystems Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-183

Commentor No. 58: Robert A. Murnane, Director of Public Works, 

City of Henderson, Nevada

58-1

58-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained

Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan

Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater

metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing

regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to

the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-184

Commentor No. 58 (cont’d): Robert A. Murnane, Director of 

Public Works, City of Henderson, Nevada

58-1

cont’d

58-2

58-3

58-4

58-2	 DOE/NNSA conducted a detailed analysis of the potential human health effects

associated with transportation of radioactive wastes and materials under both normal

operations and accident scenarios. These analyses are presented in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS. However, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to

quantify any adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with waste transportation

under normal operations or accident scenarios. In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS

(DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated

the perceived risk and stigma associated with the transportation of SNF and HLW. 

In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is no valid method to translate public

perceptions regarding waste transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. DOE

has not been presented with any new information since the 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS

that changes this conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under some

scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence, DOE/

NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or

stigma in this SWEIS.

	 Traffic impacts associated with NNSS activities, including the shipment of LLW/

MLLW, are addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.2, and its subsections. Traffic

impacts are evaluated in terms of changes to the level of service of specific roads in the

Las Vegas, Nevada, area. The level of service reflects the level of traffic congestion

and qualifies the operating conditions of a roadway or intersection. Chapter 5,

Tables 5–19 and 5–20, show the level of service of different locations in Nye and Clark

Counties, respectively, under each of the alternatives. 

Air quality impacts, which include impacts from truck and rail transport, are

provided in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.8. Air quality impacts are assessed in and near

NNSS, including Nye and Clark Counties. Chapter 5, Tables 5–34, 5–38, and 5–42,

show the air quality impacts specific to the transport of LLW/MLLW under each of

the alternatives. These impacts are spread over the whole route. DOE/NNSA did

not specifically address air quality impacts in the Las Vegas area from transporting

LLW/MLLW. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, there would be about

26 daily shipments of LLW/MLLW to NNSS (or 5,400 shipments per year), which

is small compared to the total traffic volume in the Las Vegas area and, therefore

would make a minimal contribution to air quality impacts from Las Vegas area traffic. 

This approach is consistent with CEQ’s guidance that EISs “focus on significant

environmental issues and alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.1) and discuss impacts “in

proportion to their significance” (40 CFR 1502.2(b)). 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-185

Commentor No. 58 (cont’d): Robert A. Murnane, Director of 

Public Works, City of Henderson, Nevada

58-5

58-6

	 Noise pollution is addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.12.1.1 through 5.1.12.1.3. For

the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, the number of daily truck trips is

not expected to increase baseline noise levels substantially along the primary highways

leading to the NNSS because the truck transports would be distributed throughout the

day. For the Expanded Operations Alternative, the increase in daily truck trips would

moderately increase baseline noise levels along the primary highways leading to the

NNSS. 

The transportation analysis in this NNSS SWEIS was prepared to support the evaluation

of potential impacts of varying levels of operation at DOE/NNSA sites in Nevada. 

As part of that analysis, the potential human health impacts of truck transport versus

rail transport were evaluated. The analysis included a number of locations in the

vicinity of Las Vegas, but was not done for the purpose of developing or selecting a

specific rail-to-truck transfer location, and site-specific evaluations were judged to be

unnecessary.

58-3	 As noted in the response to comment 58-1 above, in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the

Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments

of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to

avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case

that considered routes within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered

are within the bounds of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect

major changes and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have

occurred over the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to

understand the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing

options (which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since the

1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate those

differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of transportation

routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding

specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. Accordingly, no changes

will be made to existing DOE/NNSA transportation routes through this NEPA process.

	 DOE/NNSA did not, nor is it required to, frame its environmental analyses of

potential impacts to include a cost-benefit analysis as suggested by the commentor. 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.23) state: “For purposes of complying with the Act

[NEPA], the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need

not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there

are important qualitative considerations.” Instead, in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-186

Commentor No. 58 (cont’d): Robert A. Murnane, Director of 

Public Works, City of Henderson, Nevada

DOE/NNSA provided its estimation of potential health impacts on workers and the

public from shipping LLW/MLLW to the NNSS.

	 Any changes to existing routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS

WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to

the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO

(State of Nevada 2011). While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no

meaningful differences in potential environmental effects between the Constrained and

Unconstrained Cases, the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that

DOE/NNSA retain highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW

through greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada (Constrained Case). In consideration

of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with

NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would

retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there

would be no need to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

58-4	 Appendix E, Section E.6.6, discusses acts of sabotage or terrorism as part of the

transportation analysis. To complement the transportation analysis, results from the

report, Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive Waste to 

the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999b), were added to Appendix E, Section E.7.1. In

that report, accident consequences associated with a large fire near LLW shipping

containers at a transfer station were calculated. That analysis estimated the

consequences to a population of about 195,000 people within 50 miles of the release

point to be no (up to 1.7 × 10-4) fatalities. In addition, Chapter 5, Table 5–13, shows

the consequences of a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident that involves a severe

collision followed by a long-lasting fire of a truck or railcar carrying LLW or MLLW in

a 20-foot International Organization for Standardization container. The consequences

from these accidents involving releases and large fires would be consistent with the

impacts associated with an intentional destructive act. In both cases, a large portion

of the radioactive material is made available for release, the fire would cause wide

distribution of a portion of the material, and a large population was assumed to be

exposed.

58-5	 In consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after

consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined

that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. As

acknowledged in comments by the State of Nevada, the existing routing arrangement

has worked to the mutual benefit of DOE/NNSA and the State of Nevada. As such,

shipment of radioactive wastes will continue to avoid the Henderson area, negating
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-187

Commentor No. 58 (cont’d): Robert A. Murnane, Director of 

Public Works, City of Henderson, Nevada

the concerns regarding the ability of the Henderson Fire Department to respond to an

accident. It should be noted that additional information has been added to Appendix E,

Section E.3.3, regarding general emergency response procedures and how first

responders would address an accident involving radioactive materials or waste. 

58-6	 As discussed above in response to comment 58-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

	 DOE/NNSA had analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with

the transportation of additional quantities of LLW/MLLW (relative to the No

Action Alternative) under the Expanded Operations Alternative. The health

impacts reported in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, as well as the traffic-related

impacts in Section 5.1.3.2, were based on the existing routing commitments

(i.e., the Constrained Case). DOE/NNSA concluded that the transportation of

additional quantities of LLW/MLLW, coupled with associated vehicle traffic (e.g.,

worker commutes) , under the Expanded Operations Alternative would provide a

moderately high contribution when compared to projected traffic volumes in Clark

and Nye Counties. Additional details may be found in Section 5.1.3.2.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-188

Commentor No. 59: Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation, 

Clark County Department of Aviation

59-1

59-2

59-1	 DOE/NNSA does not believe it necessary to consider risks associated with accidents

involving radioactive materials at various types of installations (such as an airport)

that may be located along a route. Consistent with transportation analyses performed

for other NEPA documents, DOE/NNSA evaluates accident impacts on human

health for a route as a whole, conservatively estimating these impacts such that the

impacts would not be exceeded regardless of where the accident occurs on the route. 

Evaluation of specific facilities unrelated to the alternatives being analyzed would not

provide additional data that could be used to differentiate alternatives from each other.

	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS‐0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made

through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in

coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of

Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need

to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

	 The extent of contamination and related impacts of an accident at a particular location

would depend on many factors, including the quantity and type of radioactive
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-189

Commentor No. 59 (cont’d): Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation, 

Clark County Department of Aviation

59-2

cont’d

material involved; type of release (spill, fire); location of the accident; meteorological

conditions; and surrounding land uses. Because of the myriad of factors associated

with a specific accident, full quantitative, accident analyses for specific locations along

transportation routes were not performed for this NNSS SWEIS. Instead, typical of

many DOE/NNSA NEPA documents, human health impacts of a severe accident in an

urban area along the route are evaluated. The results of this analysis are presented in

Chapter 5, Table 5–13.

59-2	 DOE/NNSA did not address cumulative impacts from this proposed Southern Nevada

Supplemental Airport in Chapter 6 of the Draft NNSS SWEIS because it would be

located well outside of the region of influence (ROI) (i.e., the area up to 50 miles

outside of the borders of the NNSS and TTR and 10 miles outside of the borders of the

Remote Sensing Laboratory and North Las Vegas Facility). Although there could be a

cumulative impact resulting from traffic traveling to and from the proposed airport and

shipments to and from the NNSS, no data for potential traffic volumes are available

for the proposed airport; thus a meaningful analysis would not be possible. This Final 

NNSS SWEIS includes an acknowledgement of the proposed airport and explains why

it was not included in the cumulative impacts analysis (see Section 6.2.10). 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-190

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 59 (cont’d): Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation, 

Clark County Department of Aviation
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-191

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Pacific Southwest Region 

333 Bush St., Suite 515 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

IN REPLY REFER TO:

ER# 11/651

Filed Electronically 

2 December 2011 

Linda Cohn 

SWEIS Document Manager 

NNSS Nevada Site Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 98518 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518 

Subject: Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

 Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Continued Operation of the 

 Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Test Site 

 and Off-Site Locations in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada 

Dear Ms. Cohn: 

The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has the 

following comments to offer. 

COMMENTS 

Section 4.1.6.1, Surface Water 

Pg. 4-65: The document discusses ephemeral flow along Fortymile Wash for the period 2002 to 

2004, which was a period of minimal surface-water flows. During the 1990's there were several 

significant flow events in Fortymile Wash, the largest occurring in 1995 (85 cubic feet per 

second) when Highway 95 south of the NNSS was closed due to flow in the wash. Although 

surface-water flow at the NNSS is normally insignificant, we suggest the Final EIS include a 

discussion of the periodic occurrence of significant surface-water flows, and a discussion of 

potential environmental impacts associated with site activities.1

 

 

1

 Estimated Ground-Water Recharge from Streamflow in Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain, Nevada; 1998; 

USGS WRI-97-4273; Savard, C. S. 

Commentor No. 60: Patricia Sanderson Port, 

Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior

60-1

60-1

cont’d

60-1	 DOE/NNSA agrees with the commentor, and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS has been revised to include additional information on historic flows

in Fortymile Wash from the suggested source document. The potential impacts on

surface waters from the proposed action and alternatives, as described in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.6.1, are unaffected, however, by the additional information on historical

flows.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-192

Commentor No. 60 (cont’d): Patricia Sanderson Port, 

Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior

- 2 -

Section 4.1.7.1, Flora

Pg. 4-97: We suggest the Final EIS include additional information on vegetation and vegetation 

trends at the Nevada Test Site.2

Section 4.1.7.2, Fauna 

Pg. 4-102: We suggest that the Final EIS include additional information on mammals.3

Section 4.1.7.5, Effects of Past Radiological Tests and Project Activities 

Pg. 4-109: The document states that “while plants and animals that inhabit radiological sites or 

radioactive waste containment covers may have elevated concentrations of radionuclides in their 

bodies, the concentrations are below levels considered harmful to the health of the plants or 

animals.” While this statement is correct, we suggest that the Final EIS reference the abstract of 

Theodorakis (2001) that describes chromosomal damage associated with radionuclide 

contamination at the Nevada Test Site.4

Abstract

We examined effects of radionuclide exposure at two atomic blast sites on kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys merriami) at the Nevada Test Site, Nevada, USA, using genotoxicity and population 

genetic analyses. We assessed chromosome damage by micronucleus and flow cytometric 

assays and genetic variation by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analyses. The RAPD analysis showed no population structure, 

but mtDNA exhibited differentiation among and within populations. Genotoxicity effects were 

not observed when all individuals were analyzed. 

However, individuals with mtDNA haplotypes unique to the contaminated sites had greater 

chromosomal damage than contaminated-site individuals with haplotypes shared with reference 

sites. When interpopulation comparisons used individuals with unique haplotypes, one 

contaminated site had greater levels of chromosome damage than one or both of the reference 

sites. We hypothesize that shared-haplotype individuals are potential migrants and that uniquehaplotype individuals are potential long-term residents. A parsimony approach was used to 

estimate the minimum number of migration events necessary to explain the haplotype 

distributions on a phylogenetic tree. 

The observed predominance of migration events into the contaminated sites supported our 

migration hypothesis. We conclude the atomic blast sites are ecological sinks and that 

immigration masks the genotoxic effects of radiation on the resident populations. 

 

2 Perennial vegetation data from permanent plots on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada; 2003; USGS OFR; 

2003-336; Webb, Robert H.; Murov, Marilyn B.; Esque, Todd C.; 

Boyer, Diane E.; DeFalco, Lesley A.; Haines, Dustin F.; Oldershaw, Dominic; Scoles, Sara J.; Thomas, Kathryn A.; 

Blainey, Joan B.; Medica, Philip A. 

3

 Noteworthy mammal distribution records for the Nevada Test Site; 1990; Article; Journal; Great Basin Naturalist; 

Medica, P. A. 

4

 Integration of genotoxicicity and population genetic analyses in kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) exposed to 

radionuclide contamination at the Nevada Test Site, USA; 2001; Article; Journal; Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry; Theodorakis, C. W.; Bickham, J. W.; Lamb, T.; Medica, P. A.; Lyne, T. B. 

60-2

60-3

60-2

cont’d

60-3

cont’d

60-4

cont’d

60-4

60-2	 Additional information has been added to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.1, regarding

vegetation and vegetation trends at the NNSS.

60-3	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.2, of this NNSS SWEIS presents general descriptions of

the mammals that may be found in various parts of the NNSS. More-detailed lists

of species are included in Appendix F. DOE/NNSA believes the level of detail in

Section 4.1.7.2 is sufficient for the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. The suggested 1990

reference was cited in Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography

(Wills and Ostler 2001), and the species noted in that paper are either mentioned

specifically in Section 4.1.7.2 or included in Appendix F, Table F–5, Vertebrate Animal

Species (Phylum Chordata) of the Nevada National Security Site, and Table F–1,

Sensitive and Protected/Regulated Species Known to Occur on or Adjacent to the

Nevada National Security Site.

60-4	 Reference to the suggested report has been added in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.5.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-193

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 60 (cont’d): Patricia Sanderson Port, 

Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior

- 3 -

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Gary LeCain, USGS 

Coordinator for Environmental Document Reviews, at (303) 236-5050 (x229) or at 

gdlecain@usgs.gov

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. 

Sincerely, 

Patricia Sanderson Port 

Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: 

OEPC Staff Contact: Lisa Chetnik Treichel (202) 208- 7116; Lisa_Treichel@ios.doi.gov 

USGS Senior Advisor for Science Application James F. Devine (703) 648-4423; jdevine@usgs.gov 

OEPC HQ Contact Virginia Reddick; 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-194



Communities Against a Radioactive Environment

2582 Old First Street, Livermore, CA 94551 • (925) 443-7148 • www.trivalleycares.org

 

December 2, 2011 

Ms. Linda Cohn 

NNSS SWEIS Document Manager 

NNSA Nevada Site Office 

PO Box 98518 

Las Vegas NV 89193-8518 

By e-mail to nepa@nv.doe.gov

Re: Draft NNSS SWEIS Comment from Tri-Valley CAREs 

Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) submits these 

comments on the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for the Continued 

Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada 

National Security Site (NNSS) and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada. 

Tri-Valley CAREs is a non-profit organization located in Livermore, California. We have 

undertaken this analysis on behalf of our more than 5,000 members, including those who reside 

in Nevada near the Nevada Test Site (NTS), as we still call it. Tri-Valley CAREs has monitored 

activities in the Dept. of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex, including the NTS for twentynine years. Since its inception, Tri-Valley CAREs has participated in numerous National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) administrative review processes involving the nuclear 

weapons complex, including the scoping process for this draft SWEIS. The organization has also 

participated in federal litigation to uphold NEPA at NTS and other sites in the DOE National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) complex. 

In addition, numerous Tri-Valley CAREs staff, board and members have toured NTS. 

Dozens have camped and demonstrated nearby in connection with the organization’s 

longstanding support of the rights of the Western Shoshone Nation, the Treaty of Ruby Valley, 

the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and other relevant nuclear 

disarmament initiatives. In general, Tri-Valley CAREs supports the positions taken by the 

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations included throughout the SWEIS document. 

As explained herein, the Draft SWEIS 1) fails to utilize a coherent, complete or legally 

adequate structure to allow stakeholders to accurately analyze the true environmental impacts of 

the alternatives, and, 2) fails to provide an accurate, complete or legally adequate substantive 

analysis of environmental impacts as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

Peace Justice Environment 

since 1983

Commentor No. 61: Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

61-1

61-2

61-1	 DOE/NNSA abides by applicable laws and treaties as they pertain to operations at

NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

Although not directly germane to the scope of this SWEIS, many of the projects and

activities described in Chapter 3 support U.S. efforts to address the provisions of the

Non-Proliferation Treaty.

	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.

61-2	 As defined in DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), “sitewide NEPA document means a broad-scope EIS or EA that is programmatic in

nature and identifies and assesses the individual and cumulative impacts of ongoing

and reasonably foreseeable future actions at a DOE site.” DOE/NNSA considered

numerous ways to organize and present the large amount of information contained in

this NNSS SWEIS. Among the methods of presenting the information, DOE/NNSA felt

that the method selected would be most easily followed. This NNSS SWEIS follows

CEQ regulations and incorporates the recommended format at 40 CFR 1502.10-18;

Table 3–1 in Chapter 3 and Table S–1 in the Summary, were developed to help the

reader to compare proposed activities across the three alternatives; Tables 3–4, 3–5,

3–6, and 3–7 were designed to allow the reader to compare, in a summary fashion,

the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts of continuing operations at

each of the four DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada and are arranged so that impacts on

each resource at each site can be compared across the three alternatives. Chapter 6,

Table 6–15, provides a summary of the cumulative impacts of each of the alternatives

by resource area. DOE/NNSA believes the analysis in this NNSS SWEIS is accurate

and complete and provides a legally adequate substantive analysis of environmental

impacts as required by the CEQ regulations.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-195

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

2

I. The Draft SWEIS Fails to Utilize a Coherent, Complete or Legally Adequate 

Structure to Allow Stakeholders to Accurately Analyze the True Environmental 

Impacts of the Alternatives as is Required by NEPA. 

The Draft SWEIS fails to indentify a preferred alternative, improperly excludes a true 

“No Action Alternative,” fails to analyze reasonable alternatives proposed during scoping and 

adopts a disjointed and confusing structure, making it extremely difficult for stakeholders to 

analyze the actual significance of the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives that are 

included. 

A. Failure to Identify a Preferred Alternative Violates NEPA 

DOE/NNSA fails to identify a preferred alternative in the Draft SWEIS. Thus, 

commentors and stakeholders have no clear sense of the DOE’s priorities. Because no preferred 

alternative was identified in the 1996 SWEIS either, and in that instance the agency chose the 

Expanded Operations Alternative in every program category, commentors and stakeholders are 

left to assume that the Expanded Operations Alternative in this SWEIS is most likely to be 

implemented, albeit without the proper NEPA mechanism for agency accountability – the actual 

naming of a preferred alternative. 

B. Failure to Include a True ‘No Action Alternative’ Violates NEPA 

NEPA requires Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to include detailed analyses of 

reasonable alternatives to the “preferred or proposed action,” and that one alternative be a “no action” 

alternative (10 CFR Part 1502.14). The SWEIS has an unusual way of identifying the alternatives, 

where continued activities “as is” at the various Nevada NNSA sites is presented as the “no action” 

alternative. The “project” already exists, but the “no action” alternative is typically associated with any 

impacts in the absence of the project. The SWEIS does not analyze the equivalent of the “no action” 

alternative, unlike in the 1996 EIS, and even in the original 1977 EIS for the NTS. In this way the 

SWEIS is deficient and Tri-Valley CAREs contends the SWEIS is illegal at this point by not containing 

the equivalent of the “no action” alternative. 

DOE/NNSA concluded without explanation that “NNSA will not consider shutting down the 

NNSS because it does not meet the agency’s purpose and need,” (SWEIS, pp 1-12 – 1-13). However, 

an EIS is intended to establish how the project affects the environment and to analyze whether there 

exist alternatives that will entail less of an impact. Furthermore, the EIS should provide a basis of 

judgment as to whether the impacts from the project are unacceptably high, and if so, require an 

alternative action, specific mitigation procedures, or that there be no action at all. The NEPA process is 

not intended to cater to the agency’s “purpose and need” but rather “... to help public officials make 

decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment,” (10 CFR Part 1500.1). The “absence of the project” alternative, 

which in the most conservative sense would be as stated in the 1996 EIS, 

“Alternative 2 – Discontinue Operations – All current and planned program activities and NTS 

operations would be discontinued under this alternative. Only environmental monitoring and 

site-security functions necessary for human health, safety, and security would be maintained.”1

The 1996 EIS also even considered a second alternative that had limited action, 

 

1

61-3

61-3	 A. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had not

identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore,

none was identified in that document. However, DOE/NNSA did acknowledge in

Chapter 1, Section 1.4, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS that the preferred alternative could

be one of the three alternatives in its entirety or a hybrid based on portions of all three

alternatives. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS. 

B. NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq), does not include a requirement

for inclusion of a no action alternative. CEQ “Regulations for Implementing

the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act”

(40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508) do require consideration of a no action alternative in an

environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1502.14), as noted by the commentor. In

guidance subsequent to publication of 40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508, CEQ recognizes two

distinct interpretations of no action: (1) situations, such as the ongoing operation of the

NNSS, where an agency activity is already being conducted and (2) situations where

an agency is proposing a project that may or may not be initiated (51 FR 15618). In

the case of the first interpretation of no action, CEQ indicated that: “...’[N]o action’

is ’no change’from current management direction or level of management intensity. 

To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless

academic exercise. Therefore, the ’no action’ alternative may be thought of in

terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed.”

For this reason, the definition of “no action” in this NNSS SWEIS is compliant with

all applicable regulations and guidance. Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1, provides a brief

discussion of the reasons a “discontinue operations” alternative was not considered in

this NNSS SWEIS.

	 C. The commentor’s suggested “curatorship” alternative is discussed in Chapter 3,

Section 3.5.2, Transfer Nevada National Security Site to Another Agency, in the

Draft and in Section 3.6.2 of this Final NNSS SWEIS as an alternative considered,

but eliminated from further consideration. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations

(40 CFR 1502.14(a)), Section 3.6.2 provides a brief discussion of the reasons for

eliminating the suggested alternative from further consideration. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-196

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

3

“Alternative 4 – Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands – All defense-related activities and 

most Work for others program activities would be discontinued at the NTS. Certain 

programs and activities that are not currently included in NTS mission responsibilities are 

also evaluated. This alternative could include other activities, such as the relinquishment 

of portions of the NTS, that would be dependent upon future land-use designations and 

withdrawal status.”2 

The cursory statement in the SWEIS in section 1.5 does not sufficiently discuss why such 

alternatives were eliminated from consideration as required by law, “... for alternatives which were 

eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated,” (10 CFR 

Part 1502.14). 

Thus, because a real No Action Alternative was not examined, the Draft SWEIS is inadequate. 

C. Failure to Include Analyses of Reasonable Alternatives Proposed During 

Scoping Violates NEPA

Tri-Valley CAREs submitted detailed comments on the Scope of the Proposed 

Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Dept. of Energy National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Location in the State of Nevada 

Pursuant to The National Environmental Policy Act on October 16, 2009. (Attached for 

reference) These comments included a detailed recommendation of a reasonable pathway (and 

offer underlying detailed analysis) through which the NTS could transition out of the NNSA 

nuclear weapons complex. We offered the key parameters that must be considered under what 

we termed the “curatorship” alternative and, because it is a reasonable alternative, demanded that 

an alternative consistent with curatorship be included in the Draft SWEIS. Yet, rather than 

analyze this alternative as required, the SWEIS simply mentions the concept of our comment on 

page 1-20, in conjunction with other comments on alternatives, and then responds as followsResponse: This SWEIS tiers from NNSA and DOE programmatic EISs that have 

facilitated decision making regarding the assignment of missions to the NNSS, 

such as supporting stockpile stewardship, maintaining nuclear testing capability, 

and disposing LLW and MLLW. These NEPA documents and related decisions 

are described in Section 1.5 of this SWEIS. This NNSS SWEIS would not provide 

the basis for a DOE programmatic decision, but would provide the basis for site 

specific implementation of programmatic decisions that have already been made 

in existing programmatic EISs and other NEPA documents. DOE NEPA 

regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(c)) require that large, multiple-facility DOE sites, 

such as the NNSS, prepare SWEISs. This NNSS SWEIS addresses the full range 

of missions, programs, capabilities, projects, and activities under the purview of 

NNSA in Nevada. In response to public comments, conservation and renewable 

energy projects are addressed under each of the SWEIS alternatives (No Action, 

Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations), and the Renewable Energy 

Operations Alternative was eliminated from consideration as a separate 

alternative. See Chapter 3, Section 3.5, of this SWEIS for further discussion of 

these issues. 

The brief statement in the SWEIS quoted above does not sufficiently discuss why our proposed 

alternative was eliminated from consideration as required by law, “... for alternatives which were 

eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated,” (10 CFR 

Part 1502.14). The discussion of alternatives is the legally required heart of any EIS. 40 CFR § 1502.14. 

61-3

(cont’d)
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-197

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

4

The legally adequate EIS must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, 

and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their 

having been eliminated.” 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). “The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative 

renders an environmental impact statement inadequate...” Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. 

FHA, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9097, 16-17 (9th Cir. 2011) “Informed and meaningful consideration of 

alternatives — including the no action alternative — is thus an integral part of the statutory scheme." Id. 

However, this vague summary response with its limited conclusions does not meet the “hard look” 

required by NEPA and is not a sufficient basis for disposing of this suggested, reasonable alternative. 

To reiterate, the curatorship alternative is reasonable because: 

1) It is in line with the short term purpose and need of NNSS while taking into account the 

reality of the financial crisis facing the nation that requires cuts to spending across all 

programs; 

2) Unlike any of the proposed alternatives in the Draft SWEIS, the curatorship approach as 

recommended would actualize President Barack Obama’s speech in Prague, Czech Republic 

on April 5, 2009, in which he declared “America’s commitment to seek the peace and 

security of a world without nuclear weapons;” 

3) The phase out of nuclear weapons has begun with the 2010 ratification of the New START. 

Unlike any of the proposed alternatives in the draft SWEIS, the curatorship approach as 

recommended reasonably implements the foreseeable post New START wind down of the 

nuclear weapons complex; 

4) It is consistent with the United States’ signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 

(CTBT) and the present priority given to its ratification by the Obama Administration; 

5) It conforms to President Obama’s current initiatives to strengthen U.S. and international 

commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970. 

A curatorship alternative was entirely reasonable and an alternative consistent with 

curatorship must be included in a revised Draft SWEIS. Thus, because this alternative, and other 

viable alternatives (including a real No Action Alternative) were not examined, the Draft SWEIS 

is inadequate. 

D. Failure to Adopt a Coherent Structure for the Draft SWEIS Violates NEPA 

Staff at Tri-Valley CAREs found the document structure extremely disjointed and difficult to 

approach in any consistent way. Data on specific issues, such as historic contamination, or specific 

program impacts, had to be chased down throughout all the volumes and beyond, to additional cited 

documents that were frequently difficult to locate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Mothers 

for Peace v. NRC that “The application of NEPA’s requirements...is to be considered in light of the two 

purposes of the statute: first, ensuring that the agency will have and will consider detailed information 

concerning significant environmental impacts; and, second, ensuring that the public can both contribute 

to that body of information [via meaningful comments] and can access the information that is made 

public.” 449 F.3d at 1034. 

Together with the limited comment period, an unprogrammatic approach to data 

presentation and limited access to cited documents, the public’s understanding and analysis of 

the Draft SWEIS was hampered in violation of NEPA. 

61-3

cont’d

61-4 61-4	 As explained in the response to comment 61-2, DOE/NNSA selected the SWEIS

format it felt would be the easiest to follow, and complied with the CEQ regulations

at 40 CFR 1502.10-18. As described in DOE/NNSA’s Notice of Availability for this

NNSS SWEIS (76 FR 204), copies of SWEIS references were made available in DOE

reading rooms and public libraries in 18 cities in Nevada, as well as one each in Utah

and Arizona, and were also available via the Internet at the NNSS NEPA website

(www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical.aspx). In response to numerous

requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA extended the public

comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-198

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

5

II. Failure of the Draft SWEIS to provide an accurate, complete or legally adequate 

substantive analysis of environmental impacts as is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

A. The Draft SWEIS should be supplemented to provide necessary information 

that is missing 

Significant information that is essential for public stakeholders to make meaningful 

analysis of the environmental impacts of the various proposed alternatives is missing from the 

Draft SWEIS. This includes: 

• The SWEIS does not give current levels of NTS contamination from past 

activities or map its distribution, in order to evaluate what “more” or “less” 

activity as defined in the SWEIS would really mean. 

• The SWEIS does not provide NTS budget figures to understand resource 

allocation, program impacts and priorities, both within the Test Site mission, and 

relative to our national budget as a whole. 

• The SWEIS does not provide information on plans to address range fires and flash 

flooding to prevent off-site contamination.

B. The Expanded Operations Alternative that proposes new projects that will 

create more waste, and also increases the current waste production from ongoing projects is unacceptable. 

NTS should not be seen as an unlimited radioactive and toxic waste dumping area. The 

proposed increases of 15 million cubic feet of projected Low-Level Waste and 900,000 cubic 

feet of Mixed Low-Level Waste in the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in 

unreasonable impacts on community health near NTS as well as risks from transportation of that 

waste on the small rural roads leading to the NTS. 

C. Failure to include an unclassified ‘Intentional Destructive Acts’ Section Violates 

NEPA 

 According to Appendix G.5 Intentional Destructive Acts, “NNSA has prepared a separate, 

classified analysis of the potential impacts of intentional destructive acts.” This violates the holding of 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mothers for Peace v. NRC, “The application of NEPA’s 

requirements...is to be considered in light of the two purposes of the statute: first, ensuring that the 

agency will have and will consider detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts; 

and, second, ensuring that the public can both contribute to that body of information [via meaningful 

comments] and can access the information that is made public.” 449 F.3d at 1034 

By failing to produce an unclassified description of the potential impacts of intentional 

destructive acts, public stakeholders were unable to make any recommendations, analyses or assessment 

of the potential environmental impacts of an intentional act at NTS. Thus, the SWEIS failed to ensure 

that the public has access to information adequate enough to contribute, via meaningful comment in 

violation of NEPA 

Finally, due to the inadequacies detailed above, and those detailed by other commentors, 

specifically those provided by Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations and Healing 

Ourselves and Mother Earth, Tri-Valley CAREs urges the NNSA to revise the Draft SWEIS and 

61-5

61-6

61-7

61-5	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to

describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21

have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated

groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium

detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS,

respectively.

	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the additional information

from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater.

	 The budget for DOE/NNSA activities at facilities in the state of Nevada is based on

funds appropriated by, and reflecting the priorities of, Congress. The level of funding

provided to DOE/NNSA varies from year to year based on national security needs

and other factors. In addition, the budgets of various mission and program areas are

independent of each other; for instance, funds budgeted for Environmental Restoration

Program activities may not be diverted to support the Stockpile Stewardship and

Management Program. Further, DOE/NNSA does not believe that the inclusion of

budget information in this NNSS SWEIS would cast any illumination on the potential

environmental impacts of the proposed actions addressed under the three alternatives.

	 Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address

the potential impacts from wildland fires. During some wildland fires that occur on

the NNSS, DOE/NNSA deploys high-volume air samplers to supplement data from

the routine sampling network. These supplemental samplers were deployed during

fires in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2011. None of these sampling activities has indicated

substantially elevated levels of manmade radionuclides as a result of the fires. For

example, results of sampling during a 2002 fire indicated the presence of cesium-137,

plutonium-239 and -240, and americium-241, but in concentrations that were less

than 4 percent of the concentration that would result in a dose of 10 millirem per year

(DOE/NV 2003). In 2005, there was a series of 31 lightning-caused wildfires, none
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-199

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

6

provide a more thorough analysis that comports with the requirements of NEPA and responds to 

Tri-Valley CAREs’ and other comments in the thoroughgoing manner that the law requires. 

For Tri-Valley CAREs, 

/s/ 

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director 

/s/ 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney 

2582 Old First Street 

Livermore, CA 94550 

61-7

cont’d

of which resulted in samples with activity higher than normally observed. None

of the fires occurred in areas with the highest levels of legacy radioactivity in soil,

but DOE/NNSA conducted a special evaluation of the onsite and offsite radiation

doses that may have occurred if a fire had spread into an area with high surface

contamination, such as the SMOKY site in Area 8 of the NNSS. That evaluation

found that the radiation dose 2.5 miles downwind of the SMOKY site would be

1 millirem and the highest offsite dose would be around 0.1 millirem at 24.8 miles

from the SMOKY site (DOE/NV 2006). As noted in the cited report, “...[t]his finding

helps confirm that radioactivity released from wild fires on the [NNSS] would not

result in hazards offsite.”

	 As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, most of the NNSS

surface drainage is in closed basins(i.e., Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat) and remains

on site. The primary portions of the NNSS that have drainage that may flow off

site in the event of a large precipitation event or series of events are the western

and far southwestern portions of the site. There are no areas of substantial surface

contamination within this drainage area. Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.1.1, 5.1.6.1.2,

and 5.1.6.1.3, have been revised to more clearly describe the potential for offsite

impacts on surface waters from DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS.

61-6	 DOE/NNSA does not consider the NNSS an “unlimited waste dumping area” and

does not intend that it will be the sole recipient of offsite-generated DOE waste. 

Disposal of LLW and MLLW at NNSS is in accordance with programmatic decisions

reached pursuant to the WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200). In accordance with the WM 

PEIS ROD (65 FR 10061) issued on February 25, 2000, DOE decided to continue

onsite disposal of LLW at NNSS and certain other DOE sites and to establish regional

disposal capacity at the NNSS and the Hanford Site. Specifically, in addition to

disposing their own LLW, the NNSS and the Hanford Site would dispose LLW

generated at other DOE sites, provided the waste met their respective WAC. DOE

decided to treat MLLW at a number of DOE sites, with disposal at either the NNSS

or the Hanford Site. Neither decision precludes DOE’s use of commercial disposal

facilities consistent with DOE Orders and policy. Only a small percentage of

the LLW/MLLW generated by DOE is disposed of at the NNSS. Approximately

90 percent of DOE’s LLW/MLLW is disposed of at the site where they are generated. 

About half of the remaining quantities are disposed of at commercial facilities.

	 The increase in the volume of LLW/MLLW between the No Action and Expanded

Operations Alternatives is largely due to sources other than new NNSS projects or

increased levels of operation at the NNSS. As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–49, the
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-200

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

volume of LLW/MLLW generated at the NNSS increases from about 1 million cubic

feet under the No Action Alternative to 1.3 million cubic feet under the Expanded

Operations Alternative. Table 5–49 also shows that the volumes of waste for disposal

at the NNSS under the two alternatives would increase from 15 million to 48 million

cubic feet for LLW and from 900,000 to 4 million cubic feet for MLLW. The large

difference in waste disposal volumes between the two alternatives is from an assumed

extensive removal of contaminated soil from cleanup activities at Nevada locations

outside NNSS, with shipment to the NNSS for disposal, and to increased projections

of wastes that may be shipped to NNSS from authorized out-of-state generators. The

text in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.1, was revised to more clearly indicate the sources of

the larger quantity of waste that would be disposed of under the Expanded Operations

Alternative. 

As addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.11.2.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, there may

be other options for addressing the soil contamination other than removing it and

shipping it to the NNSS for disposal. In accordance with agreements between DOE

and other Federal and state agencies, these options may include stabilization in place

or use of environmental restoration disposal sites established nearer the points of

contamination. The projections of wastes from out-of-state sources are considered

upper-bound estimates, and their generation would depend on programmatic and

regulatory decisions, funding, and other considerations that are outside the scope of

this NNSS SWEIS. DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires that

all DOE radioactive waste generators implement a Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Program to minimize the generation of waste. Although, for purposes of

conservative NEPA analysis, it was assumed that the out-of-state wastes would all be

disposed at NNSS, waste managers at DOE sites proactively seek to use commercial

disposal facilities if the facilities are compliant, cost-effective, and have WAC under

which they are able to accept the DOE waste.

	 The impacts from shipment of radioactive waste to NNSS disposal are addressed in

detail in this NNSS SWEIS (e.g., see Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.3, 5.2.3, 5.3.3, and 5.3.4,

and Appendix E). DOE/NNSA does not believe that transportation of radioactive

waste or other material on roads leading to the NNSS would represent significant risks

to public health.

61-7	 As the commentor notes, DOE/NNSA has prepared an appendix addressing intentional

destructive acts. However, the substance of the discussion and analysis is not

information that can be made public. As discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.3.2,

substantive details of terrorist attack scenarios and security countermeasures are not
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-201

Commentor No. 61 (cont’d): Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, and 

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs

released to the public because disclosure of this information could be exploited by

terrorists to plan attacks. The analysis of intentional destructive acts was prepared in

accordance with DOE’s 2006 Guidance Memorandum, “Need to Consider Intentional

Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents.” 

The analysis in this NNSS SWEIS evaluates potential consequences to a noninvolved

worker, an MEI, and the population in terms of physical injuries, radiation doses, and

latent cancer fatalities. From this analysis, the following general conclusion can be

drawn: the potential consequences of intentional destructive acts (IDAs) depend on the

distance to the site boundary and the size and proximity of the surrounding population;

the closer and denser the surrounding population, the higher the consequences. As

described in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.3.2, depending on the nature of a malevolent,

terrorist, or intentionally destructive act, impacts may be similar to or could exceed the

impacts of accidents analyzed in this SWEIS.

	 Facilities/locations with amounts of radioactive material sufficient to result in

potentially severe impacts are protected by numerous physical, procedural, and

operations-based systems that minimize the probability of a successful IDA occurring. 

In the unlikely event an actual IDA occurred, there are physical features associated

with the facilities/locations that would reduce potential impacts for most IDA scenarios

and, in any event, DOE/NNSA security and response teams are trained and prepared to

respond to an IDA to further reduce potential impacts. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.3.2,

has been revised to reflect the information in this response.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-202

551 W. Cordova #808, Santa Fe, NM, 87505 ¥ 505.989.7342 

info@nukewatch.org ¥ www.nukewatch.org ¥ http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/ 

December 2, 2011 

Linda M. Cohn 

NNSA Nevada Site Office 

SWEIS Document Manager 

P.O. Box 98518 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193Ð8518 

Telephone (702) 295Ð0077 

Fax (702) 295Ð5300 

E-mail address: nepa@nv.doe.gov

Re: Nevada National Security Site draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments (DOE/EIS-0426D) 

Dear Ms. Linda M. Cohn, 

Nuclear Watch New Mexico respectfully submits these comments for the National 

Nuclear Security AdministrationÕs (NNSAÕs) draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of 

Nevada. 

 

Actually Include The American Indian Perspectives Into All Decisions 

NNSA should follow the positions of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and 

Organizations throughout the SWEIS document. The Nevada Test Site land rightfully 

belongs to the Western Shoshone Nation, and their wishes should be paramount. The 

Treaty of Ruby Valley (1863) grants their Nation the NTS land and more. They should 

have the final say regarding any of the work mentioned in these comments or in the 

SWEIS. 

Select a preferred alternative! 

NNSA must clearly identify preferred alternatives for each of the program areas. We do 

not understand how NNSA has not been able to select preferred alternatives for this draft. 

Is NNSA trying to avoid public concern by failing to notify citizens that operations at 

NNSS will increase? We suggest taking a look at the NNSS 2012 Ten Year Site Plan 

(TYSP). If the Ten Year Site Plan cannot inform NNSS if future operations will increase 

or decrease, then the Plan is worthless. It looks like this SWEIS incorporates elements of 

the FY2008 & FY2009 TYSPs. The FY2012 TYSP was released May 23, 2011 with 

Commentor No. 62: Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

62-1

62-2

62-1	 This NNSS SWEIS contains tribal perspectives developed by CGTO as part of the

DOE/NNSA NSO American Indian Consultation Program. CGTO recommendations

and perspectives are carefully reviewed, considered, and acted upon to the extent

practicable. 

The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.

62-2	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had not

identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS; therefore,

none was identified in that document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described

in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

The commentor is correct in stating that development of the Draft NNSS SWEIS

incorporated information from the FY 2008 and FY 2009 Ten Year Site Plans. The

draft SWEIS was distributed in July 2011. Given all that is involved in production

of a document like this NNSS SWEIS, it was not possible to incorporate information

from the FY 2012 Ten Year Site Plan in a timely manner. DOE/NNSA considered

the FY 2012 Ten Year Site Plan, along with other considerations, as noted above, in

identifying its Preferred Alternative. In addition, this Final NNSS SWEIS has been

updated to reflect the most recent data available in the NNSS annual site environmental

reports and the Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Report.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-203

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico 

Nevada Test Site Site-Wide Draft EIS Comments, December 2, 2011

2

clearly articulated plans for NNSS, which this SWEIS should make visible for public 

comment. 

A Primary Emphasis Must Be To Fully Characterize Historical Contamination And 

Seek Clean-Up Actions 

The amount of contamination at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and off-site locations from 

the nuclear testing period of 1952 to 1992 is enormous. Estimates of the extent of 

manmade radioactive contamination are on the order of 2,000 Ð 3,000 curies in the soil 

and 130 million curies in the groundwater. (One curie is 37 billion radiation particles per 

second Ð a dangerously high exposure). Thus, it remains an important, if not the most 

important program at the Test Site to fully characterize and to endeavor to clean up the 

contamination. 

The SWEIS Must Provide Adequate Information About Current Environmental 

Impacts 

The public needs to know all of the enormous impacts of past and current Test Site 

activities to the soil, water and air quality in order to quantify what ÒmoreÓ or ÒlessÓ 

activity as defined in the SWEIS would really mean. 

Include A ÒDiscontinue OperationsÓ Alternative 

The August 1996 NTS EIS included a ÒDiscontinue OperationsÓ alternative. This SWEIS 

must do the same. The scope of the SWEIS needs to include the possibility of closing the 

NTS in its entirety. Closing the Test Site would be a concrete, confidence-building sign 

to the world that the United States will not enlarge or re-shape its nuclear stockpile and is 

sincere in working for nuclear disarmament. 

 If not closed in its entirety, the Nevada Test Site should be closed to all but 

"Environmental Restoration." No new hazards or toxins should be introduced to the NTS, 

including low or mixed level waste from other military sites. At least one of the test shot 

sites needs to be characterized fully to track off-site drift of contaminants. Groundwater 

monitoring stations need to be better designed and placed, and they must test for other 

contaminants in addition to tritium. Evidence of plutonium migrating much faster than 

expected needs to be further researched. 

The SWEIS Must Evaluate An Alternative Of Restoring ÒCleanÓ Lands To Public 

Use 

It is unclear from the SWEIS whether all of the withdrawn land is still needed for the 

existing missions of the NTS, and whether those missions are still important. However, in 

order to make this assessment, information is needed regarding the contamination and if 

any areas are clean and suitable for public use. For example, according to the SWEIS 

there are about 100 radioactive soils sites and that roughly one-fifth have been Òclosed.Ó 

Section 4 of the SWEIS does not show where the 100 sites are and which have been 

closed. These ÒcleanÓ sites must be shown. There is some discussion of the 

contamination of some locations, but the picture is incomplete. It is also not explained 

what closed means Ð what is the level of cleanup at a closed site? The SWEIS should 

explain the nature of the soils analysis. Are samples drawn from various depths per 

sampling location and, if so, which elements are parts of the analysis? There is mention 

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

62-2

cont’d

62-3

62-4

62-5

62-6

62-3	 The commentor cites dated information regarding the radiological source term

remaining at the NNSS. As noted in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, Groundwater,

the most recent estimate of the underground source term at the NNSS was about

132 million curies as of September 22, 1992, based on a 2001 study by Bowen et al. 

Only a portion of this source term would be available as part of the hydrologic source

term. The hydrologic source term is that portion of the overall underground source

term that is available for transport in the groundwater. As noted in Appendix H,

Section H.2, between 30 and 38 percent of underground nuclear tests were conducted

close enough to the groundwater to potentially contribute to the hydrologic source

term. Of the radionuclides produced by an underground nuclear detonation, only those

that are readily soluble in water and/or are available to be transported (i.e., those not

encapsulated within the melt glass in the detonation cavity or otherwise immobile) may

become part of the hydrologic source term.

	 While active remediation of contaminated groundwater is not feasible, the

DOE/NNSA NSO agrees that characterization and cleanup are some of the most

important programs at the NNSS. DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS

to enable the public to better understand the extent of groundwater contaminated

by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has

been revised, based on information developed for the FFACO and in coordination

with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater

contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to describe the distribution

of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21 have been added

to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated groundwater

in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium detected in

hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS, respectively. 

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the additional information

from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater.

	 A recent estimate indicates that about 1,614 curies of radioactivity remains in NNSS

surface soils as of January 2012 (Kidman, 2012). To enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, and Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.2, the FFACO

provides the process for identifying sites that have potential historic (legacy)
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-204

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico 

Nevada Test Site Site-Wide Draft EIS Comments, December 2, 2011

3

of gamma ray monitoring; which radioactive elements does this detect? 

The Expanded Operations Alternative should include increased programs for 

Environmental Restoration. 

The NTS/NNSS region is prone to flash flooding and wildfire that can carry 

contamination offsite. The SWEIS did not, but should have addressed the issue of 

wildfire. In the Expanded Operations Alternative there are no proposals for new or 

expanded Environmental Restoration activities. Additional cleanup and environmental 

restoration would decrease the danger of surface contamination being carried offsite in 

smoke from fires. 

The Draft SWEIS Should Be Supplemented To Provide More Information 

The Draft SWEIS should be supplemented to provide necessary information that is 

missing: 

¥ Show current levels of Test Site contamination from past activities and map its 

distribution, in order to evaluate what ÒmoreÓ or ÒlessÓ activity as defined in the 

SWEIS would really mean. 

¥ Provide Test Site budget figures to understand resource allocation, program 

impacts and priorities, both within the Test Site mission, and relative to our 

national budget as a whole. 

¥ Provide information on plans to address range fires and flash flooding to prevent 

off-site contamination.

¥ Cross program analysis and cost data are needed to understand and evaluate 

priorities 

o The SWEIS should provide enough financial budget information for the 

reader to evaluate the significance of specific programs, both within the 

Test Site mission, and relative to our economically constrained nation as a 

whole. There are no data in the SWEIS that show the resource allocation 

in cost for of each of the programs. For instance, the public has no idea 

what costs are incurred for the various Stockpile Stewardship experiments, 

or for environmental restoration projects. 

o The SWEIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should 

provide sufficient information for an evaluation of the alternatives, and to 

determine whether there is an alternative that still needs to be considered, 

and whether a dropped alternative is justified. 

Expanded Explosives Testing And Release Of Dangerous Contaminants Should Not 

Be Considered 

No resumption of nuclear or any other explosives testing should be considered, until 

previous contamination to soil and groundwater is fully characterized, mapped out and 

thoroughly analyzed. The Reduced Operations Alternative, which would disturb the soils, 

plant life, wildlife and surface drainage of only 430 acres for ÒexplosiveÓ, ÒdynamicÓ and 

ÒbiologicalÓ experiments, is far preferable to Current Operations at 700 acres, or 

Expanded Operations, which would disturb 3,335 acres. 120 additional acres should not 

be destroyed by the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions. DU is proven to cause 

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

62-6

cont’d

62-4

cont’d

62-8

62-9

62-10

62-11

62-7

contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and instituting

closure actions. Additional information on environmental restoration is included in

Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, Environmental Restoration Program. Additionally,

a website (www.nv.energy.gov/envmgt) has been created to provide additional

information concerning the NNSS Environmental Restoration Program. 

62-4	 Chapter 4 of this NNSS SWEIS describes the existing environments of the NNSS

(Section 4.1), Remote Sensing Laboratory (Section 4.2), North Las Vegas Facility

(Section 4.3), and TTR (Section 4.4). These descriptions include the current status

of the facilities, including areas of land disturbance, contamination, and other past

impacts. The potential impacts of proposed DOE/NNSA activities at each of these

sites are quantified in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, and the cumulative

effects of past impacts added to the impacts of activities proposed in this NNSS SWEIS

and other reasonably foreseeable future actions are quantified in Chapter 6, Section 6.3,

for each resource area, including soil, water (surface and groundwater), and air quality. 

62-5	 As noted by the commentor, in the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996),

DOE considered ceasing all operations at the NNSS and placing all facilities into

a cold standby status (Discontinue Operations Alternative). In the 1996 NTS EIS,

DOE also considered discontinuing all defense-related and most Work for Others

Program activities at the NNSS (Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative). 

In its December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided that it

would implement the Expanded Use Alternative for all activities other than LLW/

MLLW management, which was to continue under the Continue Current Operations

Alternative. In addition, in this same ROD, DOE decided to implement the public

education elements of the Alternative Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative. DOE later

decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative for LLW/MLLW management

at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Because discontinuing operations at the NNSS was

previously considered and DOE decided in 1996 to continue to operate the NNSS

at an expanded level, in addition to the continuing need for the NNSS for National

Security/Defense Mission programs, both closing the NNSS and discontinuing

National Security/Defense Mission programs, projects, and activities are considered

unreasonable alternatives at this time. 

As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.2, and Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, DOE/

NNSA’s UGTA Project is conducted pursuant to the FFACO and in consultation with

the NDEP. A brief summary of UGTA Project activities is included in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2. DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, determines the locations
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-205

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico 

Nevada Test Site Site-Wide Draft EIS Comments, December 2, 2011

4

significant health problems worldwide, especially among children, and its use should be 

banned. 

Contamination from biological warfare experiments or training is completely 

unacceptable. 

Alternatives To Existing Methods Of Land Disposal Must Be Analyzed

DOE must consider any new technologies and alternatives to existing methods of land 

disposal, such as nanotechnologies, which could be used to line waste drums to make 

them last longer. 

¥ Are there any other processes available, or under development, which could be 

implemented to reduce the volatility, mobility and toxicity of radioactive waste? 

¥ Any new disposal areas must be lined and have leachate collection systems. 

o Examine all new liner technologies. 

Explain the Financial Details 

Please explain how the proposed alternatives will affect the current NTS operating 

contract. 

¥ Will the future budgets be large enough to accommodate the proposed 

alternatives, including monitoring and cleanup? 

Impacts On Cultural Resources Must Stop

The Expanded Operations Alternative activities would potentially affect up to 682 sites; 

283 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

(Pg. S-69) This is unacceptable. 

Typo Page S-67 

Reduced Operations Alternative: 

Particulate Matter10 = 7.2 tons 

Particulate Matter2.5 = 5.8 tons 

Carbon Oxide = 55 tons 

Nitrogen Oxides = 36 tons 

Sulfur Oxides = 1.2 tons 

Should be Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxides

These comments and questions respectfully submitted, 

Jay Coghlan 

Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch New Mexico 

551 Cordova Road #808 

Santa Fe, NM, 87501 

505.989.7342 office & fax 

www.nukewatch.org 

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

62-11

cont’d

62-12

62-13

62-14

62-15

for new groundwater characterization and monitoring wells based on sampling results

from existing wells and state-of-the-art predictive modeling. The wells are designed

to state-of-the-art standards to ensure they achieve their purpose(s). Both the UGTA

Project and DOE/NNSA’s RREM Program analyze water samples for a wide range of

radionuclides associated with underground nuclear testing.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised to include more information regarding

both the UGTA Project and RREM Program groundwater sampling programs,

including the lists of typical radioisotopes analyzed.

	 As reported by Kersting et al. (1998), groundwater samples taken at well ER‐20‐5 in

1997 contained low concentrations (from 0.0085 to 0.63 picocuries per liter, or about

4.2 percent of the SDWA limit of 15 picocuries per liter) of plutonium, apparently

associated with colloids. Well ER-20-5 is located on the southwestern part of Pahute

Mesa, about 4,265 feet south of the Benham underground nuclear test and 984

feet west of the Tybo underground nuclear test. Analysis of the plutonium in the

groundwater samples demonstrated that it was from the Benham test, rather than the

Tybo test. Kersting et al. noted, “this is the first time Pu [plutonium] has been shown

to be transported by groundwater and for a significant distance.” A low concentration

of plutonium (0.42 picocurie per liter which is 3.8 percent of the SDWA limit of 15

picocuries per liter) was found in subsequent samples taken from well ER-20-5 #1

in 2004 (Eaton et al. 2007). In a study following the discovery of plutonium at well

EC-20-5, Smith et al. (2003) noted that, “general experience from the U.S. nuclear

testing program based on radiochemical diagnostic data collected from a variety of test

matrices suggest that only a small fraction (5 to 10 percent) of the total plutonium from

an underground nuclear detonation would be available for transport in groundwater.” 

More-detailed information regarding the potential for plutonium migration in

groundwater in and around Pahute Mesa at the NNSS has been added to Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2.

62-6	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Under all alternatives, DOE/NNSA would use all portions of the NNSS for various

mission-related purposes. Contaminated soil sites and facilities at the NNSS, TTR,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-206

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

and Nevada Test and Training Range are grouped together in CAUs. Each CAU is

composed of a number of CASs that exhibit geographical, contamination, and other

similarities. CAUs and CASs are managed under the FFACO, in consultation with

NDEP. CASs are characterized following specific protocols developed under the

FFACO process. CASs and CAUs are closed under the FFACO when conditions

specific to each site are met. In general, closure of a CAS/CAU may range from

“closure in place” to “clean closure.” Sites where contamination is fairly stable and

cleanup activities would be too costly or could unnecessarily spread contamination

may be “closed in place.” If a site were in a location where the public, workers, or the

environment may be harmed, “clean closure” may be prescribed. The level of cleanup

is based, in part, on existing and anticipated future uses of the site and its environs. For

this reason, although many CASs/CAUs have been closed under the FFACO, that does

not mean that these areas are suitable for public access or use. 

Gamma radiation may be produced when a radioactive atom emits an alpha particle

(i.e., two neutrons and two protons ejected from the nucleus) or a beta particle (i.e.,

an ejected electron), which causes the nucleus to have too much energy, resulting in

the emission of a gamma photon (gamma photons have no mass and no electrical

charge--they are pure electromagnetic energy). Some examples of gamma-emitting

radionuclides that may be detected by gamma ray monitoring include cesium-137,

iodine-131, cobalt-60, radium-226, zinc-65, and technetium-99m.

62-7	 Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the

potential impacts from wildland fires. 

Environmental restoration activities at the NNSS, TTR, and Nevada Test and Training

Range are driven by the current version of the FFACO. For this reason, the activities

considered for environmental restoration under each alternative in this NNSS SWEIS

are the same (although DOE/NNSA did address cleanup to essentially background

levels of radioactivity at several sites on the TTR and Nevada Test and Training Range

under the Expanded Operations Alternative for purposes of estimating the greatest

volume of radioactive waste that may be generated by the Environmental Restoration

Program).

62-8 DOE/NNSA believes that cost and budget data are not necessary or useful in

understanding and evaluating the environmental impacts of actions addressed in this

SWEIS. Future budgets for the NNSS and its various programs are uncertain, and

the costs of some future activities have not been defined yet. Therefore, budget and

cost data do not provide a meaningful method for defining and distinguishing between
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-207

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA has presented a detailed description of the

activities included under each alternative as well as the potential environmental

consequences associated with implementing those activities. 

62-9	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the potential for a wildfire or flooding to transport radiological

contamination off site. As noted in the response to comment 62-7, above, additional

information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the potential

impacts from wildland fires.

	 As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, most of the NNSS

surface drainage is in closed basins (i.e., Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat) and remains

on site. The primary portions of the NNSS that have drainage that may flow off site

in the event of a large precipitation event or series of events are the western and far

southwestern portions of the site. The main surface water drainages in this area of the

NNSS are Fortymile Wash, Topopah Wash, and Rock Valley Wash. However, there

are no areas of substantial surface contamination within this drainage area. Chapter 5,

Sections 5.1.6.1.1, 5.1.6.1.2, and 5.1.6.1.3, have been revised to more clearly describe

the potential for offsite impacts on surface waters from DOE/NNSA activities at the

NNSS.

62-10 As noted in the response to comment 62-8 above, DOE/NNSA believes that cost

and budget data are not necessary or useful in understanding and evaluating the

environmental impacts of actions addressed in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA presented a

detailed description of proposed activities included under each alternative in Chapter 3

and Appendix A, as well as the potential environmental consequences associated with

implementing those activities in Chapter 5. 

62-11	 The commentor’s preference for implementation of the Reduced Operations

Alternative and opposition to expanding explosives testing and releases of “dangerous

contaminants” is noted. As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS,

DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its

evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is

described in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added in Chapter 3, Section 3.0.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-208

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 As noted in the response to comment 62-3 above, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The Final SWEIS has been

revised to incorporate the additional information from Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, into

the analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater.

	 DOE/NNSA would not conduct any activities that would involve the intentional release

of a biological agent. As briefly noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.3, and described in

more detail in Appendix A, Section A.1.1.3, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA would

conduct tests, experiments, and training involving the release of biological simulants. 

Biological simulants are defined in Section A.1.1.3, as follows: “A biological simulant

is a biologically derived substance or microorganism that shares at least one physical

or biological characteristic of the biological agent it is simulating, has been shown to

be nonpathogenic, and can replace the biological agent in testing. Biological simulants

are intended to mimic the behavior of potentially more lethal or severely debilitating

biological agents that may be used in warfare or by terrorist organizations.” A

biological agent is defined as “a pathogenic microorganism or any naturally occurring,

genetically manipulated, or synthesized component of biological origin that is capable

of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in humans, animals, or

plants, or causing deterioration of food, water, equipment, or supplies.”

62-12	 As addressed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.1.3, of this NNSS SWEIS, safe disposal

of LLW and MLLW at NNSS is accomplished through operational procedures,

compliance with NNSS WAC, the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program, risk

assessments, and disposal unit closure and is verified through air, groundwater, and soil

monitoring. Waste disposal occurs in accordance with authorizations issued by DOE

and with permits for MLLW issued by external regulatory agencies. The authorization

and permit approval processes are based on formal, quantitative analyses of worker

and public health and safety during construction, operation, and closure, as well as

consideration of possible long-term (thousands of years) impacts on the public and

the environment after the disposal facilities are closed. The results of the analyses
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-209

Commentor No. 62 (cont’d): Jay Coghlan and Scott Kovac 

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

must demonstrate that disposal activities would comply with all applicable regulatory

requirements. 

DOE would continue to consider new technologies for waste management as they

become available, including treatment to reduce the volatility or mobility of radioactive

wastes and disposal technologies, such as the use of liners and leachate collection

systems. These technologies would be implemented when mandated by DOE or

external regulatory requirements, or if determined to be cost-effective in reducing risks.

In the meantime, the continuation of existing disposal technologies at NNSS have

been assumed, resulting in a conservative assessment of the potential impacts of waste

disposal.

62-13	 How the proposed alternatives would affect the current NNSS operating contract

is a consideration that is outside the scope of the SWEIS, with the exception of the

socioeconomic analysis, which estimates changes in staffing levels, which in turn

affects traffic, housing, salaries, etc., projected for each alternative. 

Future budgets are uncertain at this point, and past budgets are not a reliable indicator

of future budgets. DOE/NNSA has evaluated a range of activity levels (presented in

three action alternatives) that could support mission needs under varying budget levels. 

This range of activity levels includes environmental monitoring and cleanup activities

conducted in compliance with the most recent FFACO.

62-14	 The high number of impacted cultural sites is unlikely to occur. It was based on

previous cultural resources surveys done on the NNSS and was used as an upper-level

estimate of what could be found. Should cultural sites be identified in the development

of projects, the NNSS would consult with the Nevada State Historic Preservation

Officer pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and, as

necessary, implement mitigation measures such as avoidance of significant cultural

resources, evaluation and data recovery of significant archaeological resources, and

archival documentation of significant resources would be undertaken. These mitigation

measures are described in Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” Section 7.10, Cultural

Resources.

62-15	 The commentor is correct; the naming conventions of the pollutants has been revised in

the Summary, Table S–15, of this final SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-210

Commentor No. 63: Bill Helmer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, 

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley

63-1

63-2

63-1	 DOE/NNSA appreciates and considers all comments and acknowledges the

commentor’s endorsement of the AIWS text.

63-2	 DOE/NNSA believes the No Action Alternative in this NNSS SWEIS fully complies

with current NEPA requirements and guidance (i.e., Council on Environmental Quality,

(CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act” (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), CEQ’s “Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning CEQ’s New National Environmental Policy Act Regulations”

(46 FR 18026), and DOE “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing

Procedures” (10 CFR Part 1021). In the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996), DOE considered a Discontinue Operations Alternative. DOE/NNSA’s

reasons for not addressing a similar alternative in this NNSS SWEIS were addressed in

Section 3.5.2 of the Draft NNSS SWEIS and may be found in Section 3.6.2 of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS.

DOE/NNSA does not believe that co-management of the NNSS with the Consolidated

Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO), as suggested by the commentor, is an

appropriate alternative for operation of the NNSS. The missions, programs, and

projects conducted at the NNSS are entrusted to DOE/NNSA by Congress, and the

lands of the NNSS were withdrawn for purposes of nuclear weapons testing and

other related purposes. In addition, DOE/NNSA conducts a vigorous Environmental

Restoration Program at the NNSS, which is managed in consultation with the Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection under the Federal Facility Agreement and

Consent Order. DOE/NNSA has and will continue to consult closely with CGTO

and provide opportunities for visits to the NNSS for culturally related purposes upon

request and on a nonconflicting basis, as well as seek additional appropriate roles

for CGTO to fulfill in certain DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS, such as habitat

restoration and management of cultural resources.

	 The commentor also suggests that the Reduced Operations Alternative should consider

“phasing out of storing low-level radioactive waste and not include large-scale solar

development. One of the primary purposes for continuing operations of the NNSS

identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, of this NNSS SWEIS is to “provide for the disposal

of LLW and MLLW from across the DOE complex.” The majority of low-level

radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW) disposed at

the NNSS is generated by clean-up of legacy contamination from past nuclear weapons

research, development, and testing at various laboratories, production facilities, the

NNSS, and other locations. As radioactive contamination is removed from these sites
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-211

Commentor No. 63 (cont’d): Bill Helmer, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley

63-2

cont’d

63-3

it must be properly managed and disposed. The NNSS operates and maintains facilities

specifically designed for the safe disposal and long-term confinement of radioactive

wastes. It is important to note that only a small percentage of the LLW/MLLW

generated by DOE is disposed of at the NNSS. Approximately 90 percent of DOE’s

LLW/MLLW is disposed of at the site where they are generated. About half of the

remaining quantities are disposed of at commercial facilities.

Various levels of commercial solar power generation facility development are

considered under the three alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA included

consideration of commercial solar power generation at the NNSS based on its longterm support for development of renewable energy sources. Consideration of this type

of development at the NNSS was not based on any particular proposed activity but as a

means to informing any future decision by DOE/NNSS to support such a proposal. If a

commercial solar power generation facility were proposed at the NNSS in the future, it

would be subject to an appropriate project-specific National Environmental Policy Act

review.

63-3	 While recognizing that this SWEIS must address a wide range of technical activities

conducted across a large geographic area, DOE/NNSA has sought to describe proposed

activities and their environmental effects in plain language and made use of graphics

and tables to replace lengthy text descriptions.

	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to

describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21

have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated

groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium

detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS,

respectively.

	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the additional information

from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-212

Commentor No. 64: Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-1

64-2

64-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

64-2	 Please refer to the response to comment 64-1 above.

DOE performs transportation analyses to determine comparative risks among

alternatives using risks calculated for entire routes. The risk over the entire

transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local area; therefore,

analysis of specific local hazards on many possible routes is neither practical nor

necessary for the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. It should be noted that waste

transportation accidents cover a range of severities, most of which would result in no

or small, localized release of radioactive material. Though not developed specifically

for Las Vegas, Chapter 5, Table 5–13, presents the potential human health impacts of a

severe accident occurring in an urban area.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-213

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-3

64-4

64-5

64-3	 As discussed above in response to comment 64-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

64-4	 DOE/NNSA understands that the city opposes storing radioactive materials on

railcars within city limits. Operation of a rail-to-truck transfer station would be the

responsibility of a commercial shipper, who would need to comply with all applicable

laws and regulations. DOE/NNSA would encourage generators and shippers to

make shipments expeditiously, and it is expected that the incentive of payment would

minimize the amount of time a shipper would keep shipments at the transfer station.

64-5	 Please refer to the response to comment 64-3 above.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-214

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-5

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-215

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-6

64-7

64-6	 RADTRAN 6 and RISKIND are standard, state-of-art analysis codes specifically

developed for determining impacts from radioactive materials, including accidental

releases. The EPAAERMOD is not suitable for such analyses because it only

addresses particulate dispersion and does not incorporate the calculation of radiological

impacts.

	 The consequences of potential accidents with the greatest impacts (maximum

foreseeable accidents) were calculated with the results shown in Appendix E,

Table E–16, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. This analysis used a constant-density urban

population out to a distance of 50 miles, based on census data projected to 2016, and

used generic atmospheric conditions, as described in Section E.6.4, because an accident

could occur at any location along a route. To estimate the most conservative (greatest)

impacts, neutral atmospheric conditions were assumed when calculating impacts on the

population within a 50-mile radius of the accident, and stable atmospheric conditions

were assumed when considering impacts on an MEI.

64-7	 Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.3, of this SWEIS describes the approach that DOE/NNSA

used (including vulnerability assessment methodology) in evaluating the impacts of

hypothetical IDAs, the results of which are documented in a classified Appendix to this

SWEIS.

	 In regard to scenarios involving radioactive waste shipments, DOE/NNSA conducted

a detailed analysis of the potential human health effects associated with both normal

operations and accident scenarios, as presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1,

of this SWEIS. However, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any adverse

socioeconomic impacts associated with waste transportation under normal operations

or accident scenarios. In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008

Yucca Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived risk and

stigma associated with the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE

concluded that there is no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding waste

transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. DOE has not been presented with

any new information since the 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS that changes this conclusion.

While stigmatization can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or

numerically predictable. As a consequence, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify

any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

	 Furthermore, the Final NNSS SWEIS (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4 and Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.3.1.2.2) notes that DOE/NNSA is continuing to honor its previous

commitments regarding transportation routing in the Las Vegas, Nevada, area and will

not make any decisions affecting these commitments in this NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-216

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-7

cont’d

64-8

64-8	 The definition of LLW presented in Chapter 12 of this NNSS SWEIS is radioactive

waste that is not classified as HLW, TRU waste, SNF, or byproduct material as defined

by Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Some LLW can

be highly radioactive, but much of the waste transported to NNSS for disposal is

lightly contaminated material such as waste from cleanup activities (building debris,

contaminated soil) and materials that are incidentally contaminated (anticontamination

clothing, plastic, paper, shoe covers). 

The text in the Draft NNSS SWEIS Summary, page S-24, that the commentor

references relates to a consequence assessment for a maximum reasonably foreseeable

accident; that is, what would the consequence be if an accident were to occur, and it

does not present “risk.” Note that frequency or probability is not the same as risk. The

term “risk” incorporates both frequency and consequences. The next paragraph in the

Summary shows the risks associated with all shipments on all routes. The text in the

Summary in this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to clarify that the first part of the

discussion relates to consequences; it has also been clarified that a revised frequency

of 3.2 × 10-7 is for the route that has the highest frequency and traverses an urban area. 

The frequency of 3.2 × 10-7 is equivalent to 1 chance in 3,100,000, which is noted

in the Summary of this Final NNSS SWEIS. The data summarize information from

Appendix E, Table E–16. The accident frequency in question is for transport of 20-

foot International Organization for Standardization containers along the route from the

upper Midwest. Table E–11 shows that there would be about double the number of this

type of shipment from the upper Midwest under the Expanded Operations Alternative

compared to the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives. 

See the response to comment 64-6 regarding the analytical codes that were used in the

transportation analysis. Transportation analyses performed in support of DOE NEPA

activities consider the potential impacts on the population along the transportation

routes. As stated in Appendix E, Section E.4, the analysis uses Web-TRAGIS to

select the routes and calculate the population densities along each route. Because the

Web-TRAGIS uses census block population data, the estimated population densities

do not include people that temporarily occupy a location or newly developed areas. 

However, the analysis of impacts on an MEI provides a conservatively high estimate

of the risks that could be imposed on anybody as a result of transportation activities. 

In this NNSS SWEIS, analyses were performed to show the incident-free impacts

on different types of MEIs that could be encountered along a route, as described

in Appendix E, Section E.5.3. These analyses were performed for all cargo types

considered (e.g., a shipment of LLW, TRU waste, different types of special nuclear

materials), with the cargo type causing the greatest dose to the resident being shown in
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-217

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-8

cont’d

Table E–15. Based on Table E–15, a person residing within 100 feet of a truck route

would receive a maximum dose of 2.4 × 10-7 rem per shipment for the highest-dose

cargo at the regulatory dose limit set by DOT, assuming the individual is outside and

is directly exposed to the radiation emanating from the cargo. If that individual were

exposed to all 80,000 shipments analyzed under the Expanded Operations Alternative,

the total dose would be about 20 millirem over a 10-year period. The results show that,

despite assuming a close proximity to the route, exposure to every shipment, and the

receipt of the maximum dose per shipment, the overall incident-free risk would still be

small. A site-specific analysis would not be expected to result a different conclusion. 

As discussed in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, specific requirements for packages used

to transport radioactive materials are detailed in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I. These

regulations limit the amount of radionuclide activity that can be transported in

certain types of packages and provide design requirements that packages must meet. 

Design requirements for the different types of packages and the placarding required

on transport vehicles are commensurate with the level of risk associated with the

shipment. Shipments that do not require Class 7 placards would not pose a sufficient

health or safety risk to an individual that would require informing the public of the

contents.

	 The transportation analyses were performed in accordance with A Resource Handbook 

on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment (DOE 2002). Subsequent to analyses being

prepared, a qualified analyst performed a review to ensure that the assumptions,

models, and calculations were appropriate and correct. The calculations of population

doses along the routes from the Las Vegas, Nevada, area to NNSS have been reevaluated, and the revised results have been included in this Final NNSS SWEIS. As

a result, the population impacts are closer to each other, as shown in Appendix E,

Table E–17 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. Regardless of the route taken, the population

doses are comparable and demonstrate that the transport of LLW presents a very low

risk. The radiation dose to the population along a route comprises three primary

components: the “on-link” dose (dose to other travelers on the road), doses at rest

stops (such as stops for refueling or rest), and “off-link” doses (doses to the population

along the route). Generally, the contributions to the total population dose from onlink exposures and rest stop exposures are similar in magnitude and dominate the

population dose. On-link exposures are slightly larger in urban areas (where the traffic

density is higher), while rest-stop exposures are slightly larger when accounting for

longer distances through rural areas. Taking both the on-link and rest-stop population

doses into account leads to small differences among the various routes from Las Vegas

to NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-218

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-9

	 DOE/NNSA extended the original 90-day comment period by 36 days, allowing a

review period of 126 days. The revised results of the transportation analysis in the

Las Vegas area do not affect the overall conclusions because the impacts along these

routes are comparable; no additional comment period is deemed necessary.

64-9	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide

a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State

of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko,

Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual

grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to

the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to

undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability assessments;

acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and

communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency services

buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for

emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA

NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country, including

local, county, and state participants from Nevada. It is at Clark County’s discretion,

rather than DOE/NNSA’s, as to how the grant program funds may be used to plan for

and enhance capabilities to respond to emergencies in Las Vegas or other areas within

the county.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-219

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-10

64-11

64-10	 DOE/NNSA believes that its purpose and need, as described in this NNSS SWEIS

is sufficient. One of the primary purposes for continuing operations of the NNSS

identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, of this NNSS SWEIS is to “provide for the

disposal of LLW and MLLW from across the DOE complex.” Implicit in that activity

are other ancillary activities, such as transportation, excavation/filling/closure

of disposal cells, and groundwater and vadose zone monitoring. The impacts of

transportation of LLW/MLLW from their points of origin to the NNSS are analyzed

and presented in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.3.1.1 (No Action), 5.1.3.1.2.1 (Expanded

Operations Constrained Case), 5.1.3.1.2.2 (Expanded Operations Unconstrained Case),

and 5.1.3.1.2 (Reduced Operations). However, as noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, of

this NNSS SWEIS, “Although an analysis of LLW/MLLW shipping routes is included

in this SWEIS, decisions on routing would not be made as part of this NEPA process. 

This analysis was undertaken to develop a greater understanding of the potential

environmental consequences of shipping such waste through and around metropolitan

Las Vegas, Nevada, and to inform any highway routing revisions to NNSA’s waste

acceptance criteria.” Although the City of Las Vegas was not a cooperating agency in

the preparation of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA activated a Transportation Working

Group to help evaluate the impacts identified for the alternatives and routing options

analyzed. That group included representatives from the State of Nevada, including the

Attorney General’s office, the Nevada Department of Transportation, and the Nevada

Highway Patrol; the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder

City; and Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties. Members of the Transportation Working

Group provided input from government entities that could be affected by any changes

in the current radioactive waste transportation routing policy in the NNSS WAC.

64-11	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-220

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-11

cont’d

64-12

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada (Constrained Case). In consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be

no need to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

	 The data presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–9, of the Draft and Final NNSS SWEIS 

indicate that the number of LLW or MLLW shipments from out of state to the NNSS

would increase from about 2,600 shipments per year under the No Action Alternative

to about 8,000 shipments per year under the Expanded Operations Alternative. While

it is true there are more traffic accidents on the highways in central Las Vegas than

there are on the more rural State Route 160, a more appropriate statistic is the rate

of accidents, that is, the number of accidents per vehicle-mile traveled. Data are not

readily available to differentiate collision rates among the route segments identified in

the comment; however, the estimated radiological and traffic fatality risks for the entire

routes as shown in Table 5–14 (truck) and Table 5–15 (rail-to-truck) are comparable

between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases.

64-12	 The transportation analysis in this NNSS SWEIS (see Appendix E) explains that

accidents span a range from more-frequent, low-severity accidents to less-frequent,

high-severity accidents. An accident could occur during any weather condition. The

likelihood of an accident in Nevada resulting in even a small release from a typical

LLW shipment in a Type A container would range from about 1 chance in 100,000 per

shipment in a suburban area to 1 chance in 4,000,000 per shipment in an urban area. 

By specifying a particular weather condition, such as a large rainstorm, the likelihood

of an accident occurring simultaneously with a thunderstorm weather condition is

lower by at least a factor of 30, assuming thunderstorms occur about 12 days per year

(Gorelow and Stachelski 2012). Waste shipments must meet the NNSS WAC, which

stipulate, among other requirements, that the waste be free of liquids. Therefore,

radioactive wastes would not be in a form that would be readily transported by water
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-221

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-13

64-14

through storm drains and dispersed in the lake. In the unlikely event that an accident

severe enough to breech a waste container were to occur during a rainstorm, most of

the radioactive materials would remain near the accident location. It should also be

noted that radioactive waste or materials with high concentrations of radionuclides

capable of resulting in significant environmental contamination are transported in

more-secure and rugged packages, such as Type B packaging, with possible use

of microencapsulation or other technologies designed to put the contents in a lessdispersible form, even under severe impact forces. Use of these technologies would

reduce the probability of a release below those expressed above. 

64-13	 As described in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, DOE/NNSA is aware of, and has prepared the

SWEIS to comply with, CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508). 

Additionally, DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with

DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. Within

this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific mitigation

measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies, including the

use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has been modified to

reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

64-14	 As stated in the response to comment 64-2, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

Please see the response to 64-8 regarding the population considered along the

transportation route. The consequences of potential accidents with the greatest impacts

(maximum foreseeable accident) on routes near Las Vegas, Nevada, were calculated,

and the results are shown in Appendix E, Table E–16, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. This

analysis used census data projected to the year 2016, as well as generic atmospheric

conditions described in Section E.6.4, because an accident could occur at any

location along a route. To estimate the most-conservative (greatest) impacts, neutral

atmospheric conditions were assumed when calculating impacts on the population

within a 50-mile radius of the accident, and stable atmospheric conditions were

assumed when considering impacts on an MEI.

	 DOE/NNSA performs transportation analyses to determine comparative risks among

alternatives using risks calculated for the entire route. The risk over the entire

transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local area; therefore,

analysis of specific local hazards on many possible routes is neither practical nor
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-222

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-14

cont’d

necessary for the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. The transportation of LLW/MLLW

and other radioactive materials would use existing highways and railroads. Because

no new land acquisition and construction would be required to accommodate these

shipments, this SWEIS focuses on potential impacts on human health and safety and

the potential for accidents along shipment routes. It should be noted that the transport

of radioactive materials and wastes occurs daily on the Nation’s highways, including

highways in Las Vegas, as a result of commercial and government activities (e.g.,

materials for nuclear medicine); therefore, the transportation activities analyzed in

this NNSS SWEIS do not present a new or unique hazard that would require specific

locations along a route to be analyzed or analysis of other aspects such as economic

impacts.

	 As suggested in this comment, working jointly with the State of Nevada, DOE/NNSA

established EPWG to provide a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program

between DOE/NNSA, the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management),

and six counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000,

EPWG has distributed annual grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW

shipments travel en route to the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million,

have allowed the counties to undertake emergency preparedness planning and response

capability assessments; acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire

trucks, and communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency

services buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders

for emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/

NNSA NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country,

including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-223

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-14

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-224

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-14

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-225

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-14

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-226

Commentor No. 64 (cont’d): Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor, 

City of Las Vegas

64-15

64-16

64-15	 In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca 

Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived risk and stigma

associated with the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded

that there is no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding waste

transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. DOE has not been presented

with any new information since the 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS that changes this

conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not

inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence, DOE/NNSA did not attempt

to quantify any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

64-16	 As noted in the response to comment 64-2, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; this should mitigate the concerns

raised by the commentor. 

Please refer to the response to comment 64-14 regarding the level of analysis of

transportation impacts included in this NNSS SWEIS; as indicated, it is not reasonable

or practical to evaluate impacts on individual localities along transportation routes.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-227

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Telephone 775-684-1100 ● Fax 775-684-1108 ● www.ag.state.nv.us ● E-mail aginfo@ag.nv.gov

STATE OF NEVADA 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

100 North Carson Street 

Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO 

Attorney General 

December 2, 2011 

KEITH G. MUNRO 

Assistant Attorney General 

GREGORY M. SMITH 

Chief of Staff 

Ms. Linda Cohn, SWEIS Document Manager 

NNSS Nevada Site Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 98518 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193–8518 

Re: State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA Draft Site-Wide EIS 

 for the Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

Dear Ms. Cohn: 

 Attached are the State of Nevada’s comments on the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Continued Operation of the of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada. These comments reflect 

input from various State of Nevada agencies, including the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, the Nevada 

Agency for Nuclear Projects in the Office of the Governor, the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, the Nevada Division of Water Resources, the Nevada Department of Transportation, the 

Nevada Highway Patrol, and the Nevada Division of Emergency Management. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this extremely important document. Should you 

have questions with regard to these comments, or if you would like additional information, please contact 

me at 775-684-1237 or Mr. Robert Halstead, Executive Director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear 

Projects, at 775-687-3744. 

 Sincerely, 

 CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO 

 Attorney General 

 By: 

 

 MARTA A. ADAMS 

 Chief Deputy Attorney General 

 (775) 684-1237 

MAA/cg 

Attachment 

cc: Governor Brian Sandoval 

 Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto 

 Nevada Congressional Delegation 

 Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects 

 Legislature’s Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste 

Commentor No. 65: Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-228

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

1

STATE OF NEVADA COMMENTS ON THE 

DRAFT SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY/NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS

IN THE STATE OF NEVADA1

December 2, 2011 

Introduction

The	State	of	Nevada	appreciates	the	opportunity	to	provide	comments	on	the	Department	

of	Energy’s	(DOE)	draft	Site-Wide	Environmental	Impact	Statement	for	Continued	Operation	of	

the	Department	of	Energy/National	Nuclear	Security	Administration	Nevada	National	Security	

Site	(NNSS)	and	Off-Site	Locations	in	Nevada	(draft	EIS).

Nevada	is	very	concerned	that	the	draft	EIS	appears	to	be	setting	the	stage	for	

abandonment	by	DOE	of	a	long-standing	agreement	between	the	State	and	DOE	whereby	lowlevel	radioactive	waste	(LLW)	and	mixed	hazardous	and	low-level	radioactive	waste	(MLLW)	

are	required	to	be	transported	to	NNSS	using	highway	routes	that	avoid	the	heavily	populated	

Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	(see	letter	from	Governor	Sandoval	to	Energy	Secretary	Chu	–	

Attachment	C).		The	original	agreement	between	then-Governor	Kenny	Guinn	and	thenSecretary	of	Energy	Bill	Richardson	also	banned	waste	shipments	over	Hoover	Dam.		However,	

that	has	since	become	moot	due	to	security	restrictions	put	in	place	following	the	9/11	ban	on	

such	shipments	from	traversing	the	Dam.		Under	the	“unconstrained	routing	scenario”	evaluated	

in	the	draft	EIS,	DOE	is	proposing	to	abdicate	this	agreement	and	allow	shipments	of	LLW	and	

MLLW	directly	through	the	Las	Vegas	Valley	using	I-15,	the	I-15/US	95	interchange	(known	as	

the	Spaghetti	Bowl),	and	the	Las	Vegas	Beltway.		In	addition,	the	unconstrained	routing	scenario	

would	allow	waste	to	be	shipped	over	the	new	Hoover	Dam	bypass	bridge	and	funnel	waste	into	

the	Las	Vegas	metro	area	from	the	south.		As	discussed	in	more	detail	later	in	these	comments,	

the	State	of	Nevada	strongly	opposes	shipments	of	LLW,	MLLW	or	other	NNSS-related	nuclear	

materials	through	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	or	the	Hoover	Dam	bypass	bridge	and	will	

aggressively	contest	any	decision	to	undertake	such	shipments	using	all	means	available.	

The	State	is	also	concerned	that	the	discussion	of	groundwater	contamination	from	past		

NTS	(Nevada	Test	Site)/NNSS	activities	does	not	appear	to	be	sufficient	for	assessing	the	

                                                           

1

  These comments were prepared with input from the following State of Nevada agencies:  The Nevada Attorney

General’s Office, the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects in the Office of the Governor, the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection, the Nevada Division of Water Resources, the Nevada Department of Transportation, the

Nevada Highway Patrol, and the Nevada Division of Emergency Management.

65-1

65-2

65-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments

of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to

avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case

that considered routes within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered

are within the bounds of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and

reflect major changes and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure

that have occurred over the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/

NNSA sought to understand the differences in potential environmental effects

between different routing options (which incorporated changes to local transportation

infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed),

communicate those differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the

range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make

any decisions regarding specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. 

Any changes to existing routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. 

Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the

Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State

of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada (Constrained Case). In consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be

no need to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

65-2	 Groundwater resources at the NNSS, including groundwater use, depth to

groundwater, recharge and discharge, water supply systems, and groundwater

monitoring and quality, are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of this SWEIS. 

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, provides estimates of the amount of groundwater

(expressed as perennial yield in terms of acre-feet per year) underlying the NNSS,

as well as historic and projected future demands on this groundwater to support

ongoing and proposed projects and activities under each alternative. Chapter 6,

Section 6.3.6.2, analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of past nuclear weapons

testing on groundwater. When the United States withdraws public land for uses such

as the NNSS, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for

which the reservation was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-229

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

2

cumulative	loss	of	this	resource	as	a	result	of	those	activities.		Nor	does	the	information	

contained	in	the	draft	EIS	provide	an	adequate	basis	for	evaluating	the	value	of	that	resource	

which	has	been	–	and	will	continue	to	be	–	lost	to	present	and	future	generations	as	a	result	of	

past,	present	and	future	contamination.		Specifically,	the	2011	Nevada	Legislature	passed	a	

resolution	tasking	the	Attorney	General’s	Office,	the	State	Department	of	Conservation	and	

Natural	Resources,	and	the	Governor’s	Office	Agency	for	Nuclear	Projects	to	prepare	a	report	

for	the	2013	Legislature	addressing	“whether	Nevada	could	potentially	receive	monetary	

compensation	from	the	Federal	Government	for	contamination	of	the	environment	in	Nevada	

with	radioactive	and	other	hazardous	contaminants	as	a	result	of	military	exercises,	nuclear	

weapons	testing	and	other	activities	conducted	by	the	Federal	Government	in	Nevada.”		

Contamination	from	NTS/NNSS	activities	will	of	necessity	be	a	major	focus	of	this	

investigation,	and	the	information	contained	in	the	final	EIS	must	be	such	that	it	provides	a	full	

and	complete	picture	of	the	groundwater	resource	that	has	been	removed	from	the	public	domain	

and	rendered	unavailable	for	beneficial	use,	the	level	and	distribution	of	contamination	of	that	

resource,	and	the	potential,	if	any,	for	future	beneficial	uses	of	the	resource.	

The	draft	EIS	fails	to	identify	any	areas	of	NNSS	or	off-site	locations	that	might	be	

candidates	for	return	to	public	use	or,	in	the	alternative,	for	opening	up	access	for	certain	public	

purposes/activities.		Even	under	the	“Reduced	Operations”	alternative,	there	is	no	consideration	

of	freeing	up	land	currently	removed	from	the	public	domain	that	might	be	released	due	to	

reduced	need	for	national	security,	waste	management,	or	other	purposes.	The	final	EIS	should	

contain	a	section	dealing	specifically	with	the	potential	relinquishment	of	any	areas	of	NNSS	that	

are	potentially	reasonable	candidates	for	return	to	the	public	domain2

.		One	such	area	might	be	

the	former	NNSS	portion	of	the	former	Yucca	Mountain	site	and	Area	25,	since	most	of	this	area	

has	not	been	contaminated	by	weapons	testing	or	other	NNSS	activities	and	it	is	located	on	the	

southwestern	boundary	of	NNSS	close	to	the	Amargosa	Valley	and	US	95.		Likewise,	there	

could	be	other	sections	of	NNSS	that	are	appropriate	candidates	for	relinquishment	or	for	some	

sort	of	alternative	public	uses.	

In	scoping	comments	for	the	Site-Wide	EIS,	the	Nevada	Attorney	General	suggested	that	

DOE	consider	circumstances	that	would	require	perpetual	withdrawal	of	those	areas	of	NNSS	

where	there	is	soils	and	groundwater	contamination	from	past	atmospheric	and	below-ground	

nuclear	testing	and	for	which	DOE	has	no	path	forward	for	clean-up	and	remediation.		While	far	

exceeding	the	10	year	time	horizon	established	for	the	current	EIS,	it	would	be	helpful	for	the	

final	EIS	to	evaluate	a	potential	future	scenario	in	which	DOE	must	maintain	sole	control	of	vast	

areas	of	NNSS	that	must	remain	isolated	from	other	uses	in	perpetuity.		This	alternative	would	

require	DOE	to	seek	congressional	legislation	to	establish	a	perpetual	withdrawal	of	land,	and	it	

would	have	significant	implications	in	terms	of	long-term	stewardship,	costs,	etc.		

                                                           

2

   To do this, the final EIS might establish criteria for identifying areas that are candidates for possible

relinquishment or opening to additional public uses, such as areas with little or no radiological or other

contamination, areas located in proximity to NNSS borders, areas where there would be no security concerns for

other NNSS activities, etc.  

65-2

Cont’d

65-3

Cont’d

65-3

65-4

reserved water right at the NNSS to support its mission requirements, one of which

includes complying with the FFACO to characterize and monitor locations that

have sustained adverse environmental impacts from past DOE activities, including

groundwater contaminated by past nuclear weapons testing.

	 In response to comments, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on

information developed under the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further

describe the current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the

NNSS. The text has been modified to describe the distribution of that groundwater

in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled

distribution of radioactively contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in

1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation

wells and springs on and around the NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2,

has been revised to incorporate the additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into

the analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater. DOE/NNSA is continuing to

work through UGTA to seek additional and enhanced data regarding the extent of

groundwater contamination at the NNSS. 

65-3	 Returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for other use is

inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land was withdrawn

for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part of the USAF

Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to its remote

location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. As activities

on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn (i.e., the

original and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries) to ensure

sufficient land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain adequate

buffers between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and sensitive

activities on site.

	 Returning NNSS land to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national

security needs, as well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. 

Consequently, there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these

two primary uses.

	 Although DOE/NNSA activities require the entire NNSS (about 1,360 square miles),

these activities are not inconsistent with periodic visits by the public (including

American Indians for purposes related to their cultural affiliation with the lands of

the NNSS) or certain commercial activities proposed to be developed on the site

(e.g., commercial solar power generation facilities). Public visits and commercial
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-230

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

3

General Comments

Summary

Summary	–	Introduction	(S.1)	

The	discussion	of	the	history	leading	up	to	the	1996	Final	EIS	for	the	Nevada	Test	Site	(NTS)	

and	Off-Site	Locations	in	Nevada	and	associated	Record	of	Decision	should	note	that	the	1996	

EIS	resulted	from	litigation	brought	by	the	State	of	Nevada	over	the	permitted	uses	of	NTS	under	

the	original	land	withdrawal	legislation	that	contained	clear	language	as	to	the	specific	mission	

and	uses	for	the	NTS.		While	progress	has	been	made	over	the	years,	the	issue	remains	

technically	unresolved.	

There	continue	to	be	unresolved	land	use	issues	associated	with	NNSS	that	are	not	adequately	

addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.		As	Nevada	has	noted	in	numerous	comments	and	communications	

over	the	years,	the	original	1952	administrative	land	withdrawal	for	the	Nevada	Test	Site	(Public	

Land	Order	805)	specified	its	use	as	a	“weapons	testing	site.”		In	1994,	the	State	of	Nevada	filed	

a	complaint	in	the	U.S.	District	Court	in	Las	Vegas,	alleging	that	the	land	withdrawals	for	NTS	

do	not	include	waste	disposal	from	offsite	sources	as	an	intended	use	of	the	land.		A	settlement	

agreement	signed	in	April	1997	committed	DOE	to	initiate	“consultation	with	the	United	States	

Department	of	the	Interior	concerning	the	status	of	existing	land	withdrawals	for	the	NTS	with	

regard	to	low-level	waste	storage/disposal	activities.”		Although	DOE	has	indicated	that	

consultations	with	the	Department	of	Interior	have	concluded,	the	State	has	continuing	concerns	

about	off-site	waste	disposition.		These	matters	are	not	addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.	

Summary	–	Table	S-1	

In	the	table	comparing	the	three	alternatives,	under	“Work	for	Others	Program”,	in	the	Expanded	

Operations	Alternative,	there	is	the	bullet	that	states:	“Conduct	experiments	using	existing	

boreholes	at	NNSS	to	sequester	emissions	such	as	radionuclides.”		Is	NNSS	permitted	to	do	

borehole	injection	for	this	purpose?		How	does	this	comport	with	the	State’s	permitting	process	

for	underground	injection	wells	or	for	hazardous	waste	disposal	pursuant	to	the	Resource	

Conservation	and	Recovery	Act	(RCRA)	program	administered	by	the	Nevada	Division	of	

Environmental	Protection	(NDEP)?		How	is	it	determined	what	radionuclides	and	in	what	

amounts	are	permitted	to	be	“sequestered”	in	existing	boreholes?	The	groundwater	under	NNSS	

is	already	contaminated	with	130	million	curies	of	radiation.	Will	this	add	to	the	contamination	

of	the	groundwater?	If	not,	why	not?		How	are	provisions	of	Nevada’s	Water	Pollution	Control	

Law	met	with	respect	to	this	prospective	groundwater	contamination	to	be	addressed?		

Summary	–	Decisions	Resulting	from	the	Site-Wide	EIS	(S.2.5)	

Nevada	does	not	agree	with	the	statement	that,	“decisions	on	routing	[LLW,	MLLW	and	other	

radiological	materials	shipments]	would	not	be	made	as	part	of	this	National	Environment	Policy	

65-5

65-6

65-7

activities are and would be conducted under the safeguards and security protocols of

DOE/NNSA, which limit the frequency and nature of public visits and could restrict

commercial activities from time to time. For this reason, DOE/NNSA is able to allow

properly cleared and escorted public visitation and the development of commercial

projects without hindering its national security activities while continuing to protect

the offsite public.

	 With respect to Yucca Mountain, DOE recognizes that it has an obligation to

remediate lands disturbed by its past activities, including those associated with the

former Yucca Mountain Repository Project. When funds have been appropriated by

Congress for this purpose, DOE plans to prepare a detailed proposal to remediate the

lands and close the infrastructure and buildings, then undertake further NEPA review,

as appropriate.

65-4	 The original land withdrawals for the NNSS were made between 1952 and 1965

and do not have an expiration; thus, it is expected that DOE/NNSA will maintain

responsibility for the NNSS for the foreseeable future. As discussed in Chapter 1,

Section 1.2, Congress and the President have established the core missions of DOE/

NNSA and, as a result, DOE/NNSA retains a corresponding, long-term stewardship of

the NNSS, separate and apart from the legal basis for control of the real estate. This

is evidenced by the DOE/NNSA NSO policy to implement, maintain, and enforce

institutional controls that restrict access to, and use of, the NNSS and to ensure the

continuity of appropriate institutional controls in the future (DOE/NNSA/NSO Policy

NSO P454.X, Institutional Control of the Nevada Test Site, 2008).

65-5	 DOE/NNSA believes there remain no open or unresolved land use issues relative to

ongoing or proposed activities at the NNSS and the public land orders that provide the

jurisdictional basis for DOE’s stewardship and management of the lands constituting

the NNSS. Furthermore, DOI has not identified any unresolved issues with respect to

the current land withdrawal status.

	 As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.3, as part of the April 1997 Settlement

Agreement resolving State of Nevada litigation regarding radioactive waste disposal

at the Nevada Test Site (now the NNSS), DOE committed to initiate “consultation

with the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) concerning the status of the

existing land withdrawals for the NTS with regard to low-level waste storage/disposal

activities.” The consultation process with DOI was initiated by DOE shortly thereafter

and concluded in November 2009, with DOE/NNSA’s acceptance of custody and

control of the approximately 740 acres constituting the NNSS Area 5 RWMC. As

required by the Settlement Agreement, DOE conveyed the results of its consultation
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-231

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

4

Act	(NEPA)	process.”		The	transportation	of	LLW,	MLLW	and	other	nuclear	materials	

shipments	into	and	out	of	NNSS	is	a	major	driver	of	impacts	associated	with	NNSS	activities.		

Different	routing	scenarios	will	result	in	vastly	different	manifestations	of	impacts.		For	example,	

routing	tens	of	thousands	of	waste	shipments	through	the	densely	populated	Las	Vegas	

metropolitan	area,	along	the	state’s	major	tourism	corridor,	and	through	the	heart	of	the	most	

important	economic	area	of	the	state	will	potentially	cause	impacts	far	different	from	a	routing	

scheme	that	utilizes	rural	highways	through	sparsely	populated	areas	of	the	state.		The	analyses	

contained	in	the	final	EIS	must	be	directly	related	to	any	such	routing	decisions,	and	such	

decisions	must	be	part	of	the	NEPA	process.

Summary	–	Transportation	and	Traffic	(S.3.1.2)	

Nevada	contends	that	the	“Unconstrained	Case”	for	routing	of	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	into	

NNSS	for	disposal	should	not	have	been	included	in	the	draft	EIS	at	all.		As	noted	above,	

Nevada	Governor	Kenny	Guinn	and	Energy	Secretary	Bill	Richardson	agreed	in	1999	that	

shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	being	imported	to	the	NTS/NNSS	from	other	DOE	facilities	

would	use	highway	routes	that	avoid	the	heavily	populated	metropolitan	Las	Vegas	area,	

including	the	interchange	known	as	the	‘Spaghetti	Bowl’	where	Interstate	15	and	US	95	meet.		

(At	the	time,	DOE	also	agreed	to	keep	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	off	Hoover	Dam,	but	that	

has	since	become	moot	because	of	Homeland	Security	restrictions	that	were	instituted	following	

9/11.)		This	arrangement	was	part	of	a	larger,	albeit	informal,	agreement	whereby	Governor	

Guinn	agreed	not	to	challenge	the	Record	of	Decision	for	DOE’s	Waste	Management	

Programmatic	Environmental	Impact	Statement	designating	NNSS/NTS	as	a	regional	disposal	

site	for	LLW	and	MLLW	resulting	from	clean-up	activities	at	other	DOE	locations.		In	

exchange,	Secretary	Richardson	agreed	to	certain	“equity	considerations”	on	the	part	of	DOE,	a	

key	one	of	which	was	the	highway	routing	concession.

The	inclusion	of	the	“Unconstrained	Case”	in	the	draft	EIS	appears	to	represent	an	attempt	by	

DOE	to	abrogate	this	agreement	which	has	served	the	best	interests	of	both	DOE	and	Nevada	for	

over	12	years.		Nevada	intends	to	pursue	every	avenue	available	to	assure	that	DOE	continues	to	

honor	this	agreement	and	shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	continue	to	be	routed	away	from	the	

Las	Vegas	metro	area.			

	Overall,	the	analysis	of	transportation	impacts	contained	in	the	draft	EIS	is	inadequate.		It	relies	

entirely	on	an	overly	general	evaluation	of	radiological	effects	associated	with	such	shipments	

and	fails	to	consider	route	specific	conditions	and	factors	critical	to	understanding	how	

transportation	impacts	will	be	felt	and	how	they	relate	to	key	economic	and	other	conditions	

unique	to	the	State	of	Nevada	and	varying	conditions	along	different	routing	alternatives.		No	

effort	is	made,	for	example,	to	assess	the	economic	impacts	associated	with	waste	transportation	

to	the	site	(potentially	impacting	Nevada’s	major	population	areas	and	economic	sectors).		

Likewise,	no	attempt	was	made	to	assess	impacts	to	property	values	along	shipping	routes,	

impacts	to	tourism,	impacts	to	economic	development	from	negative	perceptions	of	risk	and/or	

65-7

cont’d

65-9

65-8

to the State of Nevada in a letter dated December 18, 2008. These actions relative

to the status of land withdrawals and LLW storage/disposal activities satisfy the

provisions of the Settlement Agreement between DOE and the State of Nevada.

65-6	 DOE/NNSA believes the commentor is referring to a proposed project to support

NASA in their development of nuclear rocket motors, including the use of existing

boreholes on the NNSS to examine for proof-of-concept the use of deep alluvial

basins for sequestering radionuclide emissions. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Section

3.2.1.3, proof-of-concept tests would use a surrogate, such as xenon spiked with

a radionuclide that has a short half-life, in a borehole to evaluate the effectiveness

of alluvium for sequestering radionuclide emissions. DOE/NNSA also explains in

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.3, that it needs to identify applicable regulatory requirements

for these proof-of-concept experiments prior to their conduct. 

As described in Chapter 5, Section 5.0, a number of projects and activities

addressed in this SWEIS are in their early phases of development and their potential

environmental impacts are less well-known than ongoing or more fully developed

proposed activities. To assess potential environmental impacts from all such

activities, it was necessary for DOE/NNSA to estimate at a programmatic level

certain aspects of the more conceptual proposed activities. Based on this approach,

DOE/NNSA estimated the potential environmental impacts from this proposed project

and concluded in Section 5.1.6.2.2.1 that “Any radioactive materials released in the

subsurface in this [proof-of-concept tests]...would have short half-lives, be used well

above the groundwater table, and are not expected to adversely affect groundwater

quality.”

	 In addition, as noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.4.2, and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2,

of this Final NNSS SWEIS, the total underground radiological source term, decaycorrected to September 23, 1992, is about 132 million curies, based on a 2001 study

by Bowen et al. However, only a portion of that source term would be available to

become incorporated in the hydrologic source term, as explained in Section 6.3.6.2

and Appendix H.

65-7	 As stated in the response to comment 65-1 above, in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1,

of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two

cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes

within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds

of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes

and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-232

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

5

accidents	involving	waste,	etc.		The	transportation	analyses	contained	in	the	draft	EIS	are	

incomplete	and	seriously	deficient.	

Summary	–	Socioeconomics	(S.3.1.1)	

Assessing	only	the	employment	effects	and	population	effects	on	area	communities	misses	

entirely	potentially	significant	economic	and	other	impacts	associated	with	NNSS	activities,	

especially	those	related	to	radioactive	waste	and	radiological	materials	transportation	through	

heavily	populated	urban	areas.		The	draft	EIS	ignores	the	potential	impacts	associated	with	the	

stigmatizing	effects	of	nuclear-related	activities	on	areas	and	economic/industrial	sectors.		This	is	

especially	significant	in	the	event	of	accidents	or	terrorism/sabotage	incidents	occurring	in	or	

near	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.		Extensive	research	by	the	State	of	Nevada,	independent	

researchers	and	even	DOE-affiliated	researchers	have	documented	the	potential	for	impacts	to	

property	values	along	shipping	routes,	negative	economic	impacts	due	to	suppressed	tourism	and	

other	commercial	activities,	etc.	Any	analysis	of	socioeconomic	impacts	is	deficient	if	it	fails	to	

address	the	unique	effects	of	nuclear	activities	and	nuclear	waste/materials	shipments	on	unique	

local	conditions.	

Summary	–	Groundwater	Hydrology	(S.3.1.4)	

The	information	contained	in	the	draft	EIS	is	insufficient	to	assess	the	full	nature	of	

contamination	of	the	groundwater	resource	underlying	NNSS	and	the	value	of	that	resource	

which	has	been	(and	will	continue	to	be)	lost	to	present	and	future	generations	of	Nevadans	as	a	

direct	result	of	past,	present	and	future	NNSS	activities.			

The	draft	EIS	states	that	tritium	has	been	found	in	Well	ER-EC-11,	but	ignores	the	September	

1997	report	by	scientists	from	the	U.S.	Department	of	Energy's	Lawrence	Livermore	and	Los	

Alamos	National	Laboratories	that	showed	plutonium	attached	to	colloids	from	an	underground	

nuclear	weapons	test	at	Pahute	Mesa	had	migrated	almost	a	mile	from	the	where	the	test	took	

place.		This	finding	contradicts	DOE’s	predictions	about	how	fast	plutonium	can	move	through	

the	underground	rock.		Until	this	report,	DOE	and	its	scientists	had	contended	that	plutonium	

movement	would	be	very	slow	-	several	inches	or	feet	over	hundreds	of	years.

Summary	–	Figure	S-9	

The	Table	indicates	that	the	range	and	abundance	of	desert	tortoises	in	the	“former	Yucca	

Mountain	Site”	portion	of	NNSS	is	“unknown.”		Given	the	extensive	environmental	and	other	

studies	conducted	for	the	now-defunct	Yucca	Mountain	program,	it	is	difficult	to	believe	that	this	

is	accurate.			

65-9

cont’d

65-10

65-11

65-12

the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand

the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing

options (which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since

the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate

those differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of

transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any

decisions regarding specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. 

Once waste generators have selected the mode of transportation and satisfied the

requirements to protect health and safety through appropriate packaging, carriers have

the responsibility for selecting a route that minimizes radiological risk. The routes

analyzed within the SWEIS (Constrained Case) reflect transportation routes that have

been used by carriers in the past that are consistent with the NNSS WAC and are

representative of routes that carriers are likely to use in the future. 

Any changes to existing routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS

WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to

the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO

(State of Nevada 2011). While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no

meaningful differences in potential environmental effects between the Constrained

and Unconstrained Cases, the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended

that DOE/NNSA retain highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/

MLLW through greater metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration

of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with

NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would

retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there

would be no need to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

65-8	 As discussed above in response to comment 65-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

65-9	 DOE performs transportation analyses to determine comparative risks among

alternatives using risks calculated for entire routes. The risk over the entire

transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local area; therefore,

analysis of specific local hazards on many possible routes is neither practical nor

necessary for the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. The transportation of LLW/MLLW

and other radioactive materials would use existing highways and railroads and, as
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-233

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

6

Summary	–	Waste	Management	(S.3.1.9)	

The	draft	EIS	should	have	included	information	on	the	amount	of	Greater-Than-Class-C	(GTCC)	

waste	that	could	be	disposed	of	at	NNSS	under	the	Yucca	Mountain	alternative	considered	in	the	

draft	EIS	for	Disposal	of	GTCC	Waste.		Since	the	draft	GTCC	EIS	specifically	identifies	NNSS	

as	an	alternative	for	each	of	the	disposal	alternatives	addressed	in	the	draft	GTCC	EIS	

(boreholes,	trenches	and	vaults),	the	draft	NNSS	site-wide	EIS	should	have	included	GTCC	

waste	in	its	analysis	of	impacts	resulting	from	potential	future	NNSS	activities.		In	the	

alternative,	if	NNSS	is	no	longer	being	considered	as	a	disposal	site	for	GTCC	waste	–	

something	the	State	of	Nevada	has	long	advocated	–	the	draft	EIS	should	stipulate	to	that	fact	

clearly	and	without	equivocation.

Summary	–	Waste	Management	(S.3.1.9)	

Table	S-11	summarizes	“Waste	Generated	and	Disposed	at	the	Nevada	National	Security	Site.”	

Under	the	No	Action	and	Reduced	Operations	alternatives,	15.9	million	cu.ft.	of	LLW	and	

MLLW	are	projected	for	disposal	at	NNSS,	while	the	Expanded	Operations	alternative	

contemplates	a	three-fold	increase	to	52	million	cu.ft.		Nevada	is	concerned	that	the	draft	EIS	

fails	to	evaluate	potential	disposal	alternatives	for	such	waste	and	the	differential	impacts	

associated	with	disposal	at	NNSS	vs.	disposal	at	available	commercial	facilities.		There	has	long	

been	concern	that	DOE’s	use	of	NNSS	for	disposal	of	LLW	and	MLLW	resulting	from	clean	up	

of	other	DOE	sites	around	the	country	represents	unfair	and	government-subsidized	competition	

with	existing	commercial	disposal	facilities	such	as	the	Energy	Solutions	facility	in	Utah	and	the	

Waste	Control	Specialists	(WCS)	facility	in	Texas.		At	the	very	least,	the	draft	EIS	should	have	

contained	an	evaluation	of	the	relative	costs	and	impacts	associated	with	existing	disposal	

options	(i.e.,	NNSS,	Energy	Solutions,	WCS)	and	a	supportable	rationale	for	using	NNSS	as	the	

preferred	site	for	the	large	waste	volumes	projected	in	the	draft	EIS.

There	is	also	no	rationale	given	for	maintaining	the	same	level	of	LLW	and	MLLW	disposal	

under	the	“Reduced	Operations”	alternative,	when	for	other	NNSS	activities,	the	draft	EIS	

assumes	reduced	levels	of	activity.		Why	did	the	draft	EIS	not	assume	greater	use	of	commercial	

facilities	under	the	“Reduced	Operations”	alternative?	

Summary	–	Areas	of	Controversy	(S.4.2)	

In	discussing	the	controversy	surrounding	the	“Unconstrained	Case”	for	routing	LLW	and	

MLLW	shipments,	the	draft	EIS	asserts	that	using	I-15	and	the	Las	Vegas	beltway	through	

metropolitan	Las	Vegas	is	now	acceptable	because	of	improvements	to	the	area’s	highway	

system	that	were	not	in	place	when	the	original	agreement	was	made:	

“DOE/NNSA	committed	to	avoid	[routes	that	transit	metro	Las	Vegas]	at	a	time	when	

major	highways,	specifically	I-15	and	U.S.	Route	95,	were	unable	to	accommodate	the	

growing	traffic	volume.		Since	then,	these	highways	have	been	widened	and	otherwise	

65-13

65-14

such, would represent a small fraction of the existing national and local (Nevada)

highway and railway traffic. Because no new land acquisition and construction

would be required to accommodate these shipments, this SWEIS focuses on potential

impacts on human health and safety and the potential for accidents along shipment

routes. In addition, the transport of radioactive materials and wastes occurs daily on

the Nation’s highways as a result of commercial and government activities; therefore,

the transportation activities analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS do not present a new or

unique hazard that would require specific locations along a route to be analyzed or

analysis of other aspects such as economic impacts. This approach is consistent

with CEQ’s guidance to agencies that EISs “focus on significant environmental

issues and alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.1) and discuss impacts “in proportion to their

significance” (40 CFR 1502.2(b)). Appendix E, Section E.6, was revised to include

additional discussion of this point. 

As described in Appendix E, Sections E.4 and E.4.1, route characteristics that are

important to the radiological risk assessment, and therefore are discriminating factors

when comparing the alternatives, include the total shipment distance and population

distribution along the route. The population density along each analyzed route

was projected to 2016, assuming state-level population growth rates between 2000

and 2010. 

Regarding perceived risks that the public may have in association with the transport

of radioactive materials and wastes, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any

adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with waste transportation under normal

operations or accident scenarios. In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250)

and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived

risk and stigma associated with the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs,

DOE concluded that there is no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding

waste transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. DOE has not been presented

with any new information since the 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS that changes this

conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not

inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence, DOE/NNSA did not attempt

to quantify any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

65-10	 Please see the response to comment 65-9 above regarding the perceived risk and

stigma associated with the transportation of SNF and HLW in consideration of the

environmental analyses in this NNSS SWEIS and stakeholder comments, DOE/NNSA

determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of

LLW/MLLW.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-234

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

7

improved,	the	Bruce	Woodward	Beltway	(Interstate	215	and	Clark	County	Route	215)	

around	Las	Vegas	has	been	expanded,	and	the	bypass	bridge	has	been	constructed	nearby	

Hoover	Dam.”	(draft	EIS,	p.S-94)	

	While	I-15	and	the	beltway	have	undergone	almost	constant	reconstruction	over	the	past	decade	

in	an	effort	to	mitigate	ever-increasing	traffic,	congestion	and	gridlock	continue	to	be	major	

problems.		Since	1999,	the	population	of	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	has	increased	

exponentially,	and	the	rationale	for	keeping	waste	shipments	out	of	the	area	is	stronger	and	more	

compelling	now	than	it	was	in	1999.			

The	new	Hoover	Dam	bypass	bridge	has	created	a	whole	new	area	of	traffic	congestion	and	

gridlock	due	to	the	extremely	heavy	tourist	traffic	to	and	from	both	sides	of	the	bridge	and	the	

increased	numbers	of	large	trucks	using	the	route.		Traffic	is	routinely	backed	up	for	miles	

approaching	the	new	bridge.

Summary	–	Issues	to	be	Resolved	(S.4.3)	

The	issue	involving	allowable	land	uses	and	the	inconsistency	between	the	language	of	the	

original	(and	still	current)	land	withdrawal	orders	and	legislation	and	the	evolving	mission	and	

activities	ongoing	or	planned	for	NNSS	still	needs	to	be	resolved	(see	discussion	above).		The	

draft	EIS	should	address	this	matter	and	set	forth	a	clear	path	towards	resolving	it	(i.e.,	a	

commitment	to	seek	congressional	action	to	change	the	allowable	land	uses	as	specified	in	

proposed	legislation).

As	discussed	above,	potential	relinquishment	of	areas	of	NNSS	for	public	use	should	be	

addressed	in	a	separate	section	of	the	final	EIS.

Volume1, Book 1 

Introduction	and	Purpose	and	Need	for	Agency	Action	(1.0)	

See	comments	for	S.1	above	

Decisions	to	be	Supported	By	this	Site-Wide	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(1.4)		

The	fact	that	the	draft	EIS	does	not	identify	a	preferred	alternative	can	be	seen	as	a	significant	

shortcoming	of	the	document	and	DOE’s	approach	to	the	NEPA	process	for	NNSS.		Without	an	

identified	preferred	alternative,	neither	the	State	of	Nevada	nor	other	interested	or	affected	

parties	are	afforded	insight	into	DOE’s	realistic	vision	for	NNSS	over	the	next	10	years.		DOE	

should	have	sufficient	information	from	its	analysis	of	current	and	possible	future	uses	of	NNSS	

to	clearly	articulate	a	preferred	alternative.		Only	by	doing	so	can	affected	parties	provide	

comments	and	feedback	on	how	realistic	DOE’s	judgment	may	be	and	whether	impacts	

associated	with	the	preferred	alternative	have	been	adequately	identified	and	addressed.

65-14

cont’d

65-15

65-16

65-11	 DOE/NNSA believes the analysis in this SWEIS is sufficient for purposes of

differentiating among the alternatives considered for continued operation of the

NNSS. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, provides DOE/NNSA’s estimation of potential

cumulative environmental impacts on groundwater resources resulting from past

nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. 

Although DOE/NNSA believes the groundwater analyses in the Draft NNSS SWEIS

were sufficient for purposes of differentiating among alternatives, as noted in the

response to comment 65-2 above. In response to a number of requests, this Final 

NNSS SWEIS has been revised to enable the public to better understand the extent

of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based

on information developed for the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to better

describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS.

	 As reported by Kersting et al. (1998), groundwater samples taken at well ER‐20‐5 in

1997 contained low concentrations (from 0.0085 to 0.63 picocuries per liter, or about

4.2 percent of the SDWA limit of 15 picocuries per liter) of plutonium, apparently

associated with colloids. Well ER‐20‐5 is located on the southwestern part of

Pahute Mesa, about 4,265 feet south of the Benham underground nuclear test and

984 feet west of the Tybo underground nuclear test. Analysis of the plutonium in the

groundwater samples demonstrated that it was from the Benham test, rather than the

Tybo test. Kersting et al. noted, “this is the first time Pu [plutonium] has been shown

to be transported by groundwater and for a significant distance.” A low concentration

of plutonium (0.42 picocurie per liter which is 3.8 percent of the SDWA limit of 15

picocuries per liter) was found in subsequent samples taken from well ER-20-5 #1

in 2004 (Eaton et al. 2007). In a study following the discovery of plutonium at well

EC-20-5, Smith et al. (2003) noted that, “general experience from the U.S. nuclear

testing program based on radiochemical diagnostic data collected from a variety

of test matrices suggest that only a small fraction (5 to 10 percent) of the total

plutonium from an underground nuclear detonation would be available for transport

in groundwater.” More-detailed information regarding the potential for plutonium

migration in groundwater in and around Pahute Mesa at the NNSS has been added to

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2.

	 DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, developed a UGTA Corrective Action

Strategy to address the contamination created by the testing of nuclear devices in

shafts and tunnels at the NNSS. The UGTA Corrective Action Strategy is discussed

in detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-235

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

8

The	use	of	bounding	alternatives	such	as	in	the	draft	EIS	may	be	appropriate	for	new	programs	

or	projects/facilities	in	their	early	stages,	but	NNSS/NTS	has	been	in	existence	for	six	decades.		

At	this	stage,	DOE	knows	–	or	should	know	–	with	great	specificity	what	activities	are	likely	to	

be	undertaken	at	the	site	during	the	next	10	years.		The	final	EIS	should	clearly	specify	a	

preferred	alternative.	

Relationship	Between	this	Site-Wide	EIS	and	other	NEPA	Analyses	(1.5)	

The	draft	EIS	fails	to	identify	DOE’s	draft	EIS	for	Disposal	of	Greater-Than-Class-C	Waste	and	

its	relationship	to	activities	evaluated	for	the	draft	NNSS	site-wide	EIS.		As	noted	above,	as	long	

as	NNSS	is	identified	as	a	site	for	the	waste	disposal	alternative	contained	in	the	draft	GTCC	

EIS,	the	implication	of	GTCC	waste	disposal	at	NNSS	must	be	fully	evaluated	in	the	draft	EIS.

In	the	alternative,	a	definitive	statement	indicating	that	NNSS	is	no	longer	being	considered	for	

GTCC	waste	disposal	must	be	included	in	the	final	EIS.	

The	discussion	of	the	Record	of	Decisions	(ROD)	for	DOE	Waste	Management	Programmatic	

EIS	should	include	the	agreement	between	Nevada	Governor	Guinn	and	Energy	Secretary	Bill	

Richardson	regarding	equity	considerations	for	designation	of	NNSS	as	a	regional	disposal	

facility	for	LLW	and	MLLW,	including	commitments	to	use	shipping	route	that	avoid	the	Las	

Vegas	metropolitan	area	and	commitments	to	provide	emergency	response/preparedness	

assistance	for	rural	communities	along	shipping	routes.	

Site	Overview	and	Update	(2.0)	

Physical	Changes	(2.5.2)	

In	the	discussion	of	the	Area	5	Land	Transfer,	the	draft	EIS	states	that	“This	consultation	process	

[required	as	part	of	the	1997	Settlement	Agreement	with	the	State	of	Nevada	over	allowable	land	

uses	at	NNSS]	concluded	with	NNSA’s	formal	acceptance	of	custody	and	control	of	

approximately	740	acres	constituting	the	Area	5	RWMC	in	a	land	transfer	action.”		The	transfer	

of	a	small	amount	of	land	from	one	federal	entity	to	another	does	not	represent	the	conclusion	of	

the	overall	land	use	issue	that	is	at	the	heart	of	the	State’s	concerns	and	that	prompted	Nevada’s	

legal	action	in	the	1990s.		The	land	withdrawal	legislation	for	NTS/NNSS	specifies	that	the	

withdrawn	land	is	to	be	used	for	weapons	testing	activities.		In	recognition	of	the	evolving	

mission	of	NNSS	and	the	range	of	current	and	proposed	activities	undertaken	there,	DOE	needs	

to	seek	congressional	action	broadening	the	existing	land	withdrawal	language.		Until	that	is	

done,	the	“consultation”	required	by	the	1997	Settlement	Agreement	cannot	be	concluded.	

65-16

cont’d

65-17

65-18

65-12	 Figure S–11 in the Summary is the same as Figure 4–24 in Chapter 4. Both figures

are based on desert tortoise surveys conducted on the NNSS that did not include

the Yucca Mountain site because, at the time of the surveys, that area was under the

jurisdiction of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project. Although desert tortoises

are indeed known to occur within the area identified as the “Former Yucca Mountain

Site” in Figures S–11 and 4–24, DOE/NNSA does not have compatible data to use

in developing these figures. For purposes of the analysis in this NNSS SWEIS, desert

tortoise population density on the “Former Yucca Mountain Site” was assumed to be

similar to that on adjacent areas of the NNSS. A clarifying statement has been added

to the text in Section 4.1.7.3.

65-13	 As the commentor notes, DOE has issued a Draft GTCC EIS (DOE/EIS-0375) that

evaluates the potential impacts of a variety of technologies and locations for the

disposal of GTCC LLW and DOE GTCC-like waste. A Notice of Availability of

the Draft GTCC EIS for public comment was published in the Federal Register on

February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10574). Although the Draft GTCC EIS does not address

an alternative involving GTCC waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, the commentor

correctly notes that the NNSS is one of the evaluated candidate sites. DOE has

not yet made a decision regarding GTCC waste disposition. Therefore, rather than

evaluating GTCC waste management at the NNSS as a mission assigned to the

NSO, it is discussed as a reasonably foreseeable future action in this NNSS SWEIS

in Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts.” Section 6.2.1.2 includes a description of the

facility, and Section 6.3 presents the cumulative impacts of the activities evaluated in

this NNSS SWEIS, as well as other activities, including construction and operation of

a GTCC waste disposal facility.

	 Disposal of LLW and MLLW at NNSS is in accordance with programmatic

decisions reached pursuant to the WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200). In accordance with

the WM PEIS ROD (65 FR 10061) issued on February 25, 2000, DOE decided

to continue onsite disposal of LLW at NNSS and certain other DOE sites and to

establish regional disposal capacity at the NNSS and the Hanford Site. Specifically,

in addition to disposing their own LLW, the NNSS and the Hanford Site would

dispose LLW generated at other DOE sites, provided the waste met their respective

WAC. DOE decided to treat MLLW at a number of DOE sites, with disposal at either

the NNSS or the Hanford Site. Neither decision precludes DOE’s use of commercial

disposal facilities consistent with DOE Orders and policy. Only a small percentage

of the LLW/MLLW generated by DOE is disposed of at the NNSS. Approximately

90 percent of DOE’s LLW/MLLW is disposed of at the site where they are generated. 

About half of the remaining quantities are disposed of at commercial facilities.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-236

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

9

Description	of	Alternatives	(3.0)	

Comparison	of	Mission-Based	Program	Activities	Under	the	Proposed	Alternatives	(Table	3-1)	

Under	the	Environmental	Management	Mission	“Expanded	Operations	Alternative,”	the	Table	

notes	that	the	currently	closed	Area	3	Radioactive	Waste	Management	Site	(RWMS)	would	be	

opened	for	disposal	of	authorized	and/or	permitted	waste.		The	State	of	Nevada	would	likely	

object	to	the	re-opening	of	the	Area	3	RWMS	for	LLW	or	MLLW	disposal	unless	there	is	a	firm	

DOE	commitment	that	any	future	waste	disposal	would	be	in	strict	compliance	with	RCRA	Part	

B	requirements	for	hazardous	and	mixed	waste	disposal	facilities	and	with	NRC	requirements	for	

LLW	disposal	facilities.			

Expanded	Operations	Alternative	(3.2)	

Waste	Management	Program	(3.2.2.1)	

The	Expanded	Operations	Alternative	postulates	a	more	than	threefold	increase	in	LLW	and	

MLLW	imported	into	NNSS	for	disposal.		Because	of	the	transportation	implications	and	

impacts	associated	with	such	a	major	increase	in	waste	volumes,	the	State	of	Nevada	has	serious	

concerns	about	such	a	proposal.		Before	DOE	moves	to	significantly	increase	the	amount	of	

LLW	and/or	MLLW	imported	to	NNSS	for	disposal,	DOE	should	assess	availability	of	

commercial	disposal	facilities	and	clearly	document	why	NNSS	should	be	used	in	favor	of	one	

or	more	available	commercial	sites.		It	is	Nevada’s	position	that	NNSS	should	be	the	disposal	

choice	of	last	resort,	and	that	DOE	should	be	working	to	minimize	the	amount	of	waste	imported	

to	NNSS	for	disposal	and	maximize	the	use	of	available	commercial	disposal	locations	rather	

than	competing	with	the	private	sector	as	a	waste	disposal	operator.

The	draft	EIS	indicates	that	under	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative,	“...	NNSA	would	treat	

and	store	various	types	of	MLLW	received	from	on	–	and	offsite	generators.		MLLW	treatment	

capacity	would	be	developed	within	the	Area	5	RWMC,	including	macroencapsulation,	

stabilization/microencapsulation,	sorting/segregating,	bench-scale	mercury	amalgamation	of	both	

onsite-	and	offsite-generated	MLLW.”		The	importation	of	offsite	MLLW	for	treatment	at	NNSS	

represents	a	significant	augmentation	in	the	waste	management	mission	for	NNSS.		Nevada	

contends	that	such	a	program	would	necessarily	require	additional	NEPA	reviews	and	

documentation	and	should	not	be	considered	without	consultation	with	and	concurrence	of	the	

State.		Before	any	such	program	is	considered,	DOE	should	be	required	to	demonstrate	that	no	

other	commercial	facilities	or	existing	DOE	facilities	are	available	for	such	MLLW	waste	

treatment.	

Nondefense	Mission	(3.2.3)	

One	activity	not	mentioned	in	the	draft	EIS	that	could	prove	beneficial	to	both	DOE	and	the	

State	of	Nevada	under	an	Expanded	Operations	Alternative	would	be	the	establishment	of	a	

65-19

65-21

65-20

	 Issues such as disposal costs are outside the scope of this NNSS SWEIS, the purpose

of which is to evaluate environmental impacts of the continued operation of the

NNSS. DOE/NNSA notes, however, that the intent of this NNSS SWEIS is not to

support competition with existing commercial disposal facilities, but to provide

NEPA analysis for NNSS disposal of LLW and MLLW that could be received from

authorized DOE generators. Commercial disposal capacity may or may not exist in

the future, and such capacity may or may not be cost-effective at the time of waste

generation. For purposes of this NEPA analysis, it was conservatively assumed that

the projected quantities of LLW and MLLW from out-of-state sources would all

be disposed at NNSS. But as LLW and MLLW are generated in the future, waste

generators would make contemporary decisions about the use of particular DOE or

commercial treatment and disposal facilities in accordance with Section I (2)(F)(4) of

DOE’s Radioactive Waste Management Manual (DOE M 435.1-1). The provisions of

this Section allow for use of non-DOE facilities for the storage, treatment, or disposal

of DOE radioactive wastes based on considerations that include cost-effectiveness. 

The same quantities of LLW and MLLW were assumed to be disposed under

the Reduced Operations Alternative as under the No Action Alternative because

most of the waste would come from offsite generators. Therefore, lower levels of

onsite operations would not have a large effect on the quantities of waste received

for disposal. This results in a conservatively large estimation of impacts. Actual

quantities of waste that may be delivered to NNSS under any of the alternatives

may be smaller than the quantities projected, depending on programmatic and

regulatory decisions, funding, and other considerations that are outside the scope of

this NNSS SWEIS. In addition, as discussed in the previous paragraph, as LLW and

MLLW are generated in the future, waste generators would make decisions at that

time about the use of particular DOE or commercial treatment and disposal facilities

in accordance with DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. 

65-14	 Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 65-1 above.

65-15	 DOE/NNSA believes there remain no open or unresolved land use issues relative to

ongoing or proposed activities at the NNSS, and that the land withdrawals are not

restrictive with respect to NNSS activities in support of its missions. For additional

information, please see the response to comment 65-5 above. 

In addition, returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for

other use is inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land

was withdrawn for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-237

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

10

program	for	identifying	potentially	exploitable	minerals	and	oil	and	gas	resources	within	NNSS.

As	noted	elsewhere	in	these	comments,	numerous	reports	have	suggested	the	possibility	of	

favorable	geologic	conditions	for	oil	and/or	natural	gas	reserves	under	NNSS.		And	given	

developments	in	detection	technologies	and	major	changes	in	mining	economics	over	the	past	

several	decades,	there	may	also	be	potentially	exploitable	minerals	within	the	boundaries	of	

NNSS.		Since	there	have	been	little	or	no	investigations	of	mineral/oil	and	gas	potential	at	the	

site	over	the	years,	a	new	program	to	investigate	possible	exploitable	resources	might	be	in	

order,	recognizing	that	any	such	program	would	have	to	be	compatible	with	site	security	and	the	

other	missions	of	NNSS.	

Under	the	Conservation	and	Renewable	Energy	Program	for	the	Expanded	Operations	

Alternative	(3.2.3.2),	the	draft	discusses	the	possibility	of	a	Geothermal	Demonstration	Project,	

even	though	there	are	no	proposals	to	develop	such	a	project	at	this	time.		A	mineral/oil	and	gas	

exploration	program	might	likewise	be	presented	in	the	final	EIS	as	something	that	should	be	

considered	under	Expanded	Operations	conditions.	

Reduced	Operation	Alternative	(3.3)	

The	inclusion	of	a	Reduced	Operations	Alternative	in	the	draft	EIS	appears	to	be	problematic	in	

that	it	may	not	represent	a	reasonable	alternative	for	evaluation.		DOE	needs	to	document	the	

circumstances	that	would	result	in	“reduced	operations”	at	NNSS	(i.e.,	reductions	from	activity	

levels	currently	occurring	and	described	in	the	No	Action	Alternative).		The	draft	EIS	does	not	

currently	justify	including	a	Reduced	Operations	Alternative	in	the	NEPA	analysis	for	NNSS.	

Identification	of	the	Preferred	Alternative	(3.6)	

As	noted	above,	the	fact	that	the	draft	EIS	does	not	identify	a	preferred	alternative	can	be	seen	as	

a	significant	shortcoming	of	the	document	and	DOE’s	approach	to	the	NEPA	process	for	NNSS	

and	may	be	in	violation	of	the	spirit	if	not	the	letter	of	NEPA. Without	an	identified	preferred	

alternative,	neither	the	State	of	Nevada	nor	other	interested	or	affected	parties	are	afforded	

insight	into	DOE’s	realistic	vision	for	NNSS	over	the	next	10	years.		DOE	should	have	sufficient	

information	from	its	analysis	of	current	and	possible	future	uses	of	NNSS	to	clearly	articulate	a	

preferred	alternative.		Only	by	doing	so	can	affected	parties	provide	comments	and	feedback	on	

how	realistic	DOE’s	judgment	may	be	and	whether	impacts	associated	with	the	preferred	

alternative	have	been	adequately	identified	and	addressed.		The	final	EIS	should	clearly	specify	a	

preferred	alternative.	

The	Affected	Environment	(4.0)	

In	addition	to	the	specific	areas	identified	in	this	section	of	the	draft	EIS	as	constituting	the	

‘affected	environment’	for	the	purposes	of	inclusion	in	the	“region	of	influence”	for	NEPA	

analysis,	the	draft	EIS	should	have	identified	the	actual	and	proposed	transportation	routes	used	

for	LLW,	MLLW	and	other	radioactive	materials	shipments	into	NNSS	as	part	of	the	overall	

65-21

cont’d

65-22

65-24

65-23

of the USAF Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to

its remote location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. 

As activities on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn

(i.e., the original and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries)

to ensure sufficient land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain

adequate buffers between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and

otherwise sensitive testing, experimental, and training activities on site.

	 Returning NNSS land to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national

security needs, as well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. 

Consequently, there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these

two primary uses.

65-16	 As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an agency to identify its preferred

alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. DOE/NNSA had

not identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS;

therefore, none was identified in that document. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative

is described in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

The NNSS is a multi-mission facility serving a large number of customers both

within and outside of the Federal Government. It is a test and experiment, research

and development, and training facility that must respond to a wide variety of needs. 

Often, an event elsewhere in the world may spur a need for a particular test or

experiment. For this reason, it is not possible to predict with certainty what specific

activities or level of effort may be required from year to year. The No Action

Alternative in this NNSS SWEIS reflects the use of existing facilities and ongoing

projects to maintain operations consistent with those experienced in recent years

at the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. The activities and levels of effort

considered under the Expanded Operations Alternative represent DOE/NNSA’s

best judgment of the potential maximum that may occur, based on actual proposals

or serious expressions of interest by DOE/NNSA elements, other agencies, and

organizations. The Reduced Operations Alternative represents what DOE/NNSA

considers the minimum level of operations that may reasonably be expected over the

next 10 years.

65-17	 Chapter 1, Section 1.5, has been clarified to indicate that this Section summarizes

past and ongoing NEPA compliance reviews and associated decisions (i.e., RODs

and Findings of No Significant Impact [FONSIs]) that are germane to the estimation
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-238

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

11

affected	environment.		A	major	driver	of	impacts	associated	with	activities	occurring	or	

projected	to	occur	at	NNSS	is	the	transportation	of	radioactive	waste/materials.	Such	impacts	

affect	area	that	are	not	located	on	or	even	adjacent	to	NNSS	and	the	other	offsite	locations	

addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.		Consequently,	the	affected	environment	for	the	purposes	of	this	

NEPA	review	should	have	included,	at	a	minimum,	communities	located	along	transportation	

routes	in	Nevada	as	well	as	in	Inyo	and	San	Bernardino	Counties,	California	(where	existing	

shipping	routes	converge	and	where	large	numbers	of	waste	shipments	are	already	occurring).		In	

addition,	environmentally	sensitive	areas	along	shipping	routes	should	also	have	been	identified	

and	considered	as	part	of	the	affected	environment.			

The	affected	environment	for	NNSS	proper	should	also	include	the	areas	down	gradient	from	the	

site	in	terms	of	groundwater	flows	and	direction.		In	addition	to	areas	of	Nye	County	identified	in	

the	draft	EIS,	the	affected	environment	should	also	include	areas	of	Inyo	County,	California	and	

Death	Valley	where	groundwater	underlying	NNSS	(and	subject	to	NNSS-related	contamination)	

is	known	to	discharge.		The	inclusion	of	Inyo	County	and	Death	Valley	as	part	of	the	affected	

environment	is	also	important	not	only	in	terms	of	assessing	the	potential	for	long-term	

contamination,	but	also	for	evaluating	impacts	of	any	increased	groundwater	usage	at	NNSS	that	

might	affect	the	quality	and/or	volume	of	water	available	in	those	areas.	

Public	Land	Orders	and	Withdrawals	(4.1.1.3)	

As	noted	elsewhere	in	these	comments,	there	continue	to	be	unresolved	land	use	issues	

associated	with	NNSS	that	are	not	adequately	addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.		As	Nevada	has	noted	

in	numerous	comments	and	communications	over	the	years,	the	original	1952	land	withdrawal	

for	the	Nevada	Test	Site	(Public	Land	Order	805)	specified	its	use	as	a	“weapons	testing	site.”

In	1994,	the	State	of	Nevada	filed	a	complaint	in	U.S.	District	Court	in	Las	Vegas,	alleging	that	

the	land	withdrawals	for	NTS	do	not	include	waste	disposal	from	offsite	sources	as	an	intended	

use	of	the	land.		A	settlement	agreement	signed	in	April	1997	committed	DOE	to	initiate	

“consultation	with	the	United	States	Department	of	the	Interior	concerning	the	status	of	existing	

land	withdrawals	for	the	NTS	with	regard	to	low-level	waste	storage/disposal	activities.”

Although	DOE	has	indicated	that	consultations	with	the	Department	of	Interior	have	concluded,	

the	State	has	continuing	concerns	about	off-site	waste	disposition.		These	matters	are	not	

addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.	

The	discussion	of	the	“Area	5	Land	Transfer”	in	the	draft	EIS	is	inaccurate.	The	transfer	of	a	

small	amount	of	land	from	one	federal	entity	to	another	does	not	represent	the	conclusion	of	the	

overall	land	use	issue	that	is	at	the	heart	of	the	State’s	land	use-related	concerns	and	that	

prompted	Nevada’s	legal	action	the	1990s.		The	land	withdrawal	legislation	for	NTS/NNSS	

specifies	that	the	withdrawn	land	is	to	be	used	for	weapons	testing	activities.		In	recognition	of	

the	evolving	mission	of	NNSS	and	of	the	range	of	current	and	proposed	activities	undertaken	

there,	DOE	needs	to	seek	congressional	action	broadening	the	existing	land	withdrawal	

language.		Until	that	is	done,	the	“consultation”	required	by	the	1997	Settlement	Agreement	

cannot	be	concluded.

65-24

cont’d

65-25

65-26

of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from

the implementation of the projects and activities under each of the three alternatives. 

DOE, in its Draft GTCC EIS (DOE/EIS-0375) for instance, is considering the

NNSS as one of a number of locations for the disposal of GTCC and GTCC-like

waste. As this is a reasonably foreseeable future action (see Chapter 6, Section 6.2),

DOE/NNSA analyzed the disposal of this waste at the NNSS in Section 6.3 under

Cumulative Impacts.

	 DOE/NNSA limited the discussion in Chapter 1, Section 1.5, to NEPA compliance

reviews and resulting decisions, as articulated in RODs and FONSIs. Policies,

such as that policy described by the commentor, as well as regulatory actions such

as Executive Orders, each of which are used to shape the environmental analyses,

are discussed in the appropriate Sections throughout the SWEIS. The agreement

discussed by the commentor, for instance, is described in Section 5.1.3.1.

65-18	 DOE/NNSA believe there remain no open or unresolved land use issues relative to

ongoing or proposed activities at the NNSS, and that the land withdrawals are not

restrictive with respect to NNSS activities in support of its missions. For additional

information, please see response to comment 65-5 above. 

65-19	 Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Area 3 Radioactive Waste

Management Site (Area 3 RWMS) could be opened to receive LLW generated from

environmental restoration and other activities at DOE/NNSA sites in the State of

Nevada. Specifically, this action could be triggered by a need for additional disposal

space beyond that available in the Area 5 RWMC for the disposal of large on-site

remediation debris, or soils from clean-up activities on the NTTR. There is no nearterm need to use the Area 3 RWMS, however, should DOE/NNSA identify a need to

reopen the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site in the future, it would first

undertake detailed consultation with the State of Nevada, and would limit disposal to

in-state generated, non-hazardous LLW.

	 The management and disposal of MLLW is regulated by DOE under the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and by EPA and the State of Nevada under RCRA.

DOE/NNSA does not plan to establish a MLLW disposal cell at the Area 3 RWMS.

The management and disposal of LLW is regulated by DOE through its authority

under the Atomic Energy Act. This act authorizes DOE to establish standards to

protect health and minimize danger to life or property for activities under DOE’s

jurisdiction. DOE has issued a series of Departmental orders to establish a system

of standards and requirements to ensure safe operation of DOE facilities. The
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-239

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

12

Regional	Transportation	System	(4.1.3.2.1)	

Reference	to	DOE’s	“verbal	commitment”	to	the	State	of	Nevada	to	use	LLW	and	MLLW	

shipping	routes	that	avoid	metropolitan	Las	Vegas	and	Hoover	Dam	(page	4-28)	understates	the	

full	importance	and	weight	of	this	commitment.		The	agreement	dealing	with	routing	of	nuclear	

waste	shipments	into	NNSS	for	disposal	was	initiated	by	Governor	Kenny	Guinn	with	thenEnergy	Secretary	Richardson	in	1999.		Governor	Guinn	agreed	not	to	challenge	DOE’s	record	of	

decision	on	its	Waste	Management	Programmatic	EIS	designating	the	NTS	(now	NNSS)	as	a	

regional	disposal	site	for	LLW	and	MLLW.		In	exchange,	Secretary	Richardson	agreed	to	certain	

“equity	considerations,”	including	the	commitment	to	keep	LLW	and	MLLW	out	of	the	Las	

Vegas	metropolitan	area.		It	now	appears	that	DOE	is	considering	unilateral	abrogation	of	that	

agreement	and	is	using	the	draft	NNSS	site-wide	EIS	(DOE/EIS-0426-D)	as	the	vehicle	for	

doing	so.	

DOE	currently	enforces	the	routing	requirements	using	the	waste	acceptance	criteria	for	NNSS.		

In	order	to	be	eligible	for	disposing	waste	at	NNSS,	shippers	transporting	the	material	are	

required	to	use	approved	routes	specified	in	the	waste	acceptance	criteria	(i.e.,	routes	that	avoid	

the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area).	

In	the	draft	EIS,	DOE	analyzes	two	scenarios	for	shipping	waste	to	NNSS	for	disposal.		The	

“Constrained	Scenario”	assumes	that	waste	will	continue	to	be	shipped	to	the	site	using	routes	

that	avoid	Las	Vegas	–	as	is	currently	the	case.		The	“Unconstrained	Scenario”	postulates	the	use	

of	multiple	intermodal	transfer	sites	in	Clark	County	and	elsewhere	(where	waste	is	transferred	

from	rail	to	trucks	for	the	final	leg	of	the	trip	to	NNSS)	and	the	use	of	the	interstate	highway	

system	for	transporting	waste	from	these	intermodal	locations	to	NNSS.		The	Unconstrained	

Scenario	assumes	waste	would	be	shipped	into	Las	Vegas	on	I-15	from	both	directions	and	on	to	

NNSS	via	the	LV	beltway	and/or	the	Spaghetti	Bowl.

Should	DOE	abandon	the	agreement	currently	in	place	with	the	State,	between	26,000	and	

94,000	shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	could	transit	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	on	I-15,	the	

Spaghetti	Bowl	and	the	Beltway,	according	to	the	draft	EIS	(Table	E-11,	p.	E-41).		The	draft	EIS	

claims	that	improvements	to	I-15	through	Las	Vegas	and	the	addition	of	the	beltway	routes	now	

makes	it	acceptable	to	ship	radioactive	wastes	through	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.		Use	of	

the	new	Hoover	Dam	bypass	bridge	would	allow	shipments	to	also	come	into	I-15	and	the	

Spaghetti	Bowl	from	the	south.		However,	population	growth	in	the	Las	Vegas	Valley	has	far	

exceeded	the	development	of	transportation	infrastructure.		Traffic	congestion	and	gridlock	

continue	to	be	major	problems	–	as	great	as	or	even	greater	than	in	1999	when	the	agreement	to	

keep	waste	shipments	out	of	the	Las	Vegas	area	was	made.		

It	is	difficult	to	grasp	DOE’s	motivation	for	seeking	to	abandon	the	current	approach	for	routing	

waste	shipments	to	NNSS	because	that	approach	has	worked	exceedingly	well	for	over	12	years.		

While	trucks	are	now	required	to	use	routes	that	transit	rural	areas	and	rural	communities,	the	

counties	along	those	routes	are	compensated	by	receiving	substantial	amounts	of	funds	for	

65-27

65-28

65-30

65-29

Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not have regulatory authority for DOE

radioactive waste disposal facilities. Additional discussion may be found in Chapter 9,

Section 9.1.11.

65-20	 As discussed in the response to comment 65-13, disposal of LLW and MLLW

at NNSS is in accordance with programmatic decisions reached pursuant to the

WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200), and it is not DOE’s intent that the NNSS be the sole

recipient of offsite-generated waste.

	 In addition, as discussed in the response to comment 65-13, the intent of this

NNSS SWEIS is not to support competition with existing commercial disposal

facilities, but to provide NEPA analysis for NNSS disposal of LLW and MLLW that

could be received by authorized DOE generators. As LLW and MLLW are generated

in the future, waste generators would make decisions about the use of particular DOE

or commercial treatment and disposal facilities in accordance with Section I (2)(F)(4)

of DOE’s Radioactive Waste Management Manual (DOE M 435.1-1). The provisions

of that Section allow for use of non-DOE facilities for the storage, treatment, or

disposal of DOE radioactive wastes based on considerations that include costeffectiveness. 

An expansion of MLLW treatment capabilities and capacities would be undertaken

in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. As the authorized regulating

authority for RCRA hazardous waste, NDEP would necessarily be involved in any

expansion of MLLW treatment capabilities. The appropriate evaluation under NEPA

would be performed for any expansion of MLLW treatment capacity. 

65-21	 DOE/NNSA has not needed to and is not proposing to conduct exploration of oil

and/or gas reserves and is unaware of any such proposal by others. A description of

oil and gas reserves at the NNSS is included in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.5, based

on the most current available information. There have been no studies conducted

since the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) to update that information. 

A geothermal demonstration project was included in the discussion of the Expanded

Operations Alternative (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2) because there has been a recent

proposal for this activity.

	 DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may permit access to

the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although DOE/NNSA

would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights as appropriate,

and thus the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its own water

appropriation from the State Engineer.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-240

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

13

emergency	preparedness	planning	and	emergency	response.		As	part	of	the	arrangement	that	

implemented	the	original	routing	agreement,	DOE	increased	the	fee	charged	for	disposing	of	

waste	at	NNSS	by	fifty	cents	per	cubic	foot.		The	money	generated	by	that	increase	goes	into	a	

special	fund	administered	by	the	Nevada	Division	of	Emergency	Management	and	is	passed	

through	to	counties	impacted	by	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments.		This	arrangement	has	been	very	

successful	in	building	emergency	management	and	response	capabilities	in	rural	counties	and	is	

widely	viewed	as	a	positive	and	welcome	form	of	assistance.			It	has	also	garnered	considerable	

good	will	for	DOE	in	the	rural	counties.			

The	State	of	Nevada	is	strongly	opposed	to	any	effort	to	abrogate	the	1999	routing	agreement	

and	will	aggressively	contest	any	such	move	on	DOE’s	part	in	any	and	all	forums	available.			

Socioeconomics	(4.1.4)	

The	approach	to	the	assessment	of	socioeconomic	impacts	in	the	draft	EISA	is	incomplete	and	

inadequate.		Assessing	only	the	employment-related	and	population-related	effects	on	area	

communities	misses	entirely	potentially	significant	economic	and	other	impacts	associated	with	

NNSS	activities,	especially	those	related	to	radioactive	waste	and	radiological	materials	

transportation	through	heavily	populated	urban	areas.		The	draft	EIS	ignores	the	potential	

impacts	associated	with	the	stigmatizing	effects	of	nuclear-related	activities	on	areas	and	

economic/industrial	sectors.		This	is	especially	significant	in	the	event	of	accidents	or	

terrorism/sabotage	incidents	occurring	in	or	near	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.		Extensive	

research	by	the	State	of	Nevada,	independent	researchers	and	even	DOE-affiliated	researchers	

has	documented	the	potential	for	impacts	to	property	values	along	shipping	route,	negative	

economic	impacts	due	to	suppressed	tourism	and	other	commercial	activities,	etc.	Any	analysis	

of	socioeconomic	impacts	is	deficient	if	it	fails	to	address	the	unique	effects	of	nuclear	activities	

and	nuclear	waste/materials	shipments	on	unique	local	conditions.

The	description	of	socioeconomic	conditions	in	the	Region	of	Influence	(ROI)	must	include	a	

description	of	the	economic	sectors	and	other	factors	susceptible	to	impacts	caused	by	

stigmatizing	events	and/or	economic	suppressant	characteristics	of	NNSS-related	activities.

These	economic	sectors	include	most	importantly	the	tourism/visitor/gaming	sector	of	Clark	

County,	property	values	and	types	of	property	susceptible	to	property	value	diminution	along	

shipping	routes,	etc.		The	importance	of	the	tourism/visitor	sector	in	Las	Vegas	and	Clark	

County	to	the	economic	well-being	of	the	region	and	the	entire	state	cannot	be	overstated.		To	

ignore	the	importance	of	this	sector	in	the	description	of	the	socioeconomic	ROI	for	analysis	in	

the	draft	EIS	renders	the	entire	assessment	inadequate.	

Regions	of	Influence	(4.1.4.1)

The	draft	EIS	identifies	the	ROI	for	analysis	as	comprising	Nye	and	Clark	Counties	in	Nevada.

The	draft	EIS	should	have	identified	the	actual	and	proposed	transportation	routes	used	for	LLW,	

MLLW	and	other	radioactive	materials	shipments	into	NNSS	as	part	of	the	ROI.		A	major	driver	

65-30

cont’d

65-31

65-32

65-33

65-22	 The Reduced Operations Alternative represents DOE/NNSA’s judgment as to

potential lower levels of activities at its facilities in Nevada based on the assumption

that requirements of some missions and programs may be less in the future than at

present. Some of these reduced requirements may be driven by accomplishment

of mission goals, such as a reduced need to conduct dynamic experiments because

data gathered under the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program are

determined to provide sufficient assurance of the safety and reliability of the United

States’ nuclear weapons stockpile. Funding is another consideration that could drive

selection of reduced operations for a particular mission or program. Inclusion of the

Reduced Operations Alternative in this NNSS SWEIS is intended to provide DOE/

NNSA with flexibility in its decisionmaking for the NNSS, TTR, and other facilities

in Nevada to best reflect realistic future scenarios.

65-23	 The alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS represent DOE/NNSA’s best

judgment as to the specific activities and range of operational levels at which those

activities may be conducted over the next 10 years. In Chapter 1, Section 1.4, of

the Draft NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA stated that it may choose to implement any

alternative in its entirety or select a hybrid that incorporates parts of the different

proposed alternatives. The analyses of the alternatives in this SWEIS analyzed

impacts at the alternative, mission, and program level to allow comparisons of

the impacts at various levels across the alternatives. As noted in the response to

comment 65-16, above, DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

65-24	 Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, was clarified to state that the ROI includes the public

living within 0.5 miles of either side of the route between a U.S. region (as depicted

in Appendix E, Figures E–2 and E–3) and the NNSS for incident-free impacts,

as well as a population within 50 miles of a postulated accident. There could

be numerous possible routes between a given origination point and the NNSS;

therefore, it is common practice to analyze a specific route as determined using the

TRAGIS computer code (as described in Appendix E, Section E.4). DOE performs

transportation analyses to determine comparative risks among alternatives using

risks calculated for the whole route. See the response to comment 65-9 regarding the

analysis of specific local conditions.

	 Regarding evaluation of impacts on environmentally sensitive areas along shipping

routes, DOE/NNSA uses existing roadways and railways and is not proposing any

modifications to these routes or adding new road or rail infrastructure. Normal use

of existing transportation infrastructure does not add additional impacts that have not
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-241

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

14

of	impacts	associated	with	activities	occurring	or	projected	to	occur	at	NNSS	is	the	

transportation	of	radioactive	waste/materials.	Such	impacts	affect	areas	that	are	not	located	on	or	

even	adjacent	to	NNSS	and	the	other	offsite	locations	addressed	in	the	draft	EIS.		Consequently,	

the	ROI	for	the	purposes	of	this	NEPA	review	should	include,	at	a	minimum,	communities	

located	along	transportation	routes	in	Nevada	as	well	as	in	Inyo	and	San	Bernardino	Counties,	

California	(where	existing	shipping	routes	converge	and	where	large	numbers	of	waste	

shipments	are	already	occurring).		In	addition,	environmentally	sensitive	areas	along	shipping	

routes	should	also	have	been	identified	and	considered	as	part	of	the	ROI.

The	ROI	for	NNSS	proper	should	also	include	the	areas	down	gradient	from	the	site	in	terms	of	

groundwater	flows	and	direction.		In	addition	to	areas	of	Nye	County	identified	in	the	draft	EIS,	

the	affected	environment	should	also	include	Inyo	County,	California	and	Death	Valley	where	

groundwater	underlying	NNSS	(and	subject	to	NNSS-related	contamination)	is	known	to	

discharge.		The	inclusion	of	Inyo	and	Death	Valley	as	part	of	the	ROI	is	also	important	not	only	

in	terms	of	assessing	the	potential	for	long-term	contamination,	but	also	for	evaluating	economic	

and	other	impacts	of	any	increased	groundwater	usage	at	NNSS	that	might	affect	the	quality	

and/or	volume	of	water	available	in	those	areas.	

Police	Protection	(4.1.4.6.2)	and	Fire	Protection	(4.1.4.6.3)	

For	each	of	these	sections,	the	draft	EIS	should	include	descriptions	of	police	and	fire	protection	

capacities	for	each	local	government	located	along	LLW	and	MLLW	shipping	routes	as	

contained	in	the	draft	EIS.		Limiting	the	description	to	only	police	and	fire	in	Clark	and	Nye	

counties	is	inadequate	given	that	the	potential	for	impacts	to	occur	from	waste	transportation	

extends	to	communities	along	all	prospective	shipping	routes,	

In	addition,	the	description	of	police	and	fire	protection	does	not	include	a	description	of	

emergency	response	and	preparedness	conditions	(especially	preparedness	for	radiological	

accidents	and	emergencies)	within	the	counties.		The	draft	EIS	should	contain	a	comprehensive	

description	of	each	county’s/city’s	emergency	management	system,	the	numbers	of	personnel	

trained	and	equipped	(and	at	what	level),	the	mutual	aid	agreements	that	exist	to	support	regional	

emergency	response,	and	any	other	factors	that	relate	to	the	existing	capabilities	of	local	

governments	to	deal	with	events	involving	radiological	and	hazardous	waste/materials.			

Health	Care	(4.1.4.6.4)	

As	for	police	and	fire	protection,	the	draft	EIS	fails	to	describe	health	resources	for	local	

communities	located	along	LLW	and	MLLW	shipping	routes.		This	section	of	the	draft	EIS	also	

should	include	descriptions	of	facilities	and	capabilities	for	treating	and	dealing	with	radiological	

health	emergencies.		The	rote	listing	of	hospitals	contained	in	the	draft	EIS	is	wholly	inadequate	

for	assessing	whether	conditions	are	adequate	for	treating	radiation-related	health	conditions	that	

could	result	from	NNSS-related	activities	and/or	NNSS	related	nuclear/hazardous	materials	

transportation.		Simply	documenting	the	existence	of	a	hospital	or	other	medical	facility	is	not	

65-33

cont’d

65-34

65-35

65-36

65-37

been already imposed by the roadways on environmentally sensitive areas along these

routes.

65-25	 DOE/NNSA believes that the description of the affected environment in the Draft 

NNSS SWEIS is appropriate. The description of the affected environment (including

the ROI) for each resource in this SWEIS encompasses the areas where discernible

direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action would occur. The ROI, and its

ability to capture the range of potential impacts, is borne out by the analyses in

Chapter 5 of this SWEIS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, and

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, describe current knowledge of the extent of radiological

groundwater contamination on the NNSS, as well as the limited movement of

contaminants that has been observed and predicted. DOE/NNSA agrees that the

collective effect of numerous projects in the region could extend to Inyo County and

Death Valley; therefore, the ROI for the analysis of cumulative impacts extended to

cover reasonable portions of those areas (see Figure 6–1).

	 Although DOE/NNSA believes the description of the affected environment in the

Draft NNSS SWEIS was appropriate, in response to a number of specific requests

by commentors, this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to enable the public

to better understand the extent of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS. As noted in the response to comment 65-2 above,

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based

on information developed for the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further

describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. 

65-26	 DOE/NNSA believes there remain no open or unresolved land use issues relative to

ongoing or proposed activities at the NNSS, and that the land withdrawals are not

restrictive with respect to NNSS activities in support of its missions. For additional

information, please see the response to comment 65-5 above. 

65-27	 As discussed above in response to comment 65-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

65-28	 The commentor is correct that shippers transporting LLW/MLLW are required under

the NNSS WAC to use routes that avoid the Las Vegas, Nevada, area. Additional

information may be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-242

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

15

enough	to	evaluate	whether	NNSS-related	health	effects	can	be	dealt	with	and	what	the	impact	

might	be	if	such	capabilities	were	needed	and	not	available.	

Faulting	and	Seismic	Activity	(4.1.5.2.3)			

The	draft	EIS	should	note	that	NNSS	is	located	in	a	major	seismic	area	as	designated	by	the	U.S.	

Geologic	Service	(USGS).		This	is	important	in	evaluating	the	types	of	activities	that	may	or	may	

not	be	appropriate	for	NNSS.	

Geologic	Resources	(4.1.5.2.5)	

This	section	of	the	draft	EIS	should	acknowledge	that	NNSS	has	been	off	limits	for	any	

commercial	mineral	or	oil/gas	exploration	for	more	than	six	decades	and	that	the	potential	for	

currently	exploitable	mineral	deposits	and/or	oil	and	gas	reserves	are	presently	unknown.

Groundwater	(4.1.6.2)	

The	draft	EIS	appears	to	do	an	adequate	job	of	describing	the	hydrologic	basins	underlying	

NNSS	and	the	movement	of	groundwater	(as	it	is	currently	understood)	within	those	basins.

What	is	missing	is	a	description	of	the	total	groundwater	resource	that	has	been	effectively	

removed	from	the	public	domain	as	a	result	of	NNSS	activities	and	potential	contamination	

resulting	from	those	activities.		The	2011	Nevada	Legislature	passed	a	resolution	tasking	the	

Attorney	General’s	Office,	the	State	Department	of	Conservation	and	Natural	Resources,	and	the	

Governor’s	Office	Agency	for	Nuclear	Projects	to	prepare	a	report	for	the	2013	Legislature	

addressing	“whether	Nevada	could	potentially	receive	monetary	compensation	from	the	Federal	

Government	for	contamination	of	the	environment	in	Nevada	with	radioactive	and	other	

hazardous	contaminants	as	a	result	of	military	exercises,	nuclear	weapons	testing	and	other	

activities	conducted	by	the	Federal	Government	in	Nevada.”		Contamination	from	NTS/NNSS	

activities	will	of	necessity	be	a	major	focus	of	this	investigation,	and	the	information	contained	

in	the	final	EIS	must	be	such	that	it	provides	a	full	and	complete	picture	of	the	groundwater	

resource	that	has	been	removed	from	the	public	domain,	the	existing	level	and	distribution	of	

contamination	of	that	resource,	and	the	potential,	if	any,	for	future	uses	of	the	resource.	

Nevada	Division	of	Water	Resources	Comments	

All	waters	of	the	State	belong	to	the	public	and	may	be	appropriated	for	beneficial	use	pursuant	

to	the	provisions	of	Chapters	533	and	534	of	the	Nevada	Revised	Statutes	(NRS),	and	not	

otherwise.	Any	waters	developed	and	utilized	for	a	beneficial	use	whether	from	a	surface	water	

or	underground	source	must	be	done	so	in	compliance	with	the	referenced	chapters	of	the	NRS	

for	the	subject	parcels	of	land	wholly	situated	within	the	State	of	Nevada.	

No	use	of	surface	water	or	groundwater	is	to	occur	unless	a	permit	is	issued	for	such,	or	a	waiver	

for	groundwater	monitoring	and/or	exploration	is	granted	by	this	office.			Any	water	or	

65-37

cont’d

65-38

65-39

65-41

65-40

65-29	 As discussed above in response to comment 65-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

DOE/NNSA had analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the

transportation of additional quantities of LLW/MLLW (relative to the No Action

Alternative) under the Expanded Operations Alternative. The health impacts reported

in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, as well as the traffic-related impacts in Section 5.1.3.2,

were based on the existing routing commitments (i.e., the Constrained Case). DOE/

NNSA concluded that the transportation of additional quantities of LLW/MLLW,

coupled with associated vehicle traffic (e.g., worker commutation) under the

Expanded Operations Alternative, would provide a moderately high contribution

when compared to projected traffic volumes in Clark and Nye Counties. Additional

details may be found in Section 5.1.3.2.

65-30	 As discussed above in response to comment 65-1, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

65-31	 In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS 

(DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived risk and stigma associated with

the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is

no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding waste transportation into

quantifiable economic impacts. DOE is not aware of any more recent information

that would change this conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under

some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence,

DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk

perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

65-32	 In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS 

(DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived risk and stigma associated with

the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is

no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding waste transportation into

quantifiable economic impacts. DOE is not aware of any more recent information

that would change this conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under

some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence,

DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk

perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-243

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

16

monitoring	wells,	or	boreholes	that	are	proposed	to	be	drilled	within	the	described	lands	are	the	

ultimate	responsibility	of	the	entity	requesting	the	drilling	and	must	be	plugged	and	abandoned	

as	required	in	Chapter	534	of	the	NRS	and	Nevada	Administrative	Code.		If	artesian	water	is	

encountered	in	any	well	or	borehole	it	shall	be	controlled	as	required	in	NRS	§	534.060(3).	

Waste	Management	(4.1.11)	

Waste	Disposal	Support	Activities	(4.1.11.1.1.3	

The	discussion	of	Waste	Acceptance	in	the	draft	EIS	(page	4-149)	should	acknowledge	that,	in	

addition	to	meeting	other	requirements	for	waste	disposal	at	NNSS,	waste	generators	are	

required	to	ship	waste	to	the	site	using	those	only	highway	routes	that	have	been	approved	(i.e.,	

routes	that	avoid	the	metropolitan	Las	Vegas	area).

Volume 1, Book 2 

Environmental	Consequences	(5.0)	

Transportation	and	Traffic	(5.1.3)	

The	analysis	of	transportation	impacts	is	deficient	because	it	fails	to	consider	unique	local	

conditions	along	the	highway	and	rail	routes	that	DOE	proposes	to	use	under	the	unconstrained	

case.	Under	the	unconstrained	case,	DOE	proposes	to	make	as	many	as	26,000	to	80,000	out-ofstate	waste	shipments	to	NNSS,	over	a	10-year	period,	using	numerous	combinations	of	highway	

and	rail	routes	not	currently	used	for	shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW.	Many	or	all	of	these	

proposed	shipments	could	traverse	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.	

The	draft	EIS	fails	to	identify	unique	local	conditions	along	the	potential	unconstrained	case	

transportation	routes	in	Nevada,	and	fails	to	assess	the	impacts	of	transportation	of	LLW	and	

MLLW	upon	these	unique	local	conditions.	For	each	of	the	potential	highway	and	rail	routes	that	

DOE	might	use	under	the	unconstrained	case,	the	draft	EIS	should	have,	but	failed	to,	assess	the	

impacts	of	transportation	within	the	800	meter	(1/2-mile)	region	of	influence	(ROI)	along	each	

route	(a	1,600	meter	or	1-mile	corridor	centered	along	each	highway	and	rail	line).	The	

transportation	impact	assessment	should	have,	but	failed	to,	specifically	address	potential	

adverse	impacts	on	iconic	locations	and	venues;	special	events	of	national	and	international	

significance;	highly	populated	areas;	and	critical	local	infrastructure,	located	within	one-half	

mile	(800	meters)	of	the	shipping	routes	which	DOE	proposes	to	use.	

DOE’s	failure	to	assess	transportation	impacts	on	unique	local	conditions	is	particularly	

egregious	regarding	the	proposed	truck	shipments	through	downtown	Las	Vegas,	where	multiple	

daily	shipments	could	travel	within	800	meters	(one-half	mile)	of	the	world-famous	Las	Vegas	

Strip.	The	following	figure	shows	a	portion	of	the	800-meter	ROI	along	the	I-15	and	US-95	

route,	including	the	intersection	of	these	routes	known	locally	as	the	Spaghetti	Bowl,	that	DOE	

65-41

cont’d

65-42

65-43

65-44

65-33	 Please see the response to comment 65‐9 regarding analysis of specific local

communities along analyzed routes. As stated in the response to comment 65‐24,

there could be numerous possible routes between a given origination point and the

NNSS. DOE does not have any requirements to specify that carriers use certain

routes, except as committed to the State of Nevada regarding routes around the

Las Vegas region (see the response to comment 65-14). DOE/NNSA revised

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, to indicate that the transportation analysis includes a ROI

covering 0.5 miles on both sides of the transportation corridors from the generator

regions. 

65-34	 As noted in the response to comment 65-25, above, DOE/NNSA believes that the

description of the affected environment in the Draft NNSS SWEIS is appropriate. 

Impacts on groundwater quality and availability resulting from proposed activities

at the NNSS are addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, and cumulative impacts are

addressed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2. Further, DOE/NNSA has revised Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2, and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable

the public to better understand current knowledge of the extent of groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS.

65-35	 It is not practical or necessary to identify emergency responder capabilities along

all possible routes. As stated in the response to comment 65-9, the transport of

radioactive materials and wastes occurs daily on the Nation’s highways as a result

of commercial and government activities; therefore, the transportation activities

analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS do not present a new or unique hazard. Appendix E,

Section E.3.3, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to describe how emergency

response actions would be taken, keeping in mind that local first responders would

most likely be the first to be on the scene of an accident. 

65-36	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-35 regarding the need to describe

first responder capabilities along transportation routes. In addition, DOE/NNSA,

working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide a forum for

coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State of Nevada

(Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda,

Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual grants among

the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to the NNSS. 

The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake

emergency preparedness planning and response capability assessments; acquire

emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and communication

equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency services buildings. In
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-244

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

17

proposes	to	use	under	the	unconstrained	case	described	in	the	draft	EIS.	According	to	the	2010	

census,	almost	120,000	people	reside	in	the	ROI	along	the	portion	of	the	route	that	travels	

through	urban	Clark	County.	

The	draft	EIS	transportation	risk	analysis	in	Appendix	E,	using	the	RADTRAN	model,	fails	to	

adequately	evaluate	the	impacts	on	the	resident	population	of	using	this	route	for	LLW	and	

MLLW	shipments	by	truck,	compared	to	the	routes	currently	used	for	shipments	to	NNSS,	and	

fails	to	adequately	evaluate	the	population	impacts	of	this	route	compared	to	other	potential	

highway	routes	identified	by	DOE.	The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	

the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	case	highway	routes	to	iconic	locations	such	as	the	Las	Vegas	

Strip,	much	of	which	located	within,	and	immediately	adjacent,	to	the	one-half-mile	ROI	for	

truck	shipments.	The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	

the	unconstrained	case	highway	routes	to	major	government	and	law	enforcement	facilities,	

some	of	which	are	located	less	than	one-half	mile	from	the	unconstrained	case	routes	for	truck	

65-44

cont’d

addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for emergency

situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA NSO has

provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country, including local,

county, and state participants from Nevada. There are mutual aid agreements between

NNSA/NSO and several of the counties in Nevada.

65-37	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-35 regarding the need to describe

first responder capabilities (and by extension, health care resources such as

hospitals) in all local communities along transportation routes. Text has been

added to the Final NNSS SWEIS in Chapter 3, Section 3.3, and Appendix E that

describes DOE’s program for responding to transportation accidents. DOE uses

DOE Order 151.1C, Comprehensive Emergency Management System, as a basis to

establish a comprehensive emergency management program that provides detailed,

hazard-specific planning and preparedness measures to minimize the health impacts

of accidents involving loss of control over radioactive material or toxic chemicals. 

The NNSS provides technical assistance to other Federal agencies and to state and

local governments. Contractors are responsible for maintaining emergency plans

and response procedures for all facilities, operations, and activities under their

jurisdiction and for implementing those plans and procedures during emergencies. 

Contractor, state, and local government plans are fully coordinated and integrated. 

The Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program was established by DOE to

ensure its operating contractors and state, tribal, and local emergency responders

are prepared to respond promptly, efficiently, and effectively to accidents involving

DOE shipments of radioactive material. This program is a component of the overall

emergency management system established by DOE Order 151.1C.

	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide

a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State

of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko,

Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual

grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to

the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to

undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability assessments;

acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and

communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency services

buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for

emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA

NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country,

including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-245

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

18

shipments.	The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	

unconstrained	case	highway	routes	to	schools,	hospitals,	and	other	difficult-to-evacuate	

locations.	

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	potential	impacts	of	truck	

shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	on	the	non-resident	and	visitor	population	of	Las	Vegas	and	

Clark	County.

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	

case	highway	routes	to	events	of	national	and	international	significance,	such	as	major	

conventions	that	may	draw	50,000	or	more	visitors,	major	air	shows	and	auto	races	that	may	

draw	more	than	100,000	visitors,	and	events	such	as	the	World	Series	of	Poker	and	New	Year’s	

Eve	celebrations	which	are	broadcast	live	around	the	world.

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	also	failed	to	consider	unique	local	conditions	

regarding	the	potential	use	of	rail-to-truck	intermodal	shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	to	NNSS.	

The	following	figure	shows	the	800-meter	(one-half-mile)	ROI	along	the	Union	Pacific	rail	line	

through	downtown	Las	Vegas.	This	rail	route	could	be	used	for	thousands	of	LLW	and	MLLW	

shipments	to	intermodal	transfer	facilities	in	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.	Rail	shipments	to	

a	potential	intermodal	facility	in	Caliente,	Nevada,	might	also	use	this	rail	route.	According	to	

the	2010	census,	more	than	48,000	people	reside	within	one-half	mile	(800	meters)	of	the	

unconstrained	case	rail	route	that	travels	through	urban	Clark	County.	

65-44

cont’d

65-45

65-38	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.3, of this NNSS SWEIS describes the geological faults and

seismic risks in the area of the NNSS. That Section also states that DOE policy is

to design, construct, and operate DOE facilities so that workers, the general public,

and the environment are protected from the impacts of natural phenomena hazards

(including seismic events). Section 4.1.5.2.3 also provides additional information

on the standards used for siting, constructing, and operating DOE facilities to reduce

risks to buildings, workers, the public, and the environment from seismic events.

65-39	 Although DOE/NNSA activities are not inconsistent with periodic visits by the

public or certain commercial activities proposed to be developed on the site

(e.g., commercial solar power generation facilities), public visits and commercial

activities are and would be conducted under the safeguards and security protocols of

DOE/NNSA, which limit the frequency and nature of public visits and could restrict

commercial activities from time to time. For this reason, DOE/NNSA is able to allow

properly cleared and escorted public visitation and the development of commercial

projects without hindering its national security activities while continuing to protect

the offsite public. To date, there have been no proposals by any commercial entity

to conduct oil and gas exploration on the NNSS. If such a proposal were made,

DOE/NNSA would evaluate it under its Real Estate and Operating Permit process

to determine whether it could be conducted in a manner that would not interfere

with other mission-related activities, would not present a potential safeguards and/

or security conflict, and would meet other requirements for conducting work at the

NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.5, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to

discuss the potential for hydrocarbon resources within the NNSS.

65-40	 As stated in the response to comment 65-2 above, groundwater resources at the

NNSS, including groundwater use, depth to groundwater, recharge and discharge,

water supply systems, and groundwater monitoring and quality, are described in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of the SWEIS. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, provides

estimates of the amount of groundwater (expressed as perennial yield in terms of

acre-feet per year) underlying the NNSS, as well as historic and projected future

demands on this groundwater to support ongoing and proposed projects and activities

under each alternative. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, analyzes the potential cumulative

impacts of past nuclear weapons testing on groundwater. When the United States

withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also implicitly reserves sufficient

water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation was created. Accordingly,

DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right at the NNSS to support

its mission requirements, one of which includes complying with the FFACO to

characterize and monitor locations that have sustained adverse environmental impacts
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-246

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

19

The	draft	EIS	transportation	risk	analysis	in	Appendix	E,	using	the	RADTRAN	model,	fails	to	

adequately	evaluate	the	impacts	on	the	resident	population	of	using	this	route	through	Las	Vegas	

for	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	by	rail,	compared	to	the	routes	currently	used	for	direct	truck	

shipments	to	NNSS;	the	draft	EIS	also	fails	to	adequately	evaluate	the	population	impacts	of	

truck	shipments	through	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	from	intermodal	facilities,	compared	to	

the	routes	currently	used	for	direct	truck	shipments	to	NNSS,	and	other	potential	highway	routes	

identified	by	DOE.

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	

case	rail	route	to	iconic	locations	such	as	the	Las	Vegas	Strip,	much	of	which	is	located	within,	

and	immediately	adjacent,	to	the	one-half-mile	ROI	for	rail	shipments.	The	draft	EIS	

transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	case	rail	route	

to	major	government	and	law	enforcement	facilities,	some	of	which	are	located	less	than	onehalf	mile	from	the	unconstrained	case	route	for	rail	shipments.	The	draft	EIS	transportation	

impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	case	rail	route,	and	the	

65-45

cont’d

from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past nuclear

weapons testing. 

In response to comments, DOE/NNSA has revised Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, to

further describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contaminated by past

weapons testing; new figures have been included to illustrate the distribution of that

groundwater. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, also has been revised, based on available

information developed in compliance with the FFACO and in coordination with

NDEP, to estimate potential cumulative impacts associated with the distribution of

contaminated groundwater in the future. 

65-41	 As stated in the response to comments 65-2 and 65-40 above, when the United States

withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also implicitly reserves sufficient

water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation was created. Accordingly,

DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right at the NNSS to support its

mission requirements.

	 As described in Chapter 9, Section 9.1.6, DOE/NNSA complies with Nevada Revised 

Statutes 2011, Chapter 534, as a matter of comity, holding to the position that state

licensing requirements do not apply to the Federal Government and its contractors

as a matter of law under the principle of Federal supremacy and associated case law. 

The UGTA Project, for example, voluntarily complies with Chapter 534.

65-42	 As indicated in the response to comment 65-14, DOE intends to maintain its

agreement with the State of Nevada regarding the transport of LLW and MLLW. 

However, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.1.3, is not a presentation or discussion of the

specific contents or requirements of the NNSS WAC; rather, it is a discussion of the

process by which generators are permitted to send waste to the NNSS for disposal. 

65-43	 As indicated in the response to comment 65-1, in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of both

the Draft and Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW

for two cases: a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in

greater metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered

routes within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP as part of the

WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

	 The transportation analyses performed for this NNSS SWEIS are not “deficient,”

but are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of NEPA. See the response to
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-247

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

20

resulting	truck	shipments	from	intermodal	facilities,	to	schools,	hospitals,	and	other	difficult-toevacuate	locations.	

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	potential	impacts	of	rail	shipments	

of	LLW	and	MLLW	on	the	non-resident	and	visitor	population	of	Las	Vegas	and	Clark	County.		

The	draft	EIS	transportation	impact	analysis	fails	to	consider	the	proximity	of	the	unconstrained	

case	rail	route	to	events	of	national	and	international	significance,	such	as	major	conventions	that	

may	draw	50,000	or	more	visitors,	major	air	shows	and	auto	races	that	may	draw	more	than	

100,000	visitors,	and	events	such	as	the	World	Series	of	Poker	and	New	Year’s	Eve	celebrations	

which	are	broadcast	live	around	the	world.

The	draft	EIS	analysis	of	transportation	impacts	is	deficient	because	it	fails	to	provide	sufficient	

details	about	the	LLW	and	MLLW	shipment	radionuclide	inventories	to	allow	evaluation	of	the	

transportation	risks	reported	in	Tables	5-11	through	5-16,	draft	EIS	pages	5-49	to	5-60.	The	draft	

EIS	fails	to	provide	representative	and	maximum	radionuclide	inventories	for	each	category	of	

shipment	container	type	listed	in	Table	5-9.	The	draft	EIS	should	have	provided	the	

representative	and	maximum	inventory	of	each	major	radionuclide	based	on	data	from	past	and	

current	NNSS	shipment	profiles,	for	each	category	of	LLW	and	MLLW	package:		(1)	drums;	(2)	

B-25	boxes;	(3)	Sealand	containers;	(4)	B-12	boxes;	and	(5)	Type	B	containers.	The	data	

provided	in	Appendix	E,	Radionuclide	Inventories,	draft	EIS	pages	E-25	to	E-27,	do	not	allow	

reviewers	to	validate	the	purported	environmental	consequences	for	incident-free	shipments,	

accidents,	and	acts	of	sabotage	or	terrorism.	

The	draft	EIS’	failure	to	provide	sufficient	information	on	radionuclide	inventories	is	particularly	

glaring	regarding	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	containing	Strontium-90.	According	to	the	values	

provide	in	Table	E-5,	Strontium-90,	with	a	concentration	of	1.8	curies	per	cubic	foot,	is	the	

predominant	radionuclide	to	be	shipped	to	NNSS	over	the	10-year	period	covered	by	the	draft	

EIS,	representing	a		cumulative	inventory	of	28.6	to	93.6	million	curies	of	Strontium-90	shipped	

to	NNSS	for	disposal.	If	the	data	in	Table	E-5	is	correct,	Strontium-90	would	be	the	primary	

driver	of	transportation	impacts	-	including	incident-free	shipments,	severe	accidents,	and	acts	of	

sabotage	and	terrorism	-	over	the	10-year	period.

The	draft	EIS	should	have	provided	clear	and	unambiguous	information	on:	(1)	the	maximum	

allowable	concentration	of	Sr-90	shipped	to	NNSS	in	Type	A	and	Type	B	packages;	(2)	the	

origination,	number,	and	routes	to	NNSS	for	shipments	containing	Sr-90;	(3)	the	maximum	

release	of	Sr-90	in	a	severe	accident;	(4)	the	maximum	release	of	Sr-90	in	a	successful	terrorist	

attack	or	act	of	sabotage;	and	(5)	the	health	effects	and	economic	impacts	of	a	large-scale	release	

of	Sr-90	in	an	urban	area	such	as	Las	Vegas.

The	draft	EIS	provides	no	information	on	transportation	accident	cleanup	costs	and	other	

economic	impacts	of	releases	following	severe	accidents.	For	both	Type	A	and	Type	B	container	

shipments,	the	greatest	likelihood	of	release	and	dispersal	would	follow	a	transportation	accident	

in	which	the	package	was	engulfed	in	a	long-duration,	high-temperature	fire.	In	the	Final	

65-45

cont’d

65-46

65-47

65-48

65-50

65-49

comment 65-9 regarding analysis of specific local communities along analyzed

routes. The analysis is based on an evaluation of impacts on those within 0.5 miles

of the transportation routes analyzed. As stated in Appendix E, Section E.4, the

Web-TRAGIS computer code is used to select the routes and calculate the population

densities along each route. Because the Web-TRAGIS code uses census block

population data, the estimated population densities do not include people that

temporarily occupy a location. Therefore, individuals in municipal facilities such

as airports, local government buildings, and schools along routes, as well as other

large venues such as hotels and casinos, were not specifically accounted for in the

analysis. However, the analysis of impacts on an MEI provides a conservatively high

estimate of the risks that could be imposed on anybody as a result of transportation

activities. In this NNSS SWEIS, analyses were performed to show the incidentfree impacts on different types of MEIs that could be encountered along a route, as

described in Appendix E, Section E.5.3. These analyses were performed for all cargo

types considered (e.g., a shipment of LLW, TRU waste, different types of special

nuclear materials); the cargo type causing the greatest dose to the resident is shown in

Table E–15. Based on the data in this table, a person within 100 feet of a truck route,

which would be an individual residing along the edge of an interconnecting highway,

would receive a maximum dose of 2.4 ×10-7 rem per shipment for the highest-dose

cargo at the regulatory dose limit set by the DOT, assuming the individual is outside

and is directly exposed to the radiation emanating from the cargo. If that individual

were to be exposed to all 80,000 shipments analyzed under the Expanded Operations

Alternative, he or she would receive a total dose of about 20 millirem over a 10-year

period. As shown in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.1, this same individual would receive

a dose of about 355 millirem per year from naturally occurring background radiation. 

The results show that, despite assuming a close proximity to the route, exposure

to every shipment, and the receipt of the maximum dose per shipment, the overall

incident-free risk would still be small. A site-specific analysis would not be expected

to result in greater impacts.

	 The consequences of potential accidents with the greatest impacts (maximum

foreseeable accident) on routes near Las Vegas were calculated, and the results are

shown in Appendix E, Table E–16, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. This analysis used

census data projected to the year 2016. Table E–16 also shows the consequences an

accident with the greatest impacts (maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents) if

the accident occurred in an urban area along the route. This analysis used a constantdensity urban population out to a distance of 50 miles based on census data projected

to 2016. The maximum foreseeable accident analyses used generic atmospheric
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-248

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

21

Supplemental	Environmental	Impact	Statement	for	Yucca	Mountain	(2008),	DOE	estimated	the	

probability	of	such	an	accident	involving	a	Type	B	container	at	5	in	one	million	per	year,	with	

cleanup	costs	in	an	urban	area	ranging	from	a	few	hundred	thousand	dollars	up	to	$10	billion.	

State	of	Nevada	analyses	conclude	that	the	releases	and	resulting	cleanup	costs	could	be	much	

greater.	The	transportation	risk	analysis	in	this	draft	EIS	is	insufficient	under	NEPA	because	it	

does	not	evaluate	the	cleanup	costs	and	other	economic	impacts	of	LLW	and	MLLW	accidents,	

resulting	in	release	and	dispersal	of	radioactive	materials.	The	Final	Site-wide	EIS	must	evaluate	

the	cleanup	costs	and	economic	impacts	of	the	maximum	credible	accidents,	as	specified	in	

Appendix	E,	for	both	Type	A	and	Type	B	container	shipments.	

Additionally,	the	Final	Site-wide	EIS	must	evaluate	the	cleanup	costs	and	economic	impacts	of	

maximum	credible	LLW	and	MLLW	accidents	in	the	event	that	such	accidents	were	to	occur	in	

the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	along	the	potential	routes	identified	in	the	unconstrained	case.	

The	probability	of	such	accidents	is	greater	than	one	in	one	million	per	year	for	all	locations.	The	

infrastructure	conditions,	traffic	characteristics,	and	vehicle	speeds	along	I-15,	I-215,	and	US-95	

would	allow	such	accidents	to	occur	in	Las	Vegas.	The	Final	Site-wide	EIS	should	include	a	

review	of	severe	accidents	that	have	occurred	on	those	routes,	such	as	the	August	10,	2011	

gasoline	tanker	explosion	on	I-15	in	Las	Vegas.	

The	draft	EIS	provides	no	information	on	cleanup	costs	and	other	economic	impacts	following	a	

successful	act	of	terrorism	or	sabotage	against	a	DOE	shipment	of	LLW	or	MLLW.	Since	the	

draft	EIS	acknowledges	that	such	attacks	could	result	in	release	of	radioactive	materials,	an	

evaluation	of	cleanup	costs	in	the	Final	Site-wide	EIS	is	required	under	NEPA.	

The	draft	EIS	provides	no	information	on	DOE	and/or	DOE	contractor	liability	for	cleanup	costs	

and	other	economic	impacts	resulting	from	a	transportation	accident	or	sabotage/terrorism	

incident.	The	Final	Site-wide	EIS	must	address	DOE	and	DOE	contractor	liability	for	such	costs,	

including	liability	for	precautionary	evacuations.	

The	discussion	of	acts	of	sabotage	or	terrorism	on	page	E-34	is	inaccurate	and	misleading.	It	

wrongly	asserts	that	the	consequences	of	attacks	on	shipments	to	NNSS	are	bounded	or	

enveloped	by	the	analyses	in	the	2002	EIS	for	Yucca	Mountain.	Analyses	by	the	State	of	Nevada	

concluded	that	radioactive	releases	resulting	from	successful	acts	of	sabotage	could	be	hundreds	

or	thousands	of	times	greater.	

The	analysis	of	transportation	impacts	is	deficient	because	it	fails	to	specifically	address	the	

transportation	risks	associated	with	shipping	LLW	and	MLLW	in	Type	A	containers	by	rail.	In	

the	rail	environment,	Type	A	packages	could	be	subjected	to	much	greater	accident	impact	

forces,	crush	forces,	and	fire	durations	and	temperatures	than	in	highway	accidents.	Rail	

shipments	would	typically	travel	through	urban	centers,	often	on	routes	co-located	with	

petroleum	and	natural	gas	pipelines,	unlike	truck	shipments	on	suburban	beltways.	The	entire	

concept	of	intermodal	shipments	proposed	in	the	draft	EIS,	especially	for	shipments	of	LLW	and	

MLLW	containing	significant	quantities	of	Sr-90	(several	hundred	to	more	than	1,000	curies	per	

65-50

cont’d

65-51

65-52

65-53

65-54

65-55

conditions, as described in Section E.6.4, because an accident could occur at any

location along a route. To estimate the most conservative (greatest) impacts, neutral

atmospheric conditions were assumed when calculating impacts on the population

within a 50-mile radius of the accident, and stable atmospheric conditions were

assumed when considering impacts on an MEI. Because it is not reasonable to try to

determine impacts on every type of facility possible along a route, analyses that use

conservative assumptions that would envelope the possible impacts are performed, as

shown in Section E.7.

65-44	 Please refer to comment 65-43. In addition, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

65-45	 Please refer to comment 65-43. 

Historically, occasional rail shipments of LLW have been made, with transfer to

trucks for the final leg of the trip to the NNSS. Because this mode of transport

may be used in the future, an analysis of rail shipment to NNSS was conducted in

this NNSS SWEIS to determine the overall route impacts for comparison to results

obtained for only truck transport. To envelope the impacts associated with rail

shipments, DOE assumed that all waste shipments would occur by rail, with the cargo

transferred at five different transfer station locations. The transfer station locations

analyzed were selected to cover the geographic area where a transfer station facility

might be located and to maximize possible impacts. DOE does not plan to establish

or promote any transfer station facility; thus, a detailed analysis of the operations at

a transfer station facility is beyond the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. If a commercial

carrier decides to use a transfer station facility, then that carrier must abide by

applicable laws and regulations governing those operations. It should be noted that

DOE published two reports regarding operations at transfer station facilities. In

the first report, Life-Cycle Cost and Risk Analysis of Alternative Configurations for 

Shipping Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999a), and as

shown in Appendix E, Table E–15, of this NNSS SWEIS, the dose to a transfer station

facility worker would be up to 3.4 × 10‐4 person-rem per container transferred. In

a second report, Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive 

Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999b), accident consequences associated with

a large fire near the LLW shipping containers were provided. The consequences to a

population within 50 miles would be no (up to 1.7 × 10-4) fatalities for a population of

about 195,000 people. DOE has added this information to Appendix E of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-249

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

22

shipment),	is	unproven	from	a	logistical	or	economic	standpoint,	let	alone	regarding	public	

safety	and	protection	of	the	environment.	

The	State	of	Nevada	opposes	rail	shipments	of	LLW	and	MLLW	through	Las	Vegas	on	the	

Union	Pacific	mainline	between	Arden	and	Valley.	Even	in	the	case	of	Caliente,	DOE	may	not	

be	able	to	require	the	railroads	to	avoid	shipping	through	Las	Vegas.	Intermodal	operations	at	

Arden	or	Valley	would	not	reduce	the	number	of	truck	shipments	through	the	Las	Vegas	

metropolitan	area.	Indeed,	if	intermodal	operations	were	allowed,	it	might	encourage	DOE	to	

increase	the	amount	of	LLW	and	MLLW	shipped	to	NNSS,	thus	resulting	in	increased	truck	

shipments	through	the	Las	Vegas	Valley.	Intermodal	operations	at	Arden	would	not	necessarily	

reduce	the	number	of	shipments	using	SR160,	and	might	result	in	more	shipments	on	SR160.	

The	intermodal	operations	themselves	would	be	controversial	anywhere	in	the	Las	Vegas	Valley.	

The	perceived	risk	issues	associated	with	intermodal	operations	or	LLW	and	MLLW	are	

complicated	by	DOE	OCRWM’s	previous	consideration	of	intermodal	operations	for	spent	

nuclear	fuel	and	high-level	radioactive	waste	shipments	to	Yucca	Mountain	from	locations	in	

and	near	Las	Vegas.	

The	transportation	impact	assessment	is	also	deficient	because	of	its	failure	to	address	perceived	

risk	impacts	directly	related	to	previous	DOE	consideration	of	transportation	routes	to	Yucca	

Mountain	through	the	Las	Vegas	Valley.	Public	perception	of	radioactive	materials	

transportation	risks	is	complicated	in	Nevada	by	the	past	25	years	of	controversy	over	Yucca	

Mountain	shipments,	and	specifically	by	concern	in	southern	Nevada	about	high-level	nuclear	

waste	shipments	to	Yucca	Mountain	through	Las	Vegas	by	truck	and	by	rail.	DOE	identified	

such	routes	(I-15,	I-215,	and	US	95	for	trucks;	and	the	Union	Pacific	mainline	between	Arden	

and	Apex	for	rail)	in	the	2002	FEIS	and	2008	SEIS.	These	are	precisely	the	routes	that	DOE	

proposes	to	use,	along	with	the	I-15/US	95	interchange,	for	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	under	

the	“unconstrained”	routing	and	intermodal	options	identified	in	NNSS	Site-wide	draft	EIS.	

To	the	extent	that	perceived	risk	can	be	managed,	as	in	the	case	of	DOE	transuranic	waste	

shipments	to	the	Waste	Isolation	Pilot	Plant	(WIPP)	facility	in	New	Mexico,	it	has	done	so	by	

selecting	routes	that	avoid	highly	populated	areas,	and	by	following	extra-regulatory	safety	and	

security	protocols	developed	in	close	cooperation	with,	and	publically	endorsed	by,	the	affected	

states,	state	regional	groups	such	as	the	Western	Governors	Association,	and	affected	Indian	

tribes.	The	National	Academy	of	Sciences	(NAS)	2006	report	Going	the	Distance	provides	a	

comprehensive	review	of	transportation	risks	and	risk	management.	The	NAS	recommends	

adoption	of	the	WIPP	transportation	model,	plus	additional	measures	for	managing	the	social	

impacts	of	spent	fuel	and	HLW	shipments,	including	creation	of	a	social	science	advisory	group.

Under	the	approach	recommended	by	the	NAS,	DOE,	as	the	shipper	of	radioactive	materials	and	

the	manager	of	the	receiving	facility,	is	responsible	for	managing	perceived	risk.	The	current	

agreement	between	DOE	and	Nevada	is	an	example	of	the	type	of	social	risk	management	

recommended	by	the	NAS.	

65-55

cont’d

65-56

65-57

65-58

	 In addition, in consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments

and after consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA

determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of

LLW/MLLW.

65-46	 DOE/NNSA used conservative assumptions to determine the radionuclide inventories

for LLW and MLLW. The approach to developing the inventories used in the

impact analysis is discussed in Appendix E, Section E.4.2. As explained in that

section, many different radioactive waste streams, each with a unique radionuclide

inventory, would be transported to the NNSS for disposal. To make the analysis more

manageable and to provide conservatism for accident analysis purposes, the largest

concentration of each radionuclide across all contact-handled LLW streams received

in FY 2009 was assumed to be present in a shipment. The radionuclide concentration

for each radioisotope was proportionally adjusted for each type of container based

on container volume. The purpose of this assumption is to provide a reasonable

and encompassing estimate of the waste container contents to yield conservatively

high estimates of the potential accident risks, as reported in Chapter 5, Tables 5–11,

5–12, and 5–14 through 5–16, and the consequences are reported in Table 5–13. In

most cases, the actual inventory for each shipment would be less than the assumed

inventory listed in Appendix E, Table E–5. Therefore, one should not consider

the inventory in Table E–5 for any assessments other than the purposes intended. 

Incident-free impacts reported in the tables are based on the assumptions regarding

external package dose rates described in Section E.5.1. 

65-47	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-46; as indicated, the maximum

radionuclide volumetric concentration received in 2009 was adjusted and applied

to all analyzed container types to provide a reasonable and conservative estimate of

container contents.

65-48	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-46 regarding the development of

radionuclide inventories for transportation analyses. The radionuclide inventory

concentrations provided in Appendix E, Section E.4.2, for the different radioactive

material inventories were used for the accident analysis. The methodology for

performing the accident analysis is presented in Section E.6.1. Note that incidentfree impacts were determined using the dose rate external to the transport package, as

discussed in Section E.5.1, and were not calculated using the radionuclide inventory

in the cargo. Acts of sabotage or terrorism are discussed in Section E.6.6 and in a

classified appendix.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-250

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

23

Impacts	to	State	and	Local	Government	Enforcement	and	Response	

The	Nevada	Highway	Patrol	(NHP)	notes	that	the	unconstrained	routing	case	analyzed	in	the	

draft	EIS,	combined	with	the	drastically	increased	numbers	of	shipments	in	the	Expanded	

Operations	Scenario	could	have	a	substantial	impact	on	NHP’s	HazMat/RadMat	permitting	

resources	and	could	double	or	triple	the	statewide	requirement.		

NHP	also	notes	that	the	draft	EIS	contains	little	or	no	discussion	of	accident/incident	response	

requirements	under	any	of	the	alternatives.		The	potential	for	long-term	road	closures	increases	

with	the	numbers	of	shipments,	and	such	road	closures	have	wide	ranging	impacts	for	highways,	

local	communities,	the	state,	and	others.	

Socioeconomics	(5.1.4)	

The	assessment	of	socioeconomic	impacts	contained	in	the	draft	EIS	suffers	from	two	serious	

omissions.		First,	as	noted	above	in	the	discussion	dealing	with	Region	of	Influence	(ROI),	the	

draft	EIS	fails	to	address	impacts	to	communities	and	the	environment	located	along	

transportation	routes	into	NNSS	for	LLW	and	MLLW.		Potential	impacts	in	the	entire	range	of	

socioeconomic	areas/conditions	along	the	current	and	prospective	shipping	routes	should	have	

been	identified	and	assessed	in	a	location-specific	manner.		To	ignore	the	impacts	and	potential	

impacts	associated	with	NNSS-related	nuclear	and	hazardous	materials	transportation	is	to	

ignore	what	is	arguably	the	largest	potential	source	of	socioeconomic	impacts	associated	with	

NNSS	activities	and	renders	the	draft	EIS	deficient	in	this	regard.	

Second,	the	draft	EIS	fails	to	assess	or	even	recognize	what	is	potentially	the	most	significant	

category	of	socioeconomic	impacts	from	NNSS	activities	on	the	economic	and	social	fabric	of	

Nevada	communities	and	the	state	as	a	whole.		This	involves	the	potential	for	nuclear-related	

NNSS	activities	and	the	transportation	of	nuclear	waste/nuclear	materials	to	general	stigmatizing	

or	otherwise	economic-suppressing	impacts	in	the	event	of	accidents	or	incidents.		Nevada’s	

unique	tourism/visitor-based	economic	is	especially	vulnerable	to	such	impacts,	as	has	been	

documented	by	state,	DOE	and	independent	researchers	over	the	past	two	decades.		The	draft	

EIS	fails	to	evaluate	the	effect	of	such	stigmatizing	events	associated	with	waste	transportation,	

especially	as	related	to	events	that	might	occur	within	or	in	close	proximity	to	the	Clark	

County/Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.		A	LLW	or	MLLW	accident	or	incident	occurring	in	an	

area	associated	with	the	state’s	major	economic	sector	(i.e.,	the	Las	Vegas	Strip)	could	have	

wide-ranging	economic	consequences	for	the	area,	region	and	the	entire	state	by	suppressing	

tourism	and	the	resultant	visitor	spending	which	drives	the	Nevada	economy.		Likewise,	state	

and	even	DOE-sponsored	research	has	documented	the	potential	for	adverse	property	value	

impacts	associated	with	nuclear	waste	transportation	and	along	nuclear	waste	shipping	routes.

The	final	EIS	should	be	expanded	to	include	a	comprehensive	assessment	of	the	potential	for	

such	impacts	within	Nevada	and	specifically	within	communities	located	along	current	and	

prospective	LLW	and	MLLW	shipping	routes.			

65-59

65-60

65-61

65-49	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-46 regarding caution about using the

inventory values in Appendix E, Table E–5, as well as the response to comment 65-48

that addresses how incident-free and accident impacts are determined. As discussed

in Section E.4.2, the radionuclide concentrations identified in Table E–5 represent

the highest concentrations of each radionuclide received in 2009 from a generator

site. This inventory is applied to all shipments in this NNSS SWEIS transportation

analysis to ensure a conservative analysis and to make sure that the analysis accounts

for the possibility of packages with comparatively high radionuclide concentrations. 

In actuality, only a few shipments would have packages with high concentrations,

and most packages would contain low concentrations of radionuclides, including

strontium-90. For example, in calendar year 2009, the average strontium-90

concentration was less than 10 microcuries per cubic foot (total strontium-90 curies

received divided by total volume received from all generators). 

This NNSS SWEIS does not list limits on radionuclides to be transported to and

disposed of at the NNSS; instead, limits are incorporated by reference to existing

controlling documents. As stated in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, radioactive materials

shipped in Type A packages are subject to specific radioactivity quantity limits

identified as A1 and A2 values in 49 CFR 173.435 (e.g., 8.1 curies of strontium-90

per Type A package). Wastes containing radionuclides in quantities exceeding

Type A limits are shipped in Type B packages. There is no regulatory limit in

49 CFR Part 173 on the total curies of strontium-90 in a Type B package, but the

certificate of compliance for a given Type B package may limit the curie content. 

Type B packages are designed and tested to withstand the conditions of normal

transport, as well as accident conditions. Additionally, as stated in Section E.4.2,

waste shipped for disposal would have to meet the NNSS WAC. As indicated above,

the analysis assumes a single conservative concentration value for all contacthandled LLW and MLLW, which is intended to encompass the characteristics of

future shipments; specific origins, numbers, and routes of shipments with high

concentrations of strontium-90 over the next 10 years are not known. 

The health effects in terms of the consequences of a maximum reasonably foreseeable

accident are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–13. The strontium-90 inventory used

in this accident, assuming the inventory concentration in Appendix E, Table E–5,

would be about 1,750 curies. In this accident, all radioactive materials in the cargo

were assumed to be at risk of being released. As stated in Section E.6.5, radiological

consequences were calculated by assigning radionuclide release fractions on the

basis of the type of waste, the type of shipping container, and the accident severity

category. The quantity of strontium-90 released in the maximum reasonably
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-251

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

24

A	full	assessment	of	the	standard	and	special	(stigma-related)	impacts	would	be	especially	

important	with	respect	to	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative	because	of	the	vastly	increased	

amount	of	LLW	and	MLLW	that	would	be	shipped	to	NNSS	under	that	alternative.		The	

numbers	of	waste	shipments	under	that	alternative	increase	significantly,	as	do	the	frequency	of	

shipments	and	the	numbers	of	potential	routes	that	would	be	used.

An	assessment	of	socioeconomic	impacts	must	also	include	impacts	associated	with	proposals	

for	intermodal	operations	at	various	locations	in	Nevada	(as	well	as	those	in	Arizona,	Utah,	and	

California).		The	use	of	intermodal	sites	for	LLW	and	MLLW	transport	has	the	potential	to	

impact	the	areas	around	those	sites	significantly.		In	the	event	of	an	accident	or	incident	

involving	nuclear	materials,	the	resulting	clean	up	and	investigations	could	render	a	transfer	site	

inoperative,	resulting	in	significant	economic	impacts	to	the	site	itself	and	to	the	surrounding	

area.		Likewise,	stigma	or	media-induced	effects	resulting	in	suppression	of	other	economic	

activity	could	have	serious	consequences. The	final	EIS	should	contain	a	separate	

socioeconomic	impact	section	that	addresses	potential	impacts	to	intermodal	sites	identified	in	

the	draft	EIS.			

Assessing	only	the	employment	effects	and	population	effects	on	area	communities	misses	

entirely	potentially	significant	economic	and	other	impacts	associated	with	NNSS	activities,	

especially	those	related	to	radioactive	waste	and	radiological	materials	transportation	through	

heavily	populated	urban	areas.		The	draft	EIS	ignores	the	potential	impacts	associated	with	the	

stigmatizing	effects	of	nuclear-related	activities	on	areas	and	economic/industrial	sectors.		This	is	

especially	significant	in	the	event	of	accidents	or	terrorism/sabotage	incidents	occurring	in	or	

near	the	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area.		Extensive	research	by	the	State	of	Nevada,	independent	

researchers	and	even	DOE-affiliated	researchers	have	documented	the	potential	for	impacts	to	

property	values	along	shipping	route,	negative	economic	impacts	due	to	suppressed	tourism	and	

other	commercial	activities,	etc.	Any	analysis	of	socioeconomic	impacts	is	deficient	if	it	fails	to	

address	the	unique	effects	of	nuclear	activities	and	nuclear	waste/materials	shipments	on	unique	

local	conditions.	

Cumulative	Impacts	(6.0)	

Transportation	(6.3.3)	

The	discussion	of	transportation-related	cumulative	impacts	does	not	come	close	to	identifying	

the	full	range	and	breadth	of	such	impacts	associated	with	the	collective	assortment	of	activities	

for	which	radioactive	waste	and	radioactive	materials	transportation	is	a	major	part.		The	analysis	

focuses	almost	exclusively	on	estimating	collective	radiation	doses	for	the	total	amount	of	

material	shipped.		However,	the	major	cumulative	impacts	will	likely	not	be	due	to	the	

cumulative	radiation	exposures,	although	under	certain	circumstances,	such	exposures	could	

prove	significant	(i.e.,	in	worst	case	accidents	or	in	the	event	of	terrorism	or	sabotage).		Rather,	

the	cumulative	impacts	will	be	felt	in	terms	of	the	burdens	placed	of	specific	highways,	

infrastructure,	local	governments/communities,	emergency	response	and	preparedness	

65-61

cont’d

65-62

65-63

65-64

foreseeable accident was calculated to be approximately 1.3 curies. The consequence

of this maximum reasonably foreseeable accident, which has a likelihood of about

1.2 in a million years in a suburban area within the State of Nevada, was estimated

to be 27 person-rem, as shown in Table 5–13. This table also shows the consequence

of this accident in an urban area anywhere along the transportation route to be

180 person-rem (the probability of this accident occurring along an urban route in

Nevada is less than 1 chance in 10 million and was not evaluated separately). The

accident consequences are based on no evacuations or relocation of the exposed

population. If such activities were performed, the results presented in Table 5–13

would be less. 

Economic impacts of an accident include direct costs associated with radiation

surveys, cleanup, and continued monitoring, as well as indirect costs such as

temporary or longer-term relocation of residents, temporary or longer-term loss of

employment, destruction or quarantine of agricultural products, land use restrictions,

and public health and medical care. The extent of contamination and the related costs

would depend on many factors, including the quantity and type of radioactive material

involved, type of release (spill, fire), the location of the accident, meteorological

conditions, and surrounding land uses. Because of the myriad of factors associated

with a specific accident, a full quantitative, site-specific, accident analysis that

incorporated emergency response and cleanup activities was not performed for this

NNSS SWEIS. Appendix E, Section E.6, was revised to include additional discussion

of this point.

65-50	 Economic impacts of an accident include direct costs associated with radiation

surveys, cleanup, and continued monitoring, as well as indirect costs such as

temporary or longer-term relocation of residents, temporary or longer-term loss

of employment, destruction or quarantine of agricultural products, land use

restrictions, and public health and medical care. The extent of contamination and

the related costs would depend on many factors, including the quantity and type of

radioactive material involved, type of release (spill, fire), the location of the accident,

meteorological conditions, and surrounding land uses. In preparing the Yucca 

Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS‐0250), DOE elected to include information on cleanup

costs. That EIS includes the evaluation of transport of SNF and HLW with orders of

magnitude of more concentrated radioactivity than the vast majority of the radioactive

wastes evaluated in this SWEIS. Therefore, the impacts and cleanup costs of an

accident involving the types of wastes transported under this SWEIS would be orders

of magnitude less than those evaluated in the Yucca Mountain FEIS. Appendix E,

Section E.6.7, provides additional discussions of the consequences of an accident.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-252

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

25

capabilities,	etc.		These	cumulative	impacts	would	be	route-	and	location-specific,	occurring	

along	a	finite	number	of	readily	identifiable	highways	and	rail	transfer	locations.

Groundwater	(6.3.6.2)	

The	draft	EIS	states	that	“[i]t	is	difficult	to	reasonably	estimate	the	volume	of	groundwater	that	

may	have	some	level	of	radionuclide	contamination	resulting	from	past	underground	nuclear	

testing.”		The	same	statement	will	likely	be	true	with	respect	to	the	volume	of	groundwater	

eventually	contaminated	as	a	result	of	present	and	future	activities.		However,	a	significant	

cumulative	impact	of	past,	current	and	future	NNSS	activities	is	the	total	amount	of	groundwater	

underlying	NNSS	that	is	and	will	continue	to	be	unavailable	for	use	by	communities	and	the	

public	outside	NNSS.		Uses	for	which	NNSS	groundwater	might	otherwise	be	used	but	for	the	

sequestration	of	the	land	and	restriction	of	access	to	non-NNSS	users	include	irrigation,	water	for	

municipal	water	systems,	commercial	&	industrial	activity,	among	others.		While	some	

undetermined	volume	of	the	groundwater	underlying	NNSS	may	be	or	may	become	

contaminated	due	to	NNSS	activities	(past,	present	or	future),	the	entire	amount	of	that	

groundwater	resource	is	effectively	removed	essentially	forever	from	the	public	domain.		For	a	

water	deficient	region	like	southern	Nevada,	that	in	itself	is	a	significant	cumulative	impact,	and	

it	should	be	identified	and	quantified,	to	the	extent	possible,	in	the	final	EIS.	

Waste	Management	(6.3.11)	

Radioactive	Waste	

Cumulative	impacts	from	the	disposal	of	radioactive	waste	(LLW	and	MLLW)	are	influenced	

greatly	by	the	greatly	increase	waste	volumes	(i.e.,	52	million	cu.	ft.)	from	off-site	generators	

assumed	to	be	disposed	of	under	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative.		Such	impact	would	be	

reduced	considerably	were	DOE	required	to	make	optimal	use	of	available	commercial	disposal	

facilities.		As	noted	elsewhere	in	these	comments,	the	State	of	Nevada	believes	that	NNSS	

should	be	the	disposal	option	of	last	resort	for	waste	coming	from	off-site	generators.		DOE	

should	not	be	competing	(in	a	government	subsidized	manner)	with	private	industry	in	the	waste	

disposal	business.		Moreover,	as	NNSS	mission	evolves	and	focuses	on	important	national	

security,	alternative	energy,	training	and	other	core	activities,	distancing	NNSS	from	its	image	as	

a	contaminated	waste	disposal	site	would	seem	to	be	in	the	interests	of	DOE,	its	constituents	and	

the	State	of	Nevada.

Mitigation	Measures	(7.0)	

Transportation	(7.3)	

The	draft	EIS	states	that	radiological	and	nonradiological	transportation	risks	would	be	reduced	

or	mitigated	by	selecting	routes	that	minimize	impacts,	scheduling	shipments	during	lighter	

traffic	volume	periods,	and	training	emergency	response	personnel.		While	appropriate	

65-64

cont’d

65-65

65-66

65-67

65-51	 Please see the response to comment 65-50 regarding inclusion of cost data in the

SWEIS. The analysis of transportation accidents is based on a large amount of data

regarding frequency and severity of accidents and encompasses the type of accident

referred to by the commentor. Whereas accidents such as the tanker truck explosion

are spectacular and newsworthy, they are among the low-probability, severe accidents

that are an element of the transportation analysis. Based on national highway

accident statistics, as explained in Appendix E, Section E.6.2, the likelihood of a

severe accident with high consequences in the urban area around Las Vegas, Nevada,

is less than 1 chance in 10 million per year for the total number of miles that would

be traveled under the Expanded Operations Alternative; therefore, the consequences

of such an accident were not specifically included for this portion of the route. 

Table E–16 provides the consequences of the most severe accident with the likelihood

of equal and greater than 1 chance in 10 million, consistent with DOE guidance and

normal practice. The transportation analyses in this SWEIS consider all ranges of

accidents, from a fender-bender to a “most-severe” impact with long-duration fires in

all segments of the travel, including in an urban area (see Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1).

65-52	 Please see the response to 65-50. 

65-53	 The Price-Anderson Act of 1957, as amended (revised in 1967, 1975, and 1988

and extended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) requires all NRC licensees and

DOE contractors to enter into agreements of indemnification for personal injury

and property damage due to any nuclear or radiological incident, regardless of who

may be liable. Section 604 of the act limits the indemnity provided by DOE for its

contractors to $10 billion for each nuclear incident, including legal costs, subject to

adjustment for inflation. 

65-54	 As stated in Appendix E, Section E.6.6, the quantity of nuclear material in a shipment

that would be transported to NNSS would be smaller than the quantity in a SNF

cask that was analyzed in the Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250); therefore, the

impacts would be bounded. 

65-55	 As discussed in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, requirements for Type A packages are

detailed in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I. Commonly used Type A packages include

55-gallon drums and steel boxes. The regulations and limits on the radioactive

contents of Type A packages apply to transport of material by either truck or rail. 

Similar to the accident analysis for truck transport, the analysis of rail transport is

based on a range of accidents of various frequencies and severities. Consequently, the

human health impacts presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–11 do reflect consideration of
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-253

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

26

mitigation	measures,	the	draft	EIS	does	not	go	far	enough	in	identifying	mitigation	measures	

necessary	for	the	types	of	major	radiological	materials	shipping	campaigns	associated	with	

activities	contemplated	in	the	draft	EIS.		First,	simply	stating	that	routes	would	be	selected	to	

minimize	risk	is	unacceptably	vague	in	the	case	of	NNSS	and	the	State	of	Nevada.		DOE	and	

Nevada	have	already	implemented	an	extremely	successful	mitigation	measure	that	significantly	

reduces	the	risks	of	radiological	accidents	or	incidents	occurring	in	the	state’s	heavily	populated	

urban	areas	–	namely	the	requirement	that	waste	coming	in	to	NNSS	for	disposal	must	use	

highway	routes	that	avoid	the	Las	Vegas	metro	area.		Nevada	insists	that	DOE	continue	to	honor	

this	agreement.		In	addition,	any	future	waste	shipments	in	northern	Nevada	should	be	routes	so	

as	to	avoid	the	densely	populated	and	traffic-congested	Reno-Sparks	metro	area.		The	prohibition	

on	the	use	of	Hoover	Dam	for	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	should	be	extended	to	the	new	

Hoover	Dam	Bypass	Bridge	because	of	the	traffic	congestion	on	either	side	of	the	bridge	and	

because	use	of	the	bridge	funnels	waste	into	the	metro	Las	Vegas	area.			

Second,	DOE	should	be	prepared	to	provide	certain	transportation	infrastructure	improvements,	

should	those	be	necessary	and	shown	to	further	transportation	risk	reduction	strategies.		One	

example	would	be	the	need	for	improvements	along	CA	Route	127.		CA	127	is	one	of	the	rural	

routes	identified	as	part	of	the	strategy	for	minimizing	risk	by	keeping	shipments	out	of	urban	

Las	Vegas.		However,	CA	127	continues	to	be	problematic	due	to	difficult	road	conditions	(lack	

of	shoulders,	poor	pavement	in	places,	etc.)	and	the	potential	for	flooding	during	heavy	rains.		

Improvements	to	this	route	would	make	its	use	for	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	much	more	

acceptable	to	the	state	of	California	and	lead	to	increase	usage,	thereby	furthering	the	goal	of	

avoiding	heavily	populated	urban	Las	Vegas.

Finally,	an	effective	mitigation	approach	to	transportation	impacts	is	through	avoidance	–	reduce	

the	overall	number	of	shipments	by	making	greater	use	of	commercial	LLW	and	MLLW	

disposal	options	rather	than	disposing	waste	at	NNSS.			

Socioeconomics	(7.4)	

The	final	EIS	might	note	that	a	major	socioeconomic	impact	mitigation	measure	is	already	in	

place	and	should	be	continued.		The	requirement	that	waste	shipments	be	routed	so	as	to	avoid	

the	densely	populated	and	economically	important	Las	Vegas	metropolitan	area	avoids	the	

potential	for	significant	socioeconomic	impacts	in	the	event	of	an	accident	or	incident	involving	

a	radiological	waste	shipment.			

Volume 2

Radioactive	Release	Characteristics	(E.6.5)

The	draft	EIS	radioactive	release	fractions	are	based	on	unreliable	and	untested	assumptions	

about	shipping	package	performance	in	severe	accidents.	Using	these	release	fractions	results	in	

a	systematic	and	significant	under-estimation	of	accident	consequences.	This	in	turn	results	in	

65-67

cont’d

65-68

65-69

65-70

65-71

statistics specific to rail transport of the waste. The accident risks reflect the range of

possible accidents that could occur, including accidents involving long-duration fire

and other severe accidents.

	 Packages containing LLW have been shipped by rail in the past in support of

DOE operations. These packages were shipped to a rail-to-truck transfer station,

transferred to trucks without incident, and safely transported by truck from the

transport station to the NNSS. If rail is used for LLW shipments, carriers would

comply with all applicable laws and regulations that are designed to protect human

health and the environment. Type B packages would not be transported by rail

and are only analyzed for the truck mode of transport. In addition, as noted in the

response to comment 65-49, the inventories presented in this NNSS SWEIS were

developed to ensure a conservative analysis; packages with those inventories would

be rare.

65-56	 DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s opposition to rail shipments through Las Vegas,

Nevada, and agrees that the number of truck shipments from the Las Vegas area to

NNSS would not decrease through the use of rail. 

65-57	 DOE/NNSA conducted a detailed analysis of the potential human health effects

associated with transportation of radioactive wastes and materials under both normal

operations and accident scenarios. These analyses are presented in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS. However, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to

quantify any adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with waste transportation

under normal operations or accident scenarios. In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS

(DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE

evaluated the perceived risk and stigma associated with the transportation of SNF

and HLW. In those EISs, DOE considered these issues, guided by the results of its

own research and that of the state of Nevada, and by appropriate conclusions from

reviews of this subject by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in 1995 and

other research that includes an independent economic study prepared in 2003. Based

on that evaluation, DOE concluded that there is no valid method to translate public

perceptions regarding waste transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. DOE

has not been presented with any new information since the 2008 Yucca Mountain 

SEIS that changes this conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under

some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence,

DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk

perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-254

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

27

systematic	underestimation	in	the	per-shipment	risk	factors	used	to	calculate	the	transportation	

risk	analysis	results	reported	in	Section	3.7,	draft	EIS	pages	E-34	to	E-53.	In	particular,	the	pershipment	risk	factors	for	routes	through	Las	Vegas,	stated	in	Table	E-18,	page	E-53,	fail	to	

sufficiently	assess	both	accident	and	incident	free	risks.	The	conclusion	that	“all	of	these	risks	

are	small”	is	unsubstantiated	and	misleading.	Moreover,	the	comparative	risk	analysis	ignores	

the	unique	local	conditions	previously	mentioned.	

Shipments	of	low-level	waste	come	in	different	sizes	and	shapes,	primarily	in	55-gallon	drums,	

with	varying	inventory.		A	great	uncertainty	is	the	release	percentage	for	each	accident	severity	

category.	According	to	Table	E-11,	most	of	the	proposed	DOE	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	

would	be	made	in	type	A	containers.		Since	the	1977	report,	“Final	Environmental	Statement	on	

the	Transportation	of	Radioactive	Material	by	Air	and	Other	Modes,”	(NUREG-0170,	December	

1977),	only	the	analysis	for	the	type	B	casks	has	been	updated	via	the	Modal	study	and	more	

recent	Sandia	study.		All	package	performance	analyses	for	LLW	shipments	in	Type	A	

containers,	including	the	most	recent	West	Valley	study,	refer	back	to	NUREG-0170,	produced	

in	1977.		The	releases	in	each	NUREG-0170	accident	severity	category	have	no	engineering	

basis.		RADTRAN	can	be	employed	for	the	dose	assessment,	but	the	releases	for	each	accident	

severity	category	for	each	type	of	shipment	must	be	revised.	

The	accident	severity	categories	from	NUREG-0170	are	attached	(Attachment	A).		In	the	Final	

EIS,	DOE	must	explain	in	detail	how	the	NUREG-0170	categories	have	been	used	in	the	

transportation	risk	analysis.		In	the	1977	analyses	using	Model	I,	fires	greater	than	15	minutes	

release	the	entire	contents.		Under	Model	II,	the	same	fire	would	release	1%	of	their	contents.

But	Type	A	containers	must	satisfy	only	normal	conditions	of	transport	(10	CFR	Part	71.71).

Depending	on	the	weight	of	the	container	(>11,000	lbs	to	more	than	33,100	lbs),	the	drop	ranges	

from	4	feet	to	1	foot.		In	addition	to	a	slight	compression	load,	the	package	must	pass	a	

penetration	test,	the	drop	of	a	13	lb	steel	cylinder	from	a	height	of	40	inches	(1	m).		These	tests	

are	far	less	than	a	container	might	endure	in	a	real	highway	crash	involving	a	fire,	and	are	far	less	

than	would	be	expected	in	severe	rail	accidents.	

LLW	shipments	containing	higher	activity	materials	are	generally	transported	in	Type	B	

containers.		However,	these	type	B	containers	for	Class	B	and	C	LLW	are	not	the	same	as	spent	

fuel	casks,	and	their	expected	performance	in	severe	accidents	is	not	the	same.	This	is	a	concern	

regarding	the	proposed	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	to	NNSS	including	Sr-90	at	a	concentration	

of	1.8	Ci/cubic	foot	(Table	E-5).	Presumably	these	are	4,000-8,400	Type	B	container	shipments	

of	LLW	and	MLLW	listed	in	Table	E-11.	The	average	Sr-90	content	is	stated	to	be	1.8	Ci/ft3,	

but	some	shipments	could	have	very	high	concentrations,	high	enough	to	be	considered	for	

disposal	in	a	geologic	repository	rather	than	burial	in	a	surface	landfill.	However,	our	concern	

here	is	that	the	draft	EIS	does	not	explain	how	the	release	fractions	and	resulting	per-shipment	

risk	factors	were	developed	for	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	containing	Sr-90.	This	is	a	matter	of	

significant	safety	and	environmental	concern	because	DOE	proposes	to	ship	these	Sr-90-

containing	LLW	and	MLLW	shipments	through	downtown	Las	Vegas	and	through	suburban	Las	

Vegas	under	the	unconstrained	case	routing.	

65-71

cont’d

65-72

65-58	 Addressing public perceptions of the risks associated with transporting radioactive

waste and materials is not within the scope of this SWEIS. In addition to the example

included in the comment, it should be noted that the Blue Ribbon Commission

on America’s Nuclear Future issued a final report in which they recognized the

success of these types of cooperative activities and recommended the establishment

of legislation and processes for the transport of SNF and HLW (BRC 2012). As

previously noted, in consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder

comments, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway routing

restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. DOE believes the existing regulatory

structure is sufficient to manage risks associated with LLW/MLLW transportation

and that reaffirming its commitment regarding routing restrictions in the Las Vegas,

Nevada, area addresses the substance of this comment. 

65-59	 The vast majority of the LLW/MLLW shipments to the NNSS do not require special

permits. The few DOE/NNSA shipments that would require a permit from the State

of Nevada should not impact the Nevada Highway Patrol permitting resources. 

Nonetheless, in consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder

comments, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway routing

restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.

65-60	 Whenever material is shipped, the possibility exists that a traffic accident could result

in vehicular damage, injury, or death. Even when drivers are trained in defensive

driving and taking great care, there is a risk of a traffic accident. To date, DOE and

its predecessor agencies have a successful 50-year history of transporting radioactive

materials with minimal issues. Transportation accidents could result in road closure

and traffic delays. Appendix E, Section E.3.2, states that DHS is responsible for

establishing policies for and coordinating civil emergency management, planning,

and interaction with Federal Executive agencies that have emergency response

functions in the event of a transportation incident. Guidelines for response actions are

outlined in the National Response Framework in the event of a transportation incident

involving nuclear material. 

DHS would use the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an organization

within the Department, to coordinate Federal and state participation in developing

emergency response plans and to be responsible for the development and maintenance

of the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework. 

The Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex describes the policies, situations, concepts

of operations, and responsibilities of the Federal departments and agencies governing
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-255

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

28

Moreover,	it	is	not	clear	that	the	DOE	accident	analysis	takes	into	account	alpha	and	beta	

emitting	radionuclides.		Regarding	Sr-90	shipments,	the	discussion	regarding	tritium	containers	

is	instructive:		“tritium	canisters	would	be	transported	to	the	Savannah	River	Site	(note	that	this	

analysis	does	not	evaluate	the	transportation	of	tritium	because	tritium	is	a	beta-emitter	and,	

therefore,	would	not	be	a	significant	source	of	an	external	radiation	dose).”	(p.	E-22)		The	

implication	here	is	that	DOE	is	only	taking	into	account	direct	gamma	doses,	and	not	inhalation	

or	ingestion	of	radioactive	material,	particularly	alpha	and	beta	emitters.	

Acts	of	Sabotage	or	Terrorism	(E.6.6)	

The	draft	EIS	states	that	“a	classified	appendix	has	been	prepared	for	this	SWEIS	that	includes	

impact	analyses	for	intentional	acts	of	destruction	related	to	transportation.”		If	DOE	plans	to	

rely	upon	classified	information	in	order	to	meet	it	NEPA	responsibilities,	the	State	of	Nevada	

requests	that	arrangements	be	made	to	allow	Nevada	personnel	and	contractors	with	appropriate	

security	clearance	to	review	these	classified	sources.

DOE	states	that	it	has	evaluated	the	impacts	of	acts	of	sabotage	and	terrorism	on	transportation	

of	spent	nuclear	fuel	and	high-level	radioactive	waste	shipments	(DOE	1996,	2002a).		DOE	

states	that	“the	sabotage	event	evaluated	in	the	Yucca	Mountain	EIS	(DOE	2002a)	was	

considered	as	the	enveloping	analysis	for	this	SWEIS.”		The	spectrum	of	accidents	considered	

ranges	from	a	direct	attack	on	a	cask	from	afar	to	hijacking	and	exploding	a	shipping	cask	in	an	

urban	area.	Both	of	these	actions	would	result	in	damaging	the	cask	and	its	contents	and	

releasing	radioactive	materials.	The	fraction	of	the	materials	released	is	dependent	on	the	nature	

of	the	attack	(type	of	explosive	or	weapon	used).		The	State	of	Nevada	has	evaluated	potential	

sabotage	events	and	disputes	DOE’s	claim	that	the	Yucca	Mountain	EIS	provides	“an	enveloping	

analysis.”	For	example,	DOE	does	not	consider	the	possibility	of	a	2-hole	cask	penetration.

DOE	does	not	consider	the	possibility	of	a	container	being	pressurized.	Nevada’s	critique	of	

previous	DOE	sabotage	studies	is	documented	in	the	attached	report	by	Radioactive	Waste	

Management	Associates	(Attachment	B).	

Additional Specific Comments

Waste	Management		

Page	3-21,	3.1.2.1;	3-38,	3.2.2.1;	4-143,	4.1.11.1.1	and	Table	4-7

There	should	be	a	defined,	publically	accessible	decision	process	that	would	be	followed	prior	to	

a	decision	to	re-open	the	Area	3	RWMS.	

65-72

cont’d

65-73

65-75

65-74

the immediate response and short-term recovery activities for incidents involving

release of radioactive materials to address the consequences of the event.

65-61	 In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS

(DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated the perceived risk and stigma associated with

the transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is

no valid method to translate public perceptions regarding waste transportation into

quantifiable economic impacts. DOE is not aware of any more recent information

that would change this conclusion. While stigmatization can be envisioned under

some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a consequence,

DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk

perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS. However, potential impacts on human health

accounted for attributes of the entire length of the potential routes for all waste

shipments.

65-62	 Please see the response to comment 65-49 for a discussion of the nature of potential

socioeconomic impacts from a transportation accident, and the rationale for why

individual site-specific analyses incorporating response and cleanup costs were not

performed in this SWEIS. However, potential impacts on human health accounted for

attributes of the entire length of the potential routes for all waste shipments, to include

intermodal sites. Appendix E, Section E.6.7, provides additional discussions of the

consequences of an accident.

65-63	 As stated in the response to comment 65-57 above, in the 2002 Yucca Mountain 

FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE

evaluated the perceived risk and stigma associated with the transportation of SNF

and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is no valid method to translate

public perceptions regarding waste transportation into quantifiable economic impacts. 

DOE is not aware of any more recent information that would change this conclusion. 

While stigmatization can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or

numerically predictable. As a consequence, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify

any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

65-64	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3, of this NNSS SWEIS addresses cumulative impacts resulting

from transportation. The impacts related to increased burdens on local highways

and infrastructure are addressed in the first paragraph of that section. DOE/NNSA

recognizes the increased burden placed on local community emergency responders by

its transportation of radioactive wastes and materials. DOE/NNSA, working jointly

with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide a forum for coordination
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-256

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

29

Page	1-20,	Table	1-2;	2-13,	2.5.2;	4-146,	4.1.11.1.1.2,	Footnote	13;	4-7,	4.1.1.3	

How	does	the	transfer	of	custody	resolve	NNSS	land	withdrawal	issue	with	regard	to	the	

purposes	of	the	land	withdrawals	not	including	the	waste	disposal	component?	

Page	1-146,	4.1.11.1.1.2	

“It	is	estimated	that	the	currently	unused	portion	of	the	Area	5	RWMC	could	accommodate	

disposal	of	several	million	cubic	yards	of	waste.”		When	is	it	expected	that	the	3.5	million	cubic	

feet	reserve	capacity	threshold	(Table	4-47)	will	be	reached?		Expected	threshold	dates	should	be	

tabulated	for	each	alternative.	

Page	4-147,	4.1.11.1.1.2;	5-205,	5.1.12.1.4	

Is	there	a	decision	record	explaining	why	the	1,100	cubic	feet	(102	55-gallon	drums)	of	TRU	

waste	inadvertently	disposed	in	1986	in	a	now	inactive	trench	were	not	located	and	removed	

when	the	error	was	discovered	in	1989?		If	there	is	such	a	document,	it	should	be	included	in	the	

draft	EIS	references.		It	was	not	until	nearly	20	years	after	the	fact	that	the	safety	issue	was	

“resolved”	by	analysis	(Shott,	et	al,	2008).		Even	though	the	exact	location	of	the	drums	was	not	

known,	the	search	and	removal	could	have	been	accomplished	when	the	error	was	first	

discovered.

Page	4-150,	4.1.11.1.1.3	

Are	the	waste	profiles	routed	to	NDEP	for	concurrent	review	accessible	for	public	review	at	

NDEP?		If	not,	why	not?	

Reference	Gordon,	2009a	is	in	an	unreadable	embedded	font,	and	thus	of	no	value.	

Table	E-5,	Page	E-26,	Low-Level	and	Mixed	Low-Level	Radioactive	Waste	Radionuclide	

Concentrations,	indicates	a	relatively	high	concentration	for	Sr-90.		Recognizing	that	this	is	the	

maximum	level	(for	calculation),	how	much	waste	at	this	concentration	(1.80	curies	per	cubic	

foot)	has	been	disposed	and	is	expected	to	be	disposed	in	the	future;	where	has	it	and	will	it	

come	from;	and,	was	it	(will	it)	be	disposed	in	DOT	Type	B	containers	as	it	appears	would	be	

required	by	NNSS	Waste	Acceptance	Criteria,	January	2011?	

Page	4-154,	4.1.11.1.4;	Page	5-232,	5.3.3.1	

Why	is	the	source	of	tritium	at	NLVF	not	remediated	and,	thus,	this	waste	stream	and	transport	

of	liquid	waste	eliminated?	

Facility	Accidents	

Page	5-206,	5.1.12.2	

“Because	the	same	types	of	activities	occur	at	the	facilities	under	all	of	the	alternatives,	the	

accident	scenarios	and	consequences	would	be	the	same	across	the	alternatives.	Differences	in	

65-76

65-82

65-79

65-81

65-80

65-77

65-78

65-83

of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State of Nevada (Division of

Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye,

White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual grants among the counties

through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to the NNSS. The grants,

now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake emergency

preparedness planning and response capability assessments; acquire emergency

response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and communication equipment;

and construct training facilities and emergency services buildings. In addition,

the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for emergency situations

involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA NSO has provided

training to over 124,000 first responders across the country, including local, county,

and state participants from Nevada. Additional information has been provided in

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3, to address the cumulative impacts on local governments.

65-65	 As noted in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.2.1, 5.1.6.2.2, and 5.1.6.2.3, no impacts on

groundwater quality were identified as a result of activities at the NNSS over the next

10 years under any of the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to

its safeguard and security protocols, may permit access to the NNSS and the conduct

of certain commercial activities, although DOE/NNSA would continue to retain

and exercise its Federal reserved water rights as appropriate; thus, the commercial

entity would be responsible for obtaining its own water appropriation from the State

Engineer.

	 Some groundwater is affected by radiological contamination resulting from past

underground nuclear testing. In 1996, the State of Nevada and DOE/NNSA entered

into a FFACO that directs the environmental restoration of legacy contamination

from nuclear weapons testing at the NNSS and other locations in Nevada. Under the

FFACO, DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, developed a UGTA Corrective

Action Strategy to address the contamination created by the testing of nuclear devices

in shafts and tunnels at the NNSS. The objective of the UGTA Corrective Action

Strategy is to analyze and evaluate each UGTA CAU through a combination of data

and information collection and evaluation, as well as modeling of groundwater flow

and contaminant transport. As noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and Chapter 6,

Section 6.3.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA’s UGTA Project, in compliance

with the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, is conducting a long-term effort

to characterize the levels and flow directions and rates of groundwater that was

contaminated by underground nuclear weapons testing at the NNSS. Pursuant

to the terms, conditions, and goals of the FFACO, DOE/NNSA will characterize

and monitor the groundwater, both on and off of the NNSS, with the goal of first
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-257

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

30

accident	frequencies	due	to	the	level	of	operations	are	within	the	uncertainty	range	of	the	

accident	events.”		Tables	5-55,	5-56,	and	G-16	should	include	the	uncertainty	ranges	for	the	

values	shown.	

References	at	the	bottom	of	the	final	paragraph	should	be	to	Tables	5-55	and	5-56,	not	5-51	and	

5-52

Page	5-207,	Table	5-55;	Page	5-208,	Table	5-56;	Page	5-213,	5.1.12.2.2;	Page	G-34,	G.3.3.1.4	

Tracer	Radionuclide	Experiments	are	only	discussed	under	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternative.	

As	described,	these	experiments	currently	are	only	conceptualized,	and	the	analyses	of	

consequence	and	risk	are	based	on	broad	assumptions	with	no	basis	in	fact.	The	potential	

environmental	impacts	of	experiments	and	associated	possible	accidents	at	the	scale	discussed	

are	sufficiently	uncertain	that	any	plan	to	proceed	with	such	an	activity	should	be	the	subject	of	

an	Environmental	Impact	Statement	and	full	public	NEPA	process.	In	the	ROD	for	the	Final	

SWEIS,	NNSA	should	commit	to	NEPA	analysis	of	any	plan	for	Tracer	Radionuclide	

Experiments	as	discussed	in	this	draft.		

Page	5-207,	Table	5-55	

Footnote	c	should	be	applied,	along	with	footnote	a,	to	the	columns	titled	LCF	Risk.	

Page	5-208,	Table	5-56;	Page	G-42,	G.3.7;	G-50,	Table	G-19;	Page	G-52,	Table	G-20	

Where	is	the	analytical	basis	for	the	aircraft	crash	and	fire	documented?	The	aircraft	sortie	rate	

has	been	updated	(USAF	2007),	and	should	have	been	further	updated,	based	on	more	complete	

and	comprehensive	available	data	and	projections,	for	this	2011	draft.	Also,	Nevada’s	admitted	

contentions	in	the	Yucca	Mountain	Nuclear	Regulatory	Commission’s	licensing	proceeding	took	

issue	with	the	assumptions	and	calculation	method	used	by	DOE	in	its	analysis	of	military	

aircraft	crash	frequency.	

Page	5-209	and	5-210,	5.1.12.2.1	

Paragraph	2,	line	2	should	reference	Tables	5-55	and	5-56,	not	Tables	5-51	and	5-52.	And,	in	

paragraph	3,	the	reference	should	be	to	Table	5-55,	not	Table	5-52.	

Final	paragraph,	line	1	should	reference	Table	5-55,	not	Table	5-51.

Page	G-46,	Table	G-18	

Whole	numbers	are	not	shown	in	accord	with	footnote	b.	

Page	5-212,	5.1.12.2.1;	Page	G-48,	G.3.7.1.1	

Nonproliferation	Test	and	Evaluation	Complex:	“Future	experimental	activities	could	include	

evaluating	the	potential	impacts	of	releases	of	larger	quantities	of	chemicals	such	as	chlorine.	It	

is	anticipated	that	any	such	proposed	experiments	would	undergo	a	thorough	environmental	and	

65-83

cont’d

65-84

65-89

65-86

65-90

65-91

65-88

65-87

65-85

establishing a “contaminant boundary” and, based on that boundary, establishing a

“regulatory boundary” for groundwater contamination. The contaminant boundary

is defined as a probabilistic model-forecast perimeter and a lower hydrostratigraphic

unit boundary that delineates the extent of radionuclide-contaminated groundwater

(i.e., water exceeding SDWA radiological standards) from underground testing

over the next 1,000 years (FFACO 2011). Ultimately, DOE/NNSA and NDEP will

develop a regulatory boundary for each CAU, which would provide protection for the

public and the environment from the effects of migration of radioactive contaminants. 

If radionuclides were to reach this boundary, the DOE/NNSA NSO would submit

to NDEP for approval a plan to meet specific CAU regulatory boundary objectives

(FFACO 2011). As noted in Section 4.1.6.2, a long-term closure monitoring well

network will be designed, in consultation with NDEP, installed, and used for

monitoring groundwater to ensure public health and safety. Additional information

has been added in Section 6.3.6.2 to address the potential extent of radiological

contamination that would exceed the contaminant boundary levels over the next

1,000 years in the Frenchman Flat and Pahute Mesa areas of the NNSS. Based on

these modeled estimates, it is unlikely that radiologically contaminated groundwater

exceeding Safe Drinking Water Standards would reach areas where it would be used

by the public, based on the current boundaries of the NNSS and Nevada Test and

Training Range.

	 Although the commentor implies that the unavailability of groundwater beneath

the NNSS has adversely affected “irrigation, water for municipal water systems,

commercial & industrial activity, among others,” there is no evidence cited to

support that implication. As stated in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, “To date, it has not

been demonstrated that lack of access to NNSS groundwater has adversely affected

development in the region. However, it is possible that the restrictions imposed on

future groundwater withdrawals within the Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin by

Nevada State Engineer Order 1197, combined with a lack of access to other sources

of water, could constrain certain types of development.”

65-66	 As noted in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, for DOE/NNSA

contributions to cumulative impacts, the analysis primarily uses the Expanded

Operations Alternative because it tends to result in the highest estimates of the

potential cumulative impacts associated with the alternatives analyzed. The basis

for the estimate of radioactive wastes that may be disposed at the NNSS over the

next 10 years is explained in Appendix A, Section A.2.2.1, as follows: “These

waste volumes are based on: (1) projections of the respective waste types that are

designated for disposal at the NNSS, as well as those without a designated disposal
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-258

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

31

safety	review	prior	to	authorization	of	a	test	involving	larger	quantities	of	hazardous	materials.”	

The	potential	environmental	impacts	of	experiments	and	associated	possible	accidents	at	the	

scale	discussed	are	sufficiently	uncertain	that	any	plan	to	proceed	with	such	an	activity	should	be	

the	subject	of	an	Environmental	Impact	Statement	and	full	public	NEPA	processes.	In	the	ROD	

for	the	Final	SWEIS,	NNSA	should	commit	to	NEPA	analysis	of	any	plan	for	large	quantity	

chemical	release	experiments	as	discussed	in	this	draft.	

Geologic	Resources	

Page	4-55,	4.1.5.2.5

The	discussion	of	potential	for	oil	and	gas	reserves	at	NNSS	should	be	updated.	Since	1996,	

there	has	been	a	growing	interest	in	hydrocarbon	potential	in	central	Nevada,	and	numerous	

reports	have	been	published	on	the	geology	and	hydrocarbon	potential	of	the	region.		There	also	

is	a	growing	interest	in	oil	and	gas	leases	on	public	land	in	the	region.	With	appropriate	security	

and	access	controls,	it	does	not	seem	likely	that	permitting	oil	and	gas	exploration	on	selected	

parts	of	the	site	would	compromise	the	site’s	national	security	mission.		

Pg	4-56

NNSS	has	been	effectively	closed	to	the	public	since	the	late	1940s.	Given	the	80+	years	of	

technological	advances	in	the	art	of	mineral	exploration	since	then	and	the	significant	changes	in	

terms	of	mineral	values	that	have	occurred,	there	could	very	well	be	economically	viable	mineral	

deposits,	i.e.,	gold,	silver,	etc,	on	NNSS.

Railroad	Valley,	the	only	place	in	Nevada	with	oil	and	gas	production,	is	only	50	or	so	miles	

from	the	northern	boundary	of	NNSS.		Since	no	one	has	been	allowed	to	do	any	exploration	for	

oil	and/or	gas	on	NNSS,	there	is	no	basis	for	the	statement	in	the	draft	EIS	that	there	is	little,	if	

any,	potential	for	oil	and/or	gas	deposits	on	NNSS.		In	fact,	a	local	geologist	(Alan	Chamberlain)	

prepared	a	report	in	the	1990s	suggesting	that	an	overthrust	belt	occurring	on	the	NTS	might	be	

indicative	of	exploitable	oil	and/or	gas	reserves,	but	that	hypothesis	has	never	been	tested.

65-91

cont’d

65-92

location, as projected in DOE’s Waste Information Management System Database as

of April 2010, and (2) input from prospective waste generators regarding potential

waste streams and/or volumes that are not currently included in the database.”

DOE/NNSA is aware that the estimated volume of radioactive waste under the

Expanded Operations Alternative is high, that many of those waste streams that had

no designated disposal path in the Waste Information Management System Database

would likely be disposed at facilities that may be developed at the site of generation

of the waste, and that many of them will likely be disposed at licensed commercial

facilities. Currently, approximately 90 percent of LLW generated by DOE is

disposed in onsite facilities at the site of generation; about 5 percent is disposed at

licensed commercial disposal facilities, and about 5 percent is disposed at NNSS. 

Further, because of funding restrictions and other issues, a number of the waste

streams included in the estimated volumes may not be generated during the next

10 years. However, for purposes of presenting a conservative analysis (i.e., avoiding

underestimating impacts), the large volume addressed under the Expanded Operations

was used in this NNSS SWEIS. 

It remains DOE policy for its generators of LLW/MLLW to give first consideration

to disposal at the site where the waste is generated. However, a DOE LLW/MLLW

generator may seek an exemption to use licensed commercial disposal facilities. In

August 2009, guidance was issued by the DOE Environmental Management Program

(DOE 2009) that reiterated DOE’s commitment to the State of Nevada that the NNSS

would not be the sole disposal site for offsite-generated waste. This guidance also

informed site managers of the Environmental Management Program’s intension to

change DOE policy to make NNSS the “disposal site of last resort” for LLW/MLLW. 

65-67 As stated in response to comment 65-1, no changes will be made to existing DOE/

NNSA transportation routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing

would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are

undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle

between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011).

65-68	 DOE/NNSA and its contractors are users of the roadways much as other organizations

and individuals are. Generally, DOE’s sees it as the responsibility of the

transportation agencies at the state and Federal levels to plan for and fund highway

maintenance and upgrades. The states and the Federal Government both collect fuels

taxes, one purpose of which is to fund road improvements. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-259

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

32

Comments of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

U.S.	Department	of	Energy	

P.O.	Box	98518	

Las	Vegas,	Nevada	89193-8518	

Attn:	NNSS	SWEIS	Document	Manager	

RE: Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the 

Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Dear	Ms.	Cohn:	

The	Nevada	Division	of	Environmental	Protection,	Bureau	of	Federal	Facilities	staff	(NDEP)	

appreciates	the	opportunity	to	review	and	provide	comment	on	the	above-referenced	document.		

The	NDEP’s	comments	focus	on	the	technical	accuracy	of	statements	made	in	regard	to	the	U.S.	

Department	of	Energy’s	(USDOE)	Environmental	Management	Program,	which	includes	the	

Environmental	Restoration	Projects	(Industrial	Sites,	Soil	Sites	and	Underground	Test	Area	

Projects)	waste	management	activities,	and	the	Environment,	Safety	and	Health	Program.		The	

NDEP	regulates	the	USDOE	at	the	Nevada	National	Security	Site	(NNSS)	and	the	two	Nevada	

Off-Sites	under	an	AGREEMENT	IN	PRINCIPLE	and	the	FEDERAL	FACILITY	AGREEMENT	

AND	CONSENT	ORDER.	

The	NDEP	understands	that	the	Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Continued Operation of the Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of 

Nevada (document)	was	at	least	two	years	in	production.		However,	during	this	time,	projects	

and	work	continued,	yet	it	appears	that	the	most	current	information	has	not	been	incorporated.	

Also,	during	review	of	the	document,	it	would	appear	that	the	USDOE	contractor	preparing	the	

document	may	not	have	accessed	information	or	utilized	institutional	knowledge	and	other	

resources	available	from	National	Nuclear	Security	Administration/Nevada	Site	Office	

(NNSA/NSO)	personnel.		It	is	important	to	the	NDEP	that	all	statements	and	descriptions	of	

projects,	programs	and	activities	under	the	NDEP’s	oversight	are	correct	and	complete.		The	

NDEP	therefore	submits	the	attached	technical	comments	so	that	the	Final Site-Wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Nevada National Security 

Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada	can	present	an	accurate,	complete	and	up-todate	depiction	of	all	activities	under	the	regulatory	purview	of	the	NDEP.

The	technical	comments	provided	below	are	grouped	into	General, Waste Management, 

Underground Test Area (UGTA) and Safe Drinking Water/Water Pollution Control

categories.		NDEP’s	comments	include	corrections	to	responses,	citations	and	figures	and	discuss	

the	need	for	updating	and/or	clarifying	information	throughout	the	document.		The	NDEP	also	

raises	questions	and	provides	comments	for	the	Expanded	Operations	Alternatives	in	the	

Environmental	Restoration	Program	(ERP)	that	are	not	addressed	consistently	throughout	the	

document.		Additionally,	the	NDEP	has	pointed	out	that	some	of	the	technical	information	

65-93

65-69	 This NNSS SWEIS evaluates the transportation and disposal of two different quantities

of LLW/MLLW: 15.9 million cubic feet for the No Action and Reduction Operations

Alternatives and 52 million cubic feet for the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

The quantities were selected to provide a conservative analysis of two levels of

operation. In practice, only a small percentage of the LLW/MLLW generated by

DOE is disposed at the NNSS. Approximately 90 percent of the DOE LLW/MLLW

generated annually is disposed at the site where it is generated. Of the remaining

10 percent, approximately one-half is disposed at a commercial disposal facility in

Clive, Utah, and the balance is disposed at the NNSS. Much of the waste volume

shipped to NNSS cannot be disposed at other DOE facilities or at currently available

commercial facilities (D’Agostino 2011).

65-70	 As noted in the response to comment 65-1 above, in consideration of the

environmental analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP

as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

65-71	 The release fractions used in the transportation analysis are based on information

derived from credible technical reports. Appendix E, Sections E.5 and E.6, provide

details on the analysis approach and methods and describe the sources for the

information used in this SWEIS. The methods and source documents are widely

accepted and standard bases for DOE EISs. Additional discussion regarding the

approach to the analysis, including the sources of analytical data, is provided below

in the response to comment 65-72. Please refer to the response to comment 65-43

regarding analysis of unique local conditions.

65-72	 The Type A packages used in the transportation analysis for this NNSS SWEIS are

listed in Appendix E, Table E–4; other Type A packages could be used. Similar

packages have been used by DOE and other industries, including waste shipments

performed under NRC regulations. As described in Section E.5.1, in this SWEIS, all

LLW/MLLW Type A packages are contact-handled. Remote-handled LLW/MLLW

wastes are placed in Type B packages that provide both additional shielding and

protection during transport. In this SWEIS, these materials were assumed to have

been placed in drums and then placed inside a thick-walled Type B cask, such as the

CNS 10-160B, before transport. 

In the accident analysis, depending on the severity of accident (i.e., collision speed

and/or ensuing fire), some or all of the packages on a vehicle were assumed to

fail. A failed package could lead to a fraction of material being released. As stated
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-260

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

33

provided	in	the	document	is	not	accurate	because	the	document	contractor	may	not	have	had	

access	to	all	of	the	relevant	information.		The	NDEP	is	therefore	recommending	that	the	

NNSA/NSO	ERP	staff	review	specified	sections	to	verify	overall	accuracy.				

General Comments:

1. Page	1-25,	Last	Box,	Project Shoal, Central Nevada Test Area, and the Tonopah Test 

Range	and	Page	2-13,	First	Paragraph,	Transfer of Responsibility for Project Shoal 

and the Central Nevada Test Area –	The	Response	should	state	that	remediation	of	the	

surface	CAUs	at	the	Project	Shoal	and	Central	Nevada	Test	Area	were	completed	but	

“remediation”	of	the	subsurface	CAUs	at	these	two	sites	is	ongoing.

2. Pages	4-91	to	4-93	–	Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan -	What	is	

the	relationship,	if	any,	between	the	well	monitoring	conducted	for	CEMP,	RREM,	

UGTA	and	NNSS	potable	supply	programs?		It	is	unclear	if	the	content	is	this	Section	is	

all	part	of	the	RREM	Plan	discussion.		The	discussions	are	fragmented	and	unclear.		

3. Page	5-12,	Section	5.1.1.1.2	–	How	can	it	be	stated	that	“there	would	be	no	land	use	

impacts	resulting	from	the	continuation	of	EM	Mission	activities	at	the	current	levels	of	

operations	under	the	No	Action	Alternative	because	activities	would	not	change”	when	

the	land	is	being	impacted	by	these	activities?		Also,	in	regards	to	the	Environmental 

Restoration Program	paragraph,	should	the	“temporary	impacts”	of	restoration	

activities	carried	out	in	areas	that	are	not	consistent	with	the	designated	land	use	

identified	for	that	land	area	be	stated	in	this	SWEIS	so	they	can	be	commented	on?	

4. Page	5-86,	Environmental Restoration Program – Elsewhere	in	the	document	(Page	5-

96,	Section	5.1.6.1.2.2),	it	is	stated	that	if	operations	expanded	more	work	could	be	done	

in	the	UGTA	Project.		How	then	can	expanded	impacts	be	the	same	as	the	No	Action	

impacts?	

5. Page	5-109.	Second	Paragraph	–	Why	is	it	stated	that	there	would	be	no	changes	to	

environmental	restoration	activities	under	Expanded	Operations	given	what	is	stated	in	

Section	5.1.6.1.2.2	under	Environmental Restoration Program – Underground Test 

Area Project?

6. Page	5-121	and	Page	5-122,	Section 5.1.7.1.1.2 – The	NDEP	requests	that	the	

NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	section	for	accuracy	in	both	text	and	numbers	given.			

7. Page	5-130,	Environmental Restoration Program – Why	is	it	stated	that	there	would	be	

no	changes	to	environmental	restoration	activities	under	Expanded	Operations	given	what	

is	stated	in	Section	5.1.6.1.2.2	under	Environmental Restoration Program – 

Underground Test Area Project?

65-94

65-95

65-96

65-97

65-98

65-99

65-100

in Appendix E, Section E.6.5, the fractions of radioactive material released from

the shipping container were based on recommended values from NUREG-0170,

Radioactive Material Transportation Study (NRC 1977) and the DOE handbook,

Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear 

Facility (DOE 1994). For wastes transported in high-integrity containers, release

fractions were calculated using a crash model similar to that used in the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (DOE 1997). For soft-liners in 20‐foot International Organization for

Standardization containers, release fractions were determined using the method

described in the DOE West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 2003). 

As presented in Appendix E, Section E.4, since the publication of NUREG-0170,

there have been two affirmations of its conclusions (NUREG/CR-4829), Modal 

Study (NRC 1987), and NUREG/CR-6672, Reexamination Study (NRC 2000), each

using improved tools and information that supported the earlier studies. While the

conservatism of the conditional probabilities and release fractions for each accident

severity category from these studies can be argued, these studies, as well as the

others mentioned in Section E.6, are still considered the only reliable sources for this

information. 

Depending on the waste form and type, the analysis considers all radionuclides within

the failed packages listed in Appendix E, Tables E–5 through E–9. Given the material

at risk (all inventory in the cargo), the severity category conditional probability, and

the associated release and respirable fractions, the RADTRAN 6 computer code

calculates the consequences in terms of total effective dose to the population residing

within the 50 miles of the road. The results on a per-shipment basis are listed in

Table E–10.

	 Please refer to the response to comment 65-49 regarding the inventory of

strontium-90 in the LLW/MLLW packages. The radionuclide concentrations shown

in Appendix E, Table E–5, are representative of the maximum concentration received

in 2009 at NNSS and are not average values. Maximum concentrations are assumed

to be conservative. In reality, a waste package would not have the suite of all of the

radionuclides shown in Table E–5. 

As stated in the response to comment 65-14, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the

highway routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-261

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

34

8. Page	5-178,	Environmental Restoration Program – 	Why	is	it	stated	that	there	would	

be	no	changes	to	environmental	restoration	activities	under	Expanded	Operations	given	

what	is	stated	in	Section	5.1.6.1.2.2	under	Environmental Restoration Program – 

Underground Test Area Project? 

9. Page	9-18,	Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, as amended (February 

2008) –	the	date	of	amendment	needs	to	be	changed.		

10. Page	S-28,	Figure	S-7	Title	–	The	Corrective	Action	Units	(CAUs)	shown	on	this	Figure	

are	UGTA	CAUs	at	NNSS.		There	are	more	CAUs	throughout	NNSS	than	just	the	UGTA	

CAUs.		The	title	of	this	Figure	is	misleading.		

11. Pages	A-23	to	A-25,	Section	A.1.2.2,	Environmental Restoration Program – While	

this	Section	is	referenced	on	Page	3-19,	why	can	it	not	be	moved	to	Chapter	2	since	all	

the	activities	have	occurred	since	1996,	the	date	of	the	implementation	of	the	FFACO?	

Waste Management Comments:

12. Page	4-142,	Table 4-47, Area 5, Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Disposal,

Regulated	asbestos	LLW	–	The	Remarks	should	be	updated	to	reflect	that	Pit	6	has	been	

closed.	

13. Page	4-142,	Table 4-47, Area 5, Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Storage,

Hazardous	waste	–	The	Remarks should	be	updated	to	refer	to	the	permitted	storage	of	

hazardous	waste	prior	to	shipment	to	offsite	TSDF(s).	

14. Page	4-142, Table 4-47, Area 5, Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Closure 

Activities –	The Remarks	should	be	updated	to	reflect	the	current	status	in	FY12,	and	

that	the	92	acre	site	has	been	physically	closed.	

15. Page	4-143,	Section	4.1.11.1.1,	Second	paragraph,	Last	Sentence	–	“This	2002	ROD	

also...”	should	be	“This	2000	ROD	also...”	

16. Page	4-148,	Last	paragraph,	Third	Sentence	–	The	statement	“In	December	2005,	NDEP	

reissued	the	interim-status	permit...”	is	incorrect.		The	2005	permit	was	a	full-blown	

RCRA	permit.	Also,	there	was	no	interim-status	permit	issued	previously.		The	Pit	3	

operated	under	interim	status	but	there	was	no	formal	permit	issued	by	NV.	

17. Page	4-149,	Second	Paragraph	–	The	text	should	be	updated	to	reflect	the	current	status	

in	FY12.	

65-101

65-102

65-103

65-104

65-105

65-106

65-107

65-109

65-108

65-110

	 The RADTRAN 6 calculations do take into account inhalation and ingestion. The

tritium canisters were not analyzed because the risk associated with transport of the

canisters would be very small compared to the other materials and wastes that were

analyzed.

65-73	 DOE/NNSA has provided an opportunity for appropriately cleared personnel from the

State of Nevada to review the classified appendix.

65-74	 The amount of radioactive materials (in curies) transported in various waste

types by each carrier through the State of Nevada is orders of magnitude less

than that in a single SNF cask that was analyzed in the Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/

EIS‐0250). Therefore, the dose estimates provided in the Yucca Mountain FEIS

bound any potential dose from intentional destructive acts involving a transport in

this NNSS SWEIS. As noted in Appendix E, Section E.6.6, while it is not possible

to determine terrorists’ motives and targets with certainty, DOE considers the threat

of terrorist attacks to be real and makes all efforts to reduce any vulnerability to this

threat.

65-75	 Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Area 3 Radioactive Waste

Management Site (Area 3 RWMS) could be opened to receive LLW generated from

environmental restoration and other activities at DOE/NNSA sites in the State of

Nevada. Specifically, this action could be triggered by a need for additional disposal

space beyond that available in the Area 5 RWMC for the disposal of large on-site

remediation debris, or soils from clean-up activities on the NTTR. There is no nearterm need to use the Area 3 RWMS, however, should DOE/NNSA identify a need to

reopen the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site in the future, it would first

undertake detailed consultation with the State of Nevada, and would limit disposal to

in-state generated, non-hazardous LLW.

65-76	 As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.3, as part of the April 1997 Settlement

Agreement resolving State of Nevada litigation regarding radioactive waste disposal

at the Nevada Test Site (now the NNSS), DOE committed to initiate “consultation

with the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) concerning the status of the

existing land withdrawals for the NTS with regard to low-level waste storage/disposal

activities.” The consultation process with DOI was initiated by DOE shortly thereafter

and concluded in November 2009, with DOE/NNSA’s acceptance of custody and

control of the approximately 740 acres constituting the NNSS Area 5 RWMC. As

required by the Settlement Agreement, DOE conveyed the results of its consultation

to the State of Nevada in a letter dated December 18, 2008. These actions relative
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-262

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

35

18. Page	4-150,	Fourth	paragraph	–	The	discussion	about	real-time	radiography	is	

misleading.		It	is	performed	on	waste	forms	only	and	only	on	select	MLLW	packages	and	

there	are	size	restrictions	on	those.		It	is	in	reality	a	test	of	limited	utility	and	not	

performed	on	all	packages,	only	a	small	percentage.	

19. Page	9-3,	Waste Management,	Fourth	Listing	–	The	FFACO	does	NOT	govern	waste	

management	activities	at	NNSS.		The	Agreement	in	Principle	(AIP)	governs	these	

activities.		The	AIP	is	not	listed	in	Table	9-1	and	needs	to	be	included.		The	FFACO	

needs	to	be	moved	to	another,	new	category	in	Table	9-1	and	the	Sections	following	the	

table	where	each	reference	is	explained	changed	accordingly.			Also,	the	Nevada	

Administrative	Code	governs	Water	Pollution	Control	and	Safe	Drinking	Water	activities	

at	NNSS.		This	information	needs	to	be	included	in	this	section.		

Safe Drinking Water/Water Pollution Control Comments:

20. Pages	4-17	and	4-18,	Water Supply - The	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	

staff	review	this	section	for	overall	accuracy.		As	an	example,	Wells	C-1,	5c	and	16D	are	

no	longer	on-line.		Well	16D	needs	to	be	replaced	with	Well	J-14.					

21. Page	4-79,	Groundwater Supply, Second	Paragraph	–	Wells	C-1,	5c	and	16D	are	no	

longer	on-line.		Well	16D	needs	to	be	replaced	with	Well	J-14.		Also,	Permits	“NY-4099-

12NC”	and	“NY-4098-12NC”	should	be	“NY-4099-12NTNC”	and	“NY-4098-

12NTNC,”	respectively.		

22. Page	4-80,	Table 4-26, Water Service Area C and Water Service Area D: Wells	C-1,	

5c	and	16D	are	no	longer	on-line.		Well	16D	needs	to	be	replaced	with	Well	J-14.		Also,	

it	should	be	clarified	that	water	is	hauled	into	Areas	26	and	27	(Water Service Area C)

from	Area	25	(Water Service Area D).

23. Page	9-27,	Table 9-2, Drinking Water	–	“NY-4098-12NC”	and	“NY-4099-12NC”	

should	be	“NY-4098-12NTNC”	and	“NY-4099-12NTNC,”	respectively.		

Underground Test Area Comments:

24. Page	3-24,	Underground Test Area –	The	first	sentence	should	state	“...continue	to	

develop	groundwater	flow	and	transport	models...”			

25. Page	3-57,	Commercial Solar Power Generation Facilities, Operation	–	It	is	not	clear	

how	the	stated	sustainable	yield	of	the	Fortymile	Canyon,	Jackass	Flats	Subdivision	

Basin	was	obtained	or	calculated	as	it	is	not	referenced	nor	is	it	consistent	with	the	

number(s)	on	the	Nevada	Division	of	Water	Resources’	(NDWR)	website.		Some	type	of	

reference	should	be	cited	for	this	Table.

65-111

65-113

65-116

65-117

65-114

65-115

65-118

65-112

to the status of land withdrawals and LLW storage/disposal activities satisfy the

provisions of the Settlement Agreement between DOE and the State of Nevada.

	 Additionally, DOE/NNSA believes the land withdrawals are not restrictive with

respect to NNSS activities in support of its missions.

65-77	 The reference to 3.5 million cubic feet in Chapter 4, Table 4–47, refers to an

operational signal to construct a new disposal unit. That is, a new disposal unit would

be excavated and prepared when the capacity in the existing disposal unit(s) falls

below 3.5 million cubic feet. This operational signal is independent of the capacity of

the entire Area 5 RWMC. 

It is estimated that the Area 5 RWMC would be filled to capacity after approximately

20 years of receiving the waste volumes identified under the No Action Alternative

or Reduced Operations Alternative, and after approximately 12 years of receiving

the waste volumes identified under the Expanded Operations Alternative. However,

as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.11.2.1, additional capacity could be made

available by constructing larger and/or deeper disposal units.

65-78	 Leading up to closure of the 92 acres within which the TRU waste disposal trench

is located, a Special Analysis (Shott et al. 2008), was conducted in compliance

with DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and the DOE/NNSA

NSO Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (Area 5 RWMS) LLW Disposal

Authorization Statement. Based on the conclusions of the Special Analysis, DOE/

NNSA determined that the potential dose to the public resulting from leaving the

waste in place would be well below the 40 CFR Part 191 (Compliance Certification)

standards and no groundwater contamination would occur within 10,000 years. 

However, removal of the TRU waste would create potential release of radiation to

the environment and an unnecessary health risk to workers. The TRU waste disposal

trench was recently closed under the FFACO (1996 [as amended March 2010]),

via the February 2012 Closure Report for the 92-Acre Area and Corrective Action 

Unit 111: Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits, Nevada National Security Site, 

Nevada (DOE/NV--1472). 

65-79	 The waste profiles routed to NDEP for evaluation are draft documents describing

waste streams under consideration by DOE/NNSA for management and disposition

at the NNSS. As such, these waste streams are subject to DOE/NNSA’s deliberative

process and are not be available to the public. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-263

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

36

26. Pages	4-45	to	4-62,	Section	4.1.5	–	The	NDEP	requests	that	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	

review	this	section	for	overall	accuracy.		While	individual	sentences	may	be	true	

statements,	the	compiled	paragraphs	do	not	necessarily	present	a	true,	complete	picture	of	

a	given	subject.		An	example	is	the	last	paragraph	of	4.1.5.2.1. Besides	not	giving	a	

complete	description	of	the	past	underground	nuclear	testing	in	Frenchman	Flat	and	

Yucca	Flat,	it	is	not	clear	why	this	paragraph	is	in	a	section	titled,	“Site-Specific	

Geology.”

27. Page	4-65,	Section	4.1.6.1,	NNSS-Specific Conditions,	Fifth	Paragraph	–	The	NDEP	

requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	paragraph	for	overall	accuracy.

Again,	the	individual	sentences	may	be	true,	but	it	is	not	clear	if	the	paragraph	presents	a	

complete,	true	picture	of	conditions	around	all	the	craters.

28. Page	4-73,	Section	4.1.6.2,	Hydrogeologic Setting,	Second	Paragraph,	First	sentence	and	

Page	4-75,	Table	4-24,	“Total”	Row	–	To	be	consistent,	the	range	for	the	perennial	yield	

for	the	10	hydrographic	basins	stated	in	the	text	should	be	shown	on	the	table.

29. Page	4-75,	Table	4-24,	Footnote	“d”	–	These	values	of	perennial	yield	are	indicated	to	

have	come	from	the	NDWR	website.		However,	when	the	values	listed	in	the	Table	are	

compared	to	the	website,	there	are	several	inconsistencies.		Either	the	values	in	the	Table	

should	be	corrected	or	a	new	reference	given.

30. Pages	4-73	to	4-93,	Section	4.1.6.2,	Groundwater	-	The	NDEP	requests	that	the	

NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	entire	section	for	overall	accuracy.		While	individual	

sentences	may	be	true	statements,	the	compiled	paragraphs	may	not	necessarily	present	a	

true,	complete	picture	of	a	given	subject.

31. Page	4-83,	Groundwater Monitoring and Quality, First	Sentence	–	Water	use	is	

Nevada	is	appropriated	by	the	NDWR	but	regulated	by	the	NDEP.			This	sentence	should	

be	rewritten.

32. Page	4-84,	First	Paragraph,	Second	Sentence	–	“...variances	issued	by	the	State	of	

Nevada	Division	of	Health.”	should	be	“...permits	issued	by	the	State	of	Nevada,	

Division	of	Environmental	Protection.”	

33. Page	4-84,	Third	Paragraph	–	The	cited	reference	for	this	paragraph	(DOE2008l)	is	a	

programmatic	NEPA	document	for	the	DOE	weapons	complex,	not	a	NNSS-specific	

reference.		The	SWEIS	should	reference	at	least	one	independent,	site-specific	scientific	

report	addressing	the	subject	of	this	Section,	for	example,	USGS	WRIR	96-4109	

(Laczniak	et	al.,	1999).	

65-119

65-120

65-121

65-122

65-123

65-124

65-125

65-126

65-80	 A revised reference was substituted for the cited reference, Gordon 2009a, has been

re-saved in portable document format (pdf), and is now readable.

65-81	 The assumed concentrations of strontium-90 are meant to account for delivery of

small radioactive sources and other possible waste streams that could be delivered in

Type A packages. As addressed in the response to comment 65-49, the radionuclide

inventory assumed for transportation analysis was representative of the highest

concentration of each radionuclide received in 2009 (see Appendix E, Section E.4.2). 

In developing this SWEIS, a full records search was not performed to determine

the numbers of containers with specific concentrations of selected radionuclides. 

This SWEIS also does not include a detailed projection of waste containers by site

and radionuclide concentration, but uses a conservative analysis of expected waste

shipments as a basis for the analysis. The provision in the NNSS WAC allows for,

rather than requires, disposal of waste in Type B packages. Waste containers shipped

within Type B packages are normally removed from the packages and disposed of,

leaving the Type B package available for shipment of other radioactive materials or

waste. 

65-82	 Chapter 4, Section 4.3.12, addresses the 1995 accident that resulted in tritium

contamination in the North Las Vegas Facility, Building A-1. The contamination

was cleaned up to the extent practical, but some of the tritium penetrated into the

concrete floor of the facility. The tritium continues to emanate from the concrete and

condenses in the form of water vapor from the air by the building cooling system. 

65-83	 The uncertainty range referred to in the cited passage is the range of uncertainty in the

frequency of the accident occurring. The estimated annual frequency of occurrence

of the listed accidents is presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–56, and Appendix G,

Table G–20, under the respective columns indicating frequency. The text was

clarified to indicate that the difference in accident frequencies across the alternatives

falls within the frequency ranges of the accident events.

65-84	 The table callouts have been corrected. 

65-85	 The tracer experiments are described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.3, and would

include underground and open-air release of radioactive noble gases with short

half-lives. The potential impacts of conducting these experiments were evaluated

for relevant resource areas; for example, see Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.5.2.1 (Geology

and Soils), 5.1.6.2.2.1 (Hydrology), and 5.1.7.2.1.1 (Biological Resources). For
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-264

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

37

34. Pages	4-90	to	4-91	–	Underground Test Area Project, First	Paragraph,	Fourth	Sentence	

–	The	reference	to	“compliance	boundary”	is	out-of-date.		Section	3	of	Appendix	VI	of	

the	Federal	Facility	Agreement	and	Consent	Order	has	been	revised.		This	sentence	

should	be	revised	accordingly.

35. Pages	4-90	to	4-91	–	Underground Test Area Project, Second	Paragraph	–	To	be	

completely	accurate,	it	should	be	specified	which	groundwater	model	is	being	referenced	

in	the	first	sentence.		Also	at	the	end	of	the	first	sentence,	“...each	major	area...on	

NNSS.”	should	be	changed	to	“...each	UGTA	CAU.”		“area”	at	the	end	of	the	second	

sentence	should	be	changed	to	“CAU.”		In	the	fourth	sentence,	“Results	of	the	sitespecific...”	should	be	changed	to	“Results	of	the	CAU-specific...”	

36. Pages	4-90	to	4-91	–	Underground Test Area Project, Third	Paragraph	–	It	is	not	clear	

why	only	Pahute	Mesa	work	is	described	in	this	section;	“ER-20-48”	should	be	“ER-20-

8”;	and	the	last	sentence	makes	no	sense	for	the	work	that	has	been	done	and	is	ongoing	

for	the	Pahute	Mesa	CAUs.		Again,	the	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	

review	this	section	for	overall	accuracy	and	that	a	more	complete	description	of	the	entire	

UGTA	Project	be	given,	including	citing	specific	references	for	the	work	that	has	been	

completed	for	each	of	the	UGTA	CAUs.		The	paragraphs	in	this	Section	discuss	very	

random	topics	and	there	is	no	clear	succession	from	one	paragraph	to	the	next.		

37. Page	4-93,	Second	and	Third	Full	Paragraphs	–	These	paragraphs	appear	to	contain	

statements	related	to	widely	different	SWEIS	groundwater	topics.		The	purpose	and	

placement	of	the	paragraphs	is	unclear.		They	should	be	more	clearly	tied	to	preceding	

discussions.

38. Page	5-93,	Environmental Restoration Program – Borehole Management Program – 

The	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	section	for	accuracy	of	

numbers	and	years.	

39. Page	5-102,	Table	5-23	and	First	Full	Paragraph	on	the	page,	Last	Sentence	–	for	

Subdivision	227a,	the	sustainable	yield	is	presented	as	a	range	in	the	table	but	the	values	

in	the	table	do	not	match	those	given	in	the	footnote	to	the	table	or	the	values	given	in	the	

text.		They	should	be	consistent.		On	what	basis	is	the	range	of	880	to	4,000	acre-feet	per	

year	being	used	in	the	SWEIS?		Also,	for	Table	5-23,	Sustainable Yield	is	indicated	in	the	

table	footnote	as	derived	from	Chapter	4,	Tables	4-24,	4-27,	and	4-30.		In	Table	4-24,	the	

Perennial Yield	is	listed	for	the	basins.		In	the	glossary	(Chapter	12),	neither	term	is	

defined.		It	is	not	clear	therefore,	if	the	two	terms	are	being	used	interchangeably.	

40. Page	5-104.	Second	and	Fourth	Paragraphs	–	The	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	

ERP	staff	review	this	section	for	accuracy.	

65-127

65-130

65-131

65-133

65-132

65-128

65-129

human health protection, the experiments would be designed in accordance with the

limitation identified in this NNSS SWEIS, such that releases associated with individual

experiments under normal operations would not cause a dose to an offsite MEI above

1 millirem per year (see Appendix G, Section G.2.3.2). This NNSS SWEIS analysis

also considers an accident scenario involving 10 radionuclides with up to 2,700 curies

each. These analyses provide sufficient information on the potential impacts of the

tracer experiments. It should be noted that, in addition to this NNSS SWEIS analysis,

evaluation in the realm of safety analyses would be conducted prior to authorizing

these experiments. Those evaluations would identify requirements to ensure the safe

conduct of the experiments.

65-86	 There is a single instance in the table for which the risk to an individual is calculated

to equal or exceed 1 as addressed in the table footnote c. The callout is appropriately

included in the one cell in the table where that occurs. 

65-87	 The accident analysis in this NNSS SWEIS used the previous analysis in the

1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) as a starting point. The basic approach

was to update the 1996 NTS EIS as appropriate with the results of more-recent safety

and environmental analyses. The level of detail of the updated analyses depended on

the potential magnitude of the impacts of the potential accident and, to a lesser extent,

the probability of that accident. All of the accidents of interest fell into the broad

“extremely unlikely” (1 in 10,000 to 1 in a million years) or lower (beyond extremely

unlikely) frequency categories. The frequency estimates were made primarily to

ensure that the accident did not fall into a much more frequent accident category, such

as 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000 years, and therefore merited much more-detailed evaluation

to ensure that the accident risks were adequately portrayed.

	 For example, for aircraft crashes in areas at TTR, the 1996 analyses were reviewed as

a part of the accident analysis process and found to be conservative. A more refined

analysis of the probability of an aircraft actually hitting or sliding close enough to

radioactive material to cause a release would have resulted in a much lower frequency

estimate. The aircraft sortie frequency was updated based on the USAF 2007,

as discussed in Appendix G, Sections G.3.3.2.2, G.3.6.2, and G.3.7. The crash

frequencies did not assume any new flight restrictions. The frequencies of accidents

initiated by an aircraft crash into a radioactive material storage area were found to

be well within the “extremely unlikely” frequency category, and even an order of

magnitude increase in aircraft overflights would not change that categorization. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-265

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

38

41. Page	5-106,	Table	5-25,	and	First	Full	Paragraph	on	the	page,	Second	Last	Sentence	–	

For	Subdivision	227a,	the	sustainable	yield	is	presented	as	a	range	in	the	table	but	the	

values	in	the	table	do	not	match	those	given	in	the	footnote	to	the	table	or	the	values	

given	in	the	text.		On	what	basis	is	the	range	of	880	to	4,000	acre-feet	per	year	being	used	

in	the	SWEIS?	

42. Page	5-110,	Section	5.1.6.2.3,	Fifth	Paragraph,	Last	Three	Sentences	and	Page	5-111,	

Table	5-26	–	For	Subdivision	227a,	the	sustainable	yield	is	presented	as	a	range	on	the	

table	but	the	values	in	the	table	do	not	match	those	given	in	the	footnote	to	the	table	or	

the	values	given	in	the	text	on	Page	5	–	110.		And,	after	using	the	range	of	880	to	4,000	

acre-feet	per	year	twice	prior	to	this	use,	the	basis	for	the	range	is	given?		The	basis	

should	be	stated	at	first	use.	

43. Page	5-127,	Section 5.1.7.1.3.2 –	There	appears	to	be	a	contradiction	in	the	first	and	third	

paragraphs	of	this	section	in	regards	to	how	much	desert	tortoise	habitat	would	be	

affected	by	UGTA	activities.		The	first	paragraph	states	one-half	would	not	be	within	

habitat	and	the	third	paragraph	states	most	UGTA	work	would	be	sited	outside	of	tortoise	

habitat.		“One-half”	is	not	“most.”		

44. Page	5-136,	Environmental Restoration Program – As	stated	above,	there	appears	to	

be	a	contradiction	in	the	second	and	third	sentences	of	this	section	in	regards	to	how	

much	desert	tortoise	habitat	would	be	affected	by	UGTA	activities.		The	second	

sentences	states	“most”	groundwater	characterization	and	monitoring	well	activity	would	

be	sited	outside	desert	tortoise	habitat.		The	third	sentence	states	that	it	is	assumed	that	

one-half	of	all	groundwater	characterization	and	monitoring	wells	installation	would	

occur	in	desert	tortoise	habitat.		“One-half”	is	not	“most.”		

45. Pages	6-40	to	6-42,	Groundwater –	Why	is	this	information	first	cited	in	Chapter	6,	

essentially	at	the	back	of	the	document,	and	not	in	an	earlier	chapter?		The	information	

presented	in	these	paragraphs	is	not	an	analysis	of	cumulative	environmental	impacts	to	

groundwater,	but	a	programmatic	description	of	the	UGTA	program	and	a	history	of	

underground	nuclear	testing.		Wherever	this	information	is	placed	in	the	document,	the	

NDEP	does	request	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	section	for	accuracy	in	

both	text	and	numbers	stated.				

46. Page	6-42,	First	Paragraph,	Fourth	Sentence	–	This	is	oversimplified	and	misleading.		

The	factors	given	in	the	next	sentence	effect	the	concentration	at	a	location	and	do	not	

indicate	slower	velocities. The	use	of	the	term	"apparent	front	of	a	contaminated	zone"	

needs	further	explanation	if	this	section	remains	as	written.	

47. Page	6-42,	Third	Paragraph,	Fifth	Sentence	–	This	entire	paragraph	presents	a	very	

simplified	calculation	"for	purposes	of	illustration".		The	fifth	sentence	presents	a	

conclusion	"it	is	unlikely	that	groundwater	contamination	..."	based	on	this	very	

65-134

65-136

65-139

65-140

65-137

65-138

65-135

	 The potential radiological impacts of these accidents were found to be very small

(less than 1 person-rem to the population within 50 miles), especially compared

with the operational accidents analyzed. Based on this level of impacts, the accident

would typically be dismissed from further consideration unless the likelihood of the

accident was high. The probability of an aircraft crashing in such a manner to impact

a sensitive area with radioactive material and cause a release of that material was

also found to be very small and to fall within the “extremely unlikely” frequency

category. As both the estimated radiological consequences are very small and the

accident probabilities are very low, the risks were judged low enough that moredetailed analysis was not deemed necessary. Thus, more-detailed evaluation of the

probabilities of an aircraft crash into a radioactive material area that would cause

damage to containers sufficient to cause a release was not warranted.

65-88	 The table callouts have been corrected. 

65-89	 The table callouts have been corrected.

65-90	 The referenced footnote is more appropriate to a table showing accident

consequences, where the results are the number of latent cancer fatalities that would

be expected if the accident occurred. The footnote for Appendix G, Table G–20, was

revised to indicate that the risk for the population is the risk of a single latent cancer

fatality when the annual accident frequency is taken into account. Therefore, whole

numbers were not added to the table entries.

65-91	 The potential environmental impacts associated with normal operations at the

Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex were previously evaluated in the Final 

Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases 

of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site (DOE/EA-1494). As described in that EA, a

set of protocols and conditions for conducting tests using chemicals (or biological

simulants) were established to support performing work related to combating

terrorism. The proposed expansion in this SWEIS is an extension of the same sort of

work and the same protocols for ensuring the work can be done safely. As indicated

in this NNSS SWEIS, any proposals to use larger quantities of chemicals would

undergo a thorough environmental evaluation; one component of that evaluation

would be to conduct appropriate NEPA review. Section 5.1.12.2.1 and G.3.7.1.1 in

this Final NNSS SWEIS were modified to state more clearly that the environmental

review includes determining whether additional NEPA reviews would be required.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-266

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

39

simplified	calculation.		Presenting	any conclusion	at	this	point	is	not	appropriate	because	

the	project	work	is	ongoing	at	Pahute	Mesa.		As	stated	in	the	last	sentence	in	the	previous	

paragraph,	the	DOE/NNSA,	in	consultation	with	NDEP,	is	developing	additional	

characterization	wells	to	obtain	additional	data	to	help	refine	model	predictions	for	

groundwater	flow	and	transport.	

48. 	Page	6-43,	Second	Paragraph,	Last	Two	Sentences	–	The	conclusion	given	in	the	last	

sentence	is	misleading	given	the	material	presented	in	the	previous	sentence.		Increases	in	

precipitation	(such	as	storms	associated	with	"El	Nino"	events)	can	produce	ponding	and	

increase	infiltration	and	possibly	fast	pathways	to	groundwater.	

49. Page	6-43,	Table 6-7	–	Why	is	the	total	for	NNSS	and	TTR	presented	in	this	Table	as

they	are	two	different	locations	and	one	has	no	bearing	on	the	other?

50. Page	6-44,	Third	Paragraph	–	This	paragraph	is	confusing	and	the	last	sentence	is	very	

disjointed.

51. Page	6-63,	Hydrology,	Middle	Column	under	Groundwater, First	and	Second	Paragraph	

–	The	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	the	first	sentence	for	

accuracy.			The	second	sentence	is	a	conclusion	that	is	not	referenced	to	any	study	or	

document	and	is	not	appropriate	as	it	is	not	related	to	a	"Cumulative	Impact"	of	various	

proposed	activities.	

52. Page	8-5,	Section	8.1.2.1.2	–	Why	is	UGTA	not	mentioned	in	this	Expanded	Operations	

section?			

53. Pages	9-10	and	9-11,	Fluid Management Plan for the UGTA Project –	The	agreement	

between	the	State	of	Nevada	and	the	NNSA	is	not	“called”	the	Fluid	Management	Plan	

for	the	UGTA	Project”	(FMP).		The	agreement	is	“documented”	in	the	FMP.	

54. Page	S-27,	Groundwater Quality, First	Paragraph,	First	Sentence	–	“...and	

requirements	set	by	the	State	of	Nevada	Division	of	Health.”	should	be	“...and	

requirements	set	by	the	State	of	Nevada,	Division	of	Environmental	Protection.”	

55. Page	S-27,	Groundwater Quality, Second	Paragraph,	Last	Sentence	-	The	NDEP	

requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	this	sentence	for	accuracy.				

56. Page	S-93,	Last	Paragraph	on	Page,	Last	Two	Sentences	-	The	NDEP	requests	that	the	

NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	these	sentences	for	accuracy.				

57. Page	S-95,	Second	Paragraph	–	The	last	sentence	gives	the	impression	that	the	CAUmodels	have	not	even	been	started.		This	is	not	the	case	and	the	sentence	should	be	

rewritten.

65-140

cont’d

65-141

65-142

65-143

65-145

65-148

65-149

65-150

65-146

65-147

65-144

65-92	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.5, has been updated to reflect information that has become

available regarding the potential for oil, gas, and mineral resources at the NNSS. It

should be noted that there have been no proposals for conducting exploration of the

NNSS for oil, gas, or other minerals. If such a proposal were made, the DOE/NNSA

NSO would evaluate it pursuant to relevant procurement and contracting regulations

and policies and in consideration of other factors, such as the extent to which the

proposals would assist DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the

availability of funding.

65-93	 DOE/NNSA has conducted a thorough review of activities and environmental

resource descriptions, as suggested by NDEP. As a result, numerous changes

have been made to Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5 (Geology and Soils) and

4.1.6.2 (Hydrology – Groundwater). These changes include revised descriptions

of subsurface geology, subsurface water movement, and CAUs associated with the

FFACO.

65-94	 To clarify the status of the Project Shoal and Central Nevada Test Area, the

second and third sentences in the paragraph cited by the commentor now read: “The

DOE/NNSA Environmental Management Program completed surface remediation

at these sites before the transfer; the remaining work is associated with long-term

surveillance (groundwater monitoring) and maintenance. These sites are no longer

under DOE/NNSA control and, by agreement with the DOE Office of Legacy

Management, are not further addressed in this NNSS SWEIS.”

65-95	 As discussed under the Section heading, Groundwater Monitoring and Quality, on

page 4-83 of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, which precedes the RREM Program discussion,

several groups regularly test water at and surrounding the NNSS. The DOE/NNSA

NSO RREM Program samples wells, springs, and surface-water sites, to determine

radionuclide levels. The UGTA Project samples a network of deep wells to help

determine where contaminants are present in groundwater, in which direction these

contaminants are moving, and how quickly. UGTA wells that are not designated

as source-term characterization wells are made available for monitoring under the

RREM Program. In addition to the RREM Program and UGTA Project sampling

efforts, CEMP performs independent, annual monitoring of 29 springs and water

supplies in communities surrounding the NNSS. 

65-96	 DOE/NNSA considers environmental restoration activities to be consistent with all

land use designations. As defined in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1, Land Use, the criteria

for land use impacts include: “Compatibility of proposed activities with existing land
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-267

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

State of Nevada Comments on the DOE/NNSA December 2, 2011 

Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Nevada National 

Security Site and Off-Site Locations in Nevada 

40

58. Page	A-23,	Underground Test Area Project	–	Some	of	the	first	sentence	verb	tenses	

give	the	impression	that	this	work	has	not	even	been	started.		This	is	not	the	case	and	the	

sentence	should	be	rewritten.		Also,	the	NDEP	requests	that	the	NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	

review	this	section	for	accuracy.

59. Pages	A-24	to	A-25, Borehole Management Program	–	The	NDEP	requests	that	the	

NNSA/NSO’s	ERP	staff	review	these	sentences	for	accuracy.			

60. Page	A-43,	Underground Test Area Project –	It	is	stated	that	activities	would	occur	“at	

a	potentially	accelerated	rate”	for	Expanded	Operations.		This	statement	is	not	consistent	

with	statements	made	in	other	sections	of	the	document	under	“Expanded	Operations.”		

61. Page	H-3,	Section	H.1,	First	Paragraph	–	Were	UGTA	tests	actually	conducted	on	

Buckboard	Mesa?	

62. Page,	H-3,	Section	H.1,	Second	Paragraph	–	Why	is	the	impact	on	groundwater	not	

mentioned	in	this	paragraph?	

63. 	Page	H-5,	Second	Paragraph,	Third	and	Fourth	Sentences	–	The	third	sentence	refers	to	

"crushing	and	fracturing	the	rock	in	the	near-test	environment"	and	the	fourth	sentence	

indicates	"the	rock	is	no	longer	crushed,	but	merely	compressed,	it	then	returns	to	its	

original	state".		These	sentences	need	to	be	written	clearer.	

64. Page	H-9,	Fourth	and	Fifth	Paragraphs	–	The	use	of	“probably”	in	these	two	paragraphs	

begs	the	question	of	how	much	is	actually	known	about	leaching	activities.		These	

sentences	should	be	re-worded.	

65. Page	H-10,	Last	Sentence	–	As	the	final	thought	of	the	document,	the	curies	of	tritium	

currently	available	should	be	calculated	and	provided.

Again,	these	comments	are	submitted	so	that	the	Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Continued Operation of the Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site 

Locations in the State of Nevada	will	present	an	accurate,	complete	and	up-to-date	depiction	of	

all	activities	under	the	regulatory	purview	of	the	NDEP.		If	you	have	any	comments	or	questions,	

please	contact	Christine	Andres	at	702-486-2850,	ext.	232.	

Sincerely,

T.	H.	Murphy,	Chief	

Bureau	of	Federal	Facilities	

65-151

65-152

65-154

65-158

65-155

65-157

65-153

65-156

use and land use designations both on the NNSS and the surrounding areas.” To

clarify, DOE/NNSA has added a statement in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1, indicating that

all land use designations are compatible with environmental restoration activities. 

Impacts on the land surface as a result of DOE Office of Environmental Management

missions are evaluated under Section 5.1.5, Geology and Soils, and Section 5.1.7,

Biological Resources.

65-97	 The text in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.1.2.2, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, which is

referenced by the commentor, was erroneous and has been corrected in the Final 

NNSS SWEIS to reflect that the impacts of the UGTA Project under the Expanded

Operations Alternative would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

The text commented on from the Draft NNSS SWEIS (Section 5.1.5.2.2) continues to

be correct and has not been changed in this Final NNSS SWEIS.

65-98	 The text in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2.2.2, (addressing groundwater impacts) of

the Draft NNSS SWEIS, which is referenced by the commentor, was erroneous

and has been corrected in this Final NNSS SWEIS to reflect that the impacts

of the UGTA Project under the Expanded Operations Alternative would be the

same as under the No Action Alternative (versus the statement that no changes to

activities were proposed). However, the text commented on from the draft SWEIS

(Section 5.1.6.1.2.2, regarding surface-water impacts) continues to be correct and has

not been changed in this final SWEIS.

65-99	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7.1.1.2, and no changes

have been made. The numbers presented in this section are conservative estimates

of future land disturbance associated with the UGTA Project and other DOE Office

of Environmental Management activities and their associated impacts on biological

resources, such as wildlife habitat.

65-100	 The text in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.1.2.2, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, which is

referenced by the commentor, was erroneous and has been corrected in the Final 

NNSS SWEIS to reflect that the impacts of the UGTA Project under the Expanded

Operations Alternative would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

The text commented on from the draft SWEIS (Section 5.1.7.2.1.2) continues to be

correct and has not been changed in this final SWEIS.

65-101	 The text in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.1.2.2, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, which is

referenced by the commentor, was erroneous and has been corrected in the Final 

NNSS SWEIS to reflect that the impacts of the UGTA Project under the Expanded

Operations Alternative would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-268

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

ATTACHMENT  A

NUREG‐0170 ACCIDENT SEVERITY CATEGORIES

The text commented on from the draft SWEIS (Section 5.1.10.2.2) continues to be

correct and has not been changed in this final SWEIS.

65-102	 The text has been corrected by eliminating reference to the date.

65-103	 As suggested by this comment, the title of Figure S–7 in the Summary has been

revised to “Underground Test Area Corrective Action Units and Underground Nuclear

Test Locations at the Nevada National Security Site.” The title to a corresponding

figure, Figure 4–19 in Chapter 4, has been revised as well.

65-104	 The cited Section in Appendix A contains some background information to provide

context for the public, but it also outlines general future activities by the DOE/NNSA

Environmental Restoration Program. DOE/NNSA activities under the Environmental

Restoration Program have been included in Section 2.5.3.

65-105	 The commentor is correct; Pit 6 was closed on March 31, 2011. The text in

Chapter 4, Table 4–47, was modified to reflect the current closure status.

65-106	 The text in Chapter 4, Table 4–47, indicating that hazardous waste is temporarily

stored pending shipment off site, was revised to indicate that there is a permitted

facility for storage.

65-107	 DOE/NNSA agrees that the status of the 92-Acre Area has changed since the table

was developed. The text in Chapter 4, Table 4–47, regarding closure of the 92-Acre

Area in Area 5, was updated to reflect the current closure status.

65-108	 The commentor is correct; the reference to the year of the WM PEIS ROD addressing

LLW and MLLW management was corrected to 2000.

65-109	 The text in this paragraph was revised to correct the previous errors in wording

and more-accurately reflect the evolution of MLLW disposal. The revised text in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.1.2, indicates that Pit 3 operated under interim status until

it was permanently closed in late 2010, and that a permit reissued in 2005 removed

the previous restriction on receiving MLLW for disposal from outside Nevada. A new

MLLW disposal cell was excavated in 2010, and a new RCRA Part B permit covering

MLLW disposal at NNSS was issued in December 2010.

65-110	 DOE/NNSA agrees; in finalizing Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.1.2, the status of waste

management facilities and activities in Area 5 was updated.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-269

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

65-111	 The discussion of real-time radiography was revised to more accurately reflect its use

and purpose. The revised text in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.1.1.3, indicates that realtime radiography is performed on a predetermined number of packages, based on the

approved waste profile, and that there are size and weight limitations associated with

the equipment.

65-112	 The Agreement in Principle has been added to Chapter 9, Table 9–1, under

“Environmental Quality,” and a description of the Agreement In Principle added to

Section 9.1.1. The commentor is correct in that the FFACO does not govern waste

management activities per se, but represents other requirements that are germane to

waste management at the NNSS (consistent with the intent of Table 9–1). Therefore,

the FFACO continues to be listed under “Waste Management” in Table 9–1. 

The Nevada Administrative Codes that govern water pollution control and safe

drinking water were included in Table 9–1 under Hydrology, and were described in

Section 9.1.6.

65-113	 DOE/NNSA has reviewed the cited pages from the draft SWEIS. Wells C1, 5c,

and 16d are still on line. A statement identifying the new Well J-14 has been added

to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of this final SWEIS, but it is not a replacement for

Well 16d. 

65-114	 As noted in the response to comment 65-113 above, DOE/NNSA has reviewed

the cited pages from the draft SWEIS. Wells C1, 5c, and 16d are still on line. A

statement identifying the new Well J-14 has been added to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2,

of this final SWEIS, but it is not a replacement for Well 16D.

	 Several years ago, DOE/NNSA changed the status of the two systems referenced by

these permit numbers to transient from nontransient, non-community drinking water

systems. The referenced permit numbers shown in Chapter 9, Section 9.2, Table 9–2,

are correct. 

65-115	 As noted in the response to comment 65-113 above, DOE/NNSA has reviewed

the cited pages from the draft SWEIS. Wells C1, 5c, and 16d are still on line. A

statement identifying the new Well J-14 has been added to this final SWEIS, but it

is not a replacement for Well 16d. This final SWEIS has been edited to clarify that

Area 25 (Water Service Area D) is the source of water trucked to Areas 26 and 27.

65-116	 As noted in the response to comment 65-113 above, several years ago, DOE/NNSA

changed the status of the two systems referenced by these permit numbers to transient
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-270

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

from nontransient, non-community drinking water systems. The referenced permit

numbers shown in Chapter 9, Table 9–2, Table 9–2, are correct. 

65-117	 The change has been made to this final SWEIS, as suggested by the commentor.

65-118	 In this final SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has simplified the yield estimates by using only

the single values published by Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) on its

public website in 2009. 

65-119	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5, was reviewed by the DOE/NNSA NSO Environmental

Restoration Program staff geologists and revised and updated. The last paragraph

of Section 4.1.5.2.1 in the Draft NNSS SWEIS has been moved to Section 4.1.5.4.2

in this Final NNSS SWEIS. In addition to this change, numerous revisions have

been made throughout Sections 4.1.5.2, 4.1.5.2.1, 4.1.5.2.3, and 4.1.5.2.5 to clarify

and update the text. Further, Section 4.1.5.4.1, which addresses radiological

contamination of NNSS soils, has been revised to provide the reader with a clearer

understanding of areas of the NNSS that are contaminated. 

65-120	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed this section, and no changes have been identified.

This Section provides an overview of surface water and drainage conditions on the

NNSS. This paragraph was not intended to provide a comprehensive description of

physical conditions near test craters, only an acknowledgement that craters can alter

natural drainage pathways. 

65-121	 In this final SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has simplified the yield estimates by using only the

single values published by NDWR on its public website in 2009.

65-122	 The perennial yield values for each basin used in Chapter 4, Table 4–24, in the draft

SWEIS were based on the values published by NDWR on its public website in 2009,

with the exception of Basin 160 (Frenchman Flat) and the lower value cited for

Basin 227A. Please note that the perennial yield displayed on several hydrographic

area summaries from the NDWR website are a combined yield for several basins

and, therefore, will not match Table 4–24. Table 4–24 in the draft SWEIS displays

the perennial yield of each individual basin. Footnote “d” stated that, although the

NDWR lists the perennial yield as 4,000 acre-feet per year, studies conducted by

DOE show a range of values as low as 880 acre-feet per year. In this final SWEIS,

DOE/NNSA has simplified the yield estimates by using only the single values

published by NDWR on its public website in 2009.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-271

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

65-123	 This comment addresses the entire Affected Environment description for groundwater

on the NNSS (Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2). Specific comments by this commentor

within this Section have been addressed individually, and changes have been made as

appropriate in this final SWEIS. DOE/NNSA has also conducted a comprehensive

review of this section, as requested by the commentor, and made additional changes

to the subtopic discussions of Hydrogeologic Setting, Groundwater Recharge and

Discharge, and Groundwater Monitoring and Quality. These additional changes are

primarily limited to clarification of existing sentences and citation of more recent

references.

65-124	 The sentence has been revised as suggested by the commentor in this final SWEIS.

65-125	 The sentence has been revised in this final SWEIS, as suggested by the commentor.

65-126	 The noted citation was used in error. The correct citation is Bowen et al. 2001,

“Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory, 1951-1992.” The text in this NNSS SWEIS

has been changed accordingly. In addition, in the same paragraph, the same citation

was used in error in the sentence describing Figure 4–13 in Chapter 4 and has been

deleted. The source of the figure is noted on the figure, i.e., FFACO 2010.

65-127	 The first paragraph under subheading, “Underground Test Area” has been revised,

consistent with Appendix VI, Section 3, of the FFACO, dated May 2011.

65-128	 The second paragraph under the subheading “Underground Test Area Project” in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been updated in this final SWEIS to describe the twostep process using the regional three-dimensional flow model, as well as the CAUspecific groundwater flow and transport models developed from the regional model. 

The additional changes to the text have been made as suggested by the commentor.

65-129	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed the range of SWEIS sections identified

by NDEP, especially as they pertain to UGTA Project activities. Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2, of this final SWEIS has been expanded to provide a more

comprehensive discussion of the UGTA Project, including completed activities and

ongoing efforts. The well-labeling error pointed out by the commentor (ER-20-48)

has been corrected.

65-130	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed this section, and no changes have been

identified. These topics have been included in a summarized manner in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2, to provide an overview of other groundwater protection activities and

policies.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-272

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

65-131	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed this section for accuracy, and no changes have

been identified.

65-132	 Text has been added to Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS to

explain the difference between the terms “perennial yield” and “sustainable yield”

as they are used in this analysis. Perennial yield is a measure of the total amount

of groundwater that may be withdrawn from a basin on an annual basis without

depleting average water levels. Sustainable yield is the perennial yield of a basin

minus any previously allocated rights. The apparent inconsistency noted in the

comment is a function of the use of these two different terms. While the draft SWEIS

applied a range of values for the perennial (and sustainable) yield for Basin 227A

and compared that range to projected future water uses, this final SWEIS has been

amended to reflect single values (based on 2009 estimates published by NDWR) for

perennial yield.

65-133	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2.1.2, as requested, and

no changes have been identified. 

65-134	 For clarity, this final SWEIS has been amended to reflect single values (based

on 2009 estimates published by NDWR) for perennial yield. In addition, the

differences between the terms “perennial yield” and “sustainable yield,” which

considers previously allocated rights from a basin, have been clarified in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2.

65-135	 Please see the response to comment 65-134 above.

65-136	 The text in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7.1.3.2, has been revised to reflect that, although

most of the characterization and monitoring wells to be developed under the UGTA

Project over the next 10 years would be located outside of desert tortoise habitat,

one-half of those wells were assumed to be within tortoise habitat for purposes of

the analysis. Including one-half of the wells that would potentially be developed

was done to make the analysis more conservative and to ensure the impacts are not

underestimated.

65-137	 The third sentence stated, “For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that onehalf of such well development (250 acres of land disturbance) would occur in desert

tortoise habitat.” This was meant to indicate that DOE/NNSA was conservative in its

assumptions to preclude underestimating potential impacts. To clarify this, the word

“However” has been inserted at the beginning of the cited third sentence.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-273

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

ATTACHMENT  B

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF A SUCCESSFUL SABOTAGE ATTACK  

ON A SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CONTAINER

65-138	 DOE/NNSA believes that the information in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, Groundwater,

is an appropriate analysis of cumulative environmental impacts on groundwater. CEQ

defines ”cumulative impact” in 40 CFR 1508.7 as “the impact on the environment

which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal

or non-Federal or person undertakes such other actions.” As noted in Section 6.3.6.2,

“Past underground nuclear testing resulted in a cumulative impact on groundwater

under the NNSS.” As noted in Sections 5.1.6.2.1, 5.6.2.2, and 5.6.2.3, there are

no proposed actions under any of the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS that would

impact groundwater quality, the only cumulative impact on groundwater quality is

that resulting from underground nuclear weapons testing at the NNSS, as described. 

The brief history of underground nuclear weapons testing and DOE/NNSA’s UGTA

Project are included for background. Although there are no activities proposed in

this NNSS SWEIS that may impact groundwater, the contamination that resulted

from underground nuclear weapons testing will continue to impact the groundwater

for some undefined period of time into the future. The potential future impacts

of groundwater contamination are discussed in the first portion of Section 6.3.6.2. 

DOE/NNSA’s UGTA Project scientists reviewed this section for accuracy prior to

issuance of the Draft NNSS SWEIS and re-reviewed it prior to publication of this

Final NNSS SWEIS. 

In response to a number of requests from commentors, DOE/NNSA has revised

this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of

groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. As

noted in the response to comment 65-2 above, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and

Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. 

65-139	 The cited paragraph has been revised and the phrase “apparent front of a

contaminated zone” removed.

65-140	 DOE/NNSA agrees with the commentor. The fifth sentence of the paragraph has been

deleted.

65-141	 The sentences of concern to the commentor are in a paragraph addressing the

performance and composite assessments for the radioactive waste disposal facilities

in Areas 3 and 5 of the NNSS. The two concluding sentences of that paragraph are:
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-274

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Potential Consequences of a Successful Sabotage Attack 

on a Spent Fuel Shipping Container: 

Updated Analysis 

Revised Final Version 

Prepared for the State of Nevada 

Agency for Nuclear Projects 

Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D. and Jackie Travers 

Radioactive Waste Management Associates 

November 2008 

Radioactive Waste Management Associates 

526 W. 26th Street #517 

New York, NY 10001 

“Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Fourth Assessment

Report estimates that although increases in precipitation extremes (such as storms

associated with “El Niño” events) are possible for the Great Basin, annual-mean

precipitation is projected to decrease in the southwest United States (IPCC 2007). 

This would tend to make it even more unlikely that a path to groundwater would

develop in the future.”

	 Since 1993, DOE/NNSA has been conducting groundwater monitoring at pilot

wells at the Area 5 RWMC (annual groundwater reports are available at the Office

of Scientific and Technical Information [www.osti.gov] and the DOE/NNSA NSO

website [www.doe.nv.gov]). Vadose zone (the zone of aeration in the upper levels

of the soil) monitoring has been going on since 1994 (annual summary reports are

available since 2004 at the OSTI and NSO/DOE websites noted above). Cumulative

monitoring results of the vadose zone are summarized in annual waste management

monitoring reports. Monitoring of the vadose zone at waste pits, covers, and

lysimeters show no percolation below the root-zone (about 6 feet). Precipitation

infiltrating into the root-zone is taken by evapotranspiration: water movement in

the upper few meters of alluvium occurs by root uptake, liquid advection, thermal

vapor transport, and isothermal vapor transport. Upward liquid fluxes dominate

at depth through the waste zone. Of particular note in relation to the comment, a

25-year, 24-hour storm occurred in February 1998, and several short-duration, highintensity storms occurred during September 2007 and December 2010. None of these

precipitation events resulted in producing a pathway to groundwater. Chapter 6,

Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to provide additional support for the conclusion in

the two sentences in question.

65-142	 The commentor is correct. The NNSS and TTR are in different locations. Within

the context of the cited table and the comment, NNSS is located in the Death Valley

Basin and TTR in the Central Region (NDWR 2006). There is likely no hydrologic

connection between the two locations. The reason the two sites were shown together

on the table was to display DOE/NNSA’s cumulative groundwater demand in

southern Nevada. (As stated in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, both the Remote Sensing

Laboratory and the North Las Vegas Facility obtain their water from municipal

providers and have little direct effect on groundwater availability.) Text has been

added in Section 6.3.6.2 to clarify the reasons for combining TTR and NNSS water

use, even though there are no known hydrographic connections between the two sites.

65-143	 The cited paragraph has been revised to improve readability.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-275

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 1 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Consequences of a Successful Sabotage Attack on a Spent 

Nuclear Fuel Shipping Container 





























































 

1 RWMA, 2002. Lamb, M. et al., Potential Consequences of a Successful Sabotage Attack on a Spent Fuel Shipping 

Container: An Analysis of the Yucca Mountain EIS Treatment of Sabotage, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 

April 2002. 

2 USDOE, 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada . DOE/EIS-0250F-S1, 

June 2008. The SEIS incorporates by reference the radiological impact analyses contained in the accompanying DOE 

Final EIS for the Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor (DOE/EIS-0250-F-S2) and the Final EIS for a Rail Alignment for the 

Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada (DOE/EIS-0369), June 2008. 

65-144	 The commentor is referring to Chapter 6, Table 6–15, Summary of Cumulative

Impacts. The first sentence of concern to the commentor states, “Past underground

nuclear testing has contaminated an unknown volume of groundwater beneath the

NNSS.” This sentence is accurate. The second sentence states, “That contamination

is not expected to impact publicly available water supplies within the next 100 years.”

The commentor is correct in stating that this is not referenced to any study or

document; however, based on current understanding of groundwater flow rates in the

Pahute Mesa area and as described in Section 6.3.6.2, travel times were calculated

between Pahute Mesa and Oasis Valley by Rose et al. (2002). Those travel times

ranged from 337 to over 6,191 years (95 percent confidence limits). The second

sentence has been revised to reflect these referenced estimated groundwater travel

times.

65-145	 Chapter 8, Section 8.1, addresses unavoidable impacts. Unavoidable impacts from

Environmental Restoration Program activities were not included under any of the

alternatives in the Draft NNSS SWEIS. Sections 8.1.1.1.2, 8.1.2.1.2, and 8.1.3.1.2

have been revised in this Final NNSS SWEIS to address unavoidable impacts resulting

from Environmental Restoration Program activities.

65-146	 For the UGTA Project, the Fluid Management Plan (FMP) was developed in lieu of a

state-approved water pollution control permit for all fluids produced during drilling,

construction, development, testing, experimentation, or sampling of wells. The FMP

is a comprehensive attachment to the UGTA Waste Management Plan (WMP) (DOE/

NV-343-Rev. 3, May, 2009). The WMP is a state-approved document which includes

the FMP and requires the UGTA Project to draft a specific Fluid Management

Strategy (FMS) when conducting activities mentioned above (e.g., drilling). This

activity-specific FMS would also be approved by the State of Nevada and must

adhere to the guidelines provided by the FMP. Chapter 9, Section 9.1.6, of this

NNSS SWEIS has been clarified to include this information. 

65-147	 The text in the Summary, Section S.3.1.4, has been corrected as suggested by this

comment.

65-148	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed the Summary, Section S.3.1.4, and no changes

have been identified.

65-149	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has reviewed the Summary, Section S.4.2, and no changes

have been identified.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-276

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 2 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 















































































 

3 USDOE, 2008, pp. 6-4 to 6-5. 4 USDOE, 2008b, pp. 3-3 to 3-5.

65-150	 The text in the Summary, Section S.4.3, has been revised to clarify that the CAU

models have been developed and continue to undergo improvements.

65-151	 The noted sentence in Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has

been revised to reflect more accurately that activities have been ongoing and will

continue. In addition, Section A.1.2.2 has been reviewed by the DOE/NNSA NSO

Environmental Restoration Program and been revised to reflect the current status of

the program.

65-152	 The Borehole Management Program discussion in Appendix A, Section A.1.2.2, has

been updated to reflect the current status of the program.

65-153	 The Draft NNSS SWEIS, Section A.2.2.2, regarding the UGTA Project, states:

“Activities would continue as identified under the No Action Alternative, but at a

potentially accelerated rate.” Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.2, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS

states: “The UGTA and Industrial Sites Projects, remediation of Defense Threat

Reduction Agency sites, and Borehole Management Program would all continue as

under the No Action Alternative, although the pace of cleanup activities could be

accelerated.” The perception that there is an inconsistency in the description of the

UGTA Project in other parts of the document may be due to the analyses of potential

impacts. In Chapter 5, for resources that may experience a greater or lesser impact

due to accelerating UGTA Project and other environmental restoration projects, the

potential acceleration is noted. Where there would be no difference in impacts from

the No Action Alternative, the potential for accelerating these activities may not be

mentioned.

65-154	 Danny Boy was a 1962 cratering test with a yield of only 430 tons conducted on

Buckboard Mesa. As a cratering test, Danny Boy was shallowly buried. There is no

expectation that this test would have any interaction with the regional groundwater

system; therefore, it is not part of the UGTA Project; however, it is considered an

underground test.

65-155	 The cited paragraph has been revised to mention that groundwater may be impacted

by underground nuclear weapons testing. Appendix H, Section H.2, Radiological

Contamination of the Geologic Media and Groundwater, addresses the effects of

underground nuclear weapons testing on groundwater.

65-156	 The sentences cited by the commentor have been revised to improve clarity.

65-157	 The two paragraphs have been reworded.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-277

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 3 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 























 5

 

5 Halstead, RJ, et al, 2008. State of Nevada Perspective on the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain 

Transportation Program, Paper presented at Waste Management 2008, Phoenix, AZ, February 25, 2008. 

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2008/pdf/wm2008perspective.pdf

65-158	 The rough calculation of the hydrologic source term for tritium in groundwater

at the NNSS presented in the last paragraph of Appendix H was not intended to

be a conclusive statement. Determining the actual hydrologic source term would

be an extremely complex and unnecessary effort for purposes of the discussion in

Appendix H. The calculation of a hypothetical hydrologic source term for tritium in

the paragraph cited by the commentor was intended only to be an example based on a

simple calculation. In keeping with this simplistic approach, the potential hydrologic

source term of tritium, as of April 2016 (about 2 half lives of tritium), has been added

to the SWEIS. In addition, the text has been revised to state more clearly the intent

and high level of uncertainty of the estimated hydrologic source term for tritium noted

in Appendix H.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-278

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 4 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 













 6





 

6 Dilger, F, 2008. 50-Mile Region of Influence for Yucca Mountain Transportation Sabotage and Accidents, Memorandum 

prepared for State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, October 21, 2008.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-279

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 5 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 























Figure 3. Simplified Diagram of Spent Fuel Cask and release pathways following 

Successful Terrorist Attack 









 

7 Collins, HE, 2003. Recommendations for a Consequences Study of a Terrorist Attack Against SNF Shipments to Yucca 

Mountain, Final Draft Report, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, April, 2003.

Cask O.D.

Cask I.D

Blow "Removed Blow

Direction of 

Projectile Back

Volume"

Out

Near Wall Far Wall

Fuel Rod Blowdown
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-280

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 6 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 













Release Assumptions 







Figure 4. TAD Rail Cask8





 

8 Pennington, CW, 2007. From Observations to Lessons Learned: TAD Specification Development and Proof of Concept 

Design Effort. NEI Dry Storage Information Forum, Clearwater Beach, FL, May 16, 2007. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-281

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 7 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 













































































 

9 USDOE, 2002. p. A-25. 10 Luna, RE, 2006. Release Fractions from Multi-Element Spent Fuel Casks Resulting from HEDD Attack. WM 2006 

Conference, February 26-March 2, 2006. 

11 GRS, 1994. Pretzsch, G and F Lange, 1994. Experimental Determination of the Release of UO2 from a Transport 

Container for Spent Fuel Elements after Shaped Charge Bombardment, Gessellshaft fur Anlagenund Reaktorsicherheit, 

Report GRS A-2157, May 1994. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-282

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 8 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 











Size Particle Release Time SEIS No Exit Hole RWMA Exit Hole 

Respirable Immediate 1 fuel assembly (fa) broken, all 

Cs in swept mass respirable 

(gap + matrix); range of release 

heights 

Cs in 6” diameter swept 

mass of fa respirable (gap + 

matrix), releaseda

; height 

1.5m truck; 2.5 m rail 

Blowdown Cask pressurized from breached 

fuel assembly; no Cs released 

from unbroken section of fa 

Cs in gap of breached fuel 

assemblies released; 10% of 

Cs in gap 

Non-Respirable Immediate No Cs released No Cs released 

Blowdown No Cs released No Cs released 

Notes: a. 5 of 21 fuel assemblies in TAD cask breached; 2 of 4 in truck cask breached 







 









 



 



 

12 Luna, 2006.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-283

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 9 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 



Sabotage 

Source Mode Inventory 

Release 

Fraction 

Total Cs137 

Release Comments 

SEIS Rail 1.86E+06* 7.15E-06 1.33E+01 26 fuel assemblies, all Cs respirable 

Truck 2.86E+05 5.15E-04 1.47E+02 

4 fuel assemblies, 60GWD/MTU, 10 yrs 

cooled 

 

RWMA TAD, Rail 1.50E+06 2.90E-02 4.35E+04 

2-hole, 21 fuel assemblies, 60 

GWD/MTU, 10 yrs cooled 

 Truck, alt 4 2.86E+05 6.15E-02 1.76E+04 

2-hole, 4 fuel assemblies, 60 GWD/MTU, 10 

years cooled 

 

Accident 

 

YMFEIS Rail, Cat 5 1.58E+06 2.00E-04 3.16E+02 

 Rail, Cat 6 1.58E+06 2.00E-03 3.16E+03 

RWMA Rail, Cat 5 1.58E+06 6.60E-03 1.04E+04 

 Rail, Cat 6 1.58E+06 6.60E-02 1.04E+05 

* All inventory and total Cs-137 quantities presented as curies of Cs-137. 



























 

13 “RISKIND, Version 2.0.” Argonne National Laboratory. SY Chen and BM Biwer, bmbiwer@anl.gov. 14 “Hotspot, Version 2.06.” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory., https://www-gs.llnl.ov/hotspot/index.htm. Steve 

Hofmann, contact.

15 RWMA, 2002. 16 Adkins, et al, 2006. Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Baltimore Tunnel Fire Scenario. NUREG/CR688 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-284

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 10 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 









 

































































 

17 SAND96-0957. Chanin, D.I. and Murfin, W.B. Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs from PlutoniumDispersal Accidents. May 1996. 6, p.5.15
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-285

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 11 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 



















Table 3. Downwind Cs-137 Surface Concentrations: Truck Sabotage Attack. 

Contaminated Surface Area 

 (km2

) 

 Contamination Category RISKIND HotSpot 

Heavily Contaminated 537.6 682.0 

Moderately Contaminated 207.8* not calculated 

Lightly Contaminated 158.6* not calculated 

* The isopleths for moderate and light contamination extend further than 80 km, the contaminated 

surface areas of moderate and light contamination are much greater than those listed.

Table 4. Downwind Cs-137 Surface Concentrations : Rail Sabotage Attack. 

 Contaminated Surface Area 

(km2

) 

 Contamination Category RISKIND HotSpot 

Heavily Contaminated 591.2 1000.0 

Moderately Contaminated 344.3* not calculated 

Lightly Contaminated N/A Not calculated 

* The isopleth for moderate contamination extends further than 80km, the contaminated surface 

areas of moderate contamination is greater than that listed.
















Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-286

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 12 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 





Table 5. Cost Estimates Obtained from RADTRAN 5 Economic Model. 

 Contamination 

Category 

Surface Concentration Range 

(μCi/m2

) Cost/km2, 1995 dollars 

Cost/km2

, 2008 

dollars 

Lightly 

Contaminated 0.2-0.4 $128,000,000 $181,000,000 

Moderately 

Contaminated 0.4-2.0 $183,000,000 $259,000,000 

Heavily 

Contaminated >2.0 $395,000,000 $558,000,000 

























Table 6. Cs-137 Clean Up Costs: Truck Sabotage Attack (w/ Exit Hole) in Las Vegas. 

Contamination 

Total Contaminated 

Surface Area 

Maximum Distance of 

Contamination Plume Total Cost 

Category (km2) (km) 2008 Dollars 

Heavy 682.0 146 $380,863,759,036.15 

Moderate 207.8* 80* $53,756,122,621.37 

Light 158.6* 80* $28,701,679,107.26 

Total 1048.4 * $463,321,560,764.78 

*The isopleths for moderate and light contamination extend further than 80 km, the total 

moderately and lightly contaminated surface areas are greater than listed, and the total 

contaminated surface area is >>1048.4 km2

. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-287

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 13 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Table 7. Clean Up Costs: Rail Sabotage Attack (w/Exit Hole) in Las Vegas. 

Contamination 

Total Contaminated 

Surface Area 

Maximum Distance of 

Contamination Plume Total Cost, 

Category (km2) (km) 2008 Dollars 

Heavy 1000.0 200 $558,451,259,583.79 

Moderate 344.3* 80* $89,077,096,945.24 

Light N/A N/A 

Total 1344.3* $647,528,356,529.03 

* The isopleth for moderate contamination extends further than 80 km, the total moderately 

contaminated area is greater than listed, and the total contaminated surface area is >>1344.3 

km2

.



































Table 8. RWMA Previously Calculated Cs-137 Clean Up Costs. 

Economic Model Truck Rail 

RADTRAN 4 $22,272,431,174.87 $3,478,503,295.85 

RADTRAN 5 $45,808,635,129.90 $7,007,056,998.84 





 

18 RWMA, 2002. 19 USDOE, 2002. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-288

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 14 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

































































 









 









 

20 SAND96-0957. 21 Ibid.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-289

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 15 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 












































































Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-290

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 16 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 









































































 

22 USDOE, 2008. 23 SAND96-0957. Appendix G.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-291

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 17 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 



































































 

24 SAND96-0957, p. 6-2. 25 SAND96-0957, p. F-3. 26 SAND96-0957, p. F-9. 27 SAND96-0957, p. F-9. 28 SAND96-0957, p. F-4. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-292

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 18 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 













$926,643,121,529.55  $1,295,056,713,058.05























































 

29 SAND96-0957, p. 6-2, F-3.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-293

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 19 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 
















Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-294

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 20 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Table 9a. SEIS Population Dose for Truck Sabotage Event 

Respirable 

Acute 

Dose Ring 

Letter 

Radius 

(km) 

Donut 

Area 

(km2

) 

Revised Pop 

Den 

(persons/km2

) 

Release 

Height 

1m 

Release 

Height 

16m 

Release 

Height 

32m 

Release 

Height 

48m 

Release 

Height 

64m 

Totals 

(personrem) 

A 8.05 203.33 5012 7.46E+02 2.11E+03 7.93E+02 9.02E+02 4.38E+02 4.99E+03 

B 16.09 609.99 2956 1.26E+02 4.96E+02 1.49E+02 1.90E+02 1.01E+02 1.06E+03 

C 24.14 1016.65 2112 6.04E+01 2.26E+02 8.20E+01 1.06E+02 5.67E+01 5.31E+02 

D 32.18 1423.31 1342 2.84E+01 1.06E+02 5.08E+01 6.50E+01 3.48E+01 2.85E+02 

E 40.23 1829.98 899 1.52E+01 5.72E+01 3.33E+01 4.26E+01 2.28E+01 1.71E+02 

F 80.45 15249.76 390 2.59E+01 1.01E+02 7.66E+01 9.82E+01 5.27E+01 3.54E+02 

 7.39E+03 

 

Non-Resp 

LongTerm 

Dose Ring 

Letter 

Radius 

(km) 

Donut 

Area 

(km2

) 

Revised Pop 

Den 

(persons/km2

) 

Release 

Height 

1m 

Release 

Height 

16m 

Release 

Height 

32m 

Release 

Height 

48m 

Release 

Height 

64m 

Totals 

(personrem) 

A 8.05 203.33 5012 1.25E+03 6.71E+03 8.94E+03 1.10E+04 5.31E+03 3.32E+04 

B 16.09 609.99 2956 3.38E+01 3.51E+02 9.54E+02 1.72E+03 1.17E+03 4.23E+03 

C 24.14 1016.65 2112 1.54E+01 8.24E+01 2.79E+02 5.23E+02 3.73E+02 1.27E+03 

D 32.18 1423.31 1342 4.41E+00 2.32E+01 8.57E+01 1.68E+02 1.22E+02 4.03E+02 

E 40.23 1829.98 899 1.47E+00 7.83E+00 3.21E+01 6.34E+01 4.76E+01 1.52E+02 

F 80.45 15249.76 390 9.16E-01 4.99E+00 2.50E+01 4.98E+01 3.88E+01 1.20E+02

 3.94E+04 

 Total 4.68E+04 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-295

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 21 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Table 9b. SEIS Population Dose for Rail Sabotage Event 

Respirable 

Acute 

Dose Ring 

Letter 

Radius 

(km) 

Donut 

Area 

(km2

) 

Revised Pop 

Density 

(Persons/km2

) 

Release 

Height 

1m 

Release 

Height 

16m 

Release 

Height 

32m 

Release 

Height 

48m 

Release 

Height 

64m 

Totals 

(personrem) 

A 8.05 203.33 5012 1.09E+02 3.26E+02 3.43E+02 3.69E+02 1.68E+02 1.32E+03 

B 16.09 609.99 2956 1.80E+01 7.61E+01 1.01E+02 1.34E+02 7.20E+01 4.01E+02 

C 24.14 1016.65 2112 8.11E+00 3.45E+01 4.67E+01 6.28E+01 3.46E+01 1.87E+02 

D 32.18 1423.31 1342 3.79E+00 1.62E+01 2.26E+01 3.06E+01 1.70E+01 9.02E+01 

E 40.23 1829.98 899 2.02E+00 8.72E+00 1.24E+01 1.69E+01 9.46E+00 4.95E+01 

F 80.45 15249.76 390 3.43E+00 1.52E+01 2.26E+01 3.09E+01 1.74E+01 8.95E+01 

 2.13E+03 

Non-Resp 

LongTerm 

Dose Ring 

Letter 

Radius 

(km) 

Donut 

Area 

(km2

) 

Donut Pop 

Density 

(Persons/km2

) 

Release 

Height 

1m 

Release 

Height 

16m 

Release 

Height 

32m 

Release 

Height 

48m 

Release 

Height 

64m 

Totals 

(personrem) 

A 8.05 203.33 5012 9.54E+02 5.04E+03 6.69E+03 8.21E+03 3.98E+03 2.49E+04 

B 16.09 609.99 2956 1.96E+01 2.63E+02 7.15E+02 1.29E+03 8.77E+02 3.16E+03 

C 24.14 1016.65 2112 4.26E+00 6.20E+01 2.09E+02 3.92E+02 2.79E+02 9.46E+02 

D 32.18 1423.31 1342 1.15E+00 1.74E+01 6.43E+01 1.26E+02 9.11E+01 3.00E+02 

E 40.23 1829.98 899 3.57E-01 5.91E+00 2.41E+01 4.75E+01 3.56E+01 1.13E+02 

F 80.45 15249.76 390 1.98E-01 3.77E+00 1.88E+01 3.74E+01 2.91E+01 8.93E+01 

 2.95E+04 

 Total 3.16E+04 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-296

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 22 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

















Table 10a. Population Exposure. Truck 

Sabotage with Exit Hole 

Pop Exp 

Ring 

Letter 

Distance 

(km) 

Pop Dens 

(pers/km2

) 

Resp Exp 

(pers-rems) 

Nonresp 

Exp (persrems) Total 

A 0.05 – 8.05 5012 1.80E+06 2.63E+05 2.06E+06 

B 8.05 – 16.09 2956 2.95E+05 5.37E+03 3.00E+05 

C 16.09 – 24.14 2112 1.34E+05 1.31E+03 1.35E+05 

D 24.14 – 32.18 1342 6.32E+04 3.91E+02 6.36E+04 

E 32.18 – 40.23 899 3.48E+04 1.67E+02 3.50E+04 

F 40.23 - 80 390 6.15E+04 1.13E+02 6.16E+04 

 

Total 2.39E+06 2.70E+05 2.66E+06 

Table 10b. Population Exposure. TAD 

Rail Cask Sabotage with Exit Hole 

Pop Exp 

Ring 

Letter 

Distance 

(km) 

Pop Dens 

(pers/km2

) 

Resp Exp 

(pers-rems) 

Nonresp 

Exp (persrems) Total 

A 0.05 – 8.05 5012 4.47E+06 4.87E+05 4.96E+06 

B 8.05 – 16.09 2956 7.45E+05 1.05E+04 7.56E+05 

C 16.09 – 24.14 2112 3.36E+05 2.49E+03 3.38E+05 

D 24.14 – 32.18 1342 1.61E+05 8.01E+02 1.62E+05 

E 32.18 – 40.23 899 8.66E+04 2.78E+02 8.69E+04 

F 40.23 - 80 390 1.53E+05 1.87E+02 1.53E+05 

 

Total 5.95E+06 5.01E+05 6.45E+06 








Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-297

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 23 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Table 11. Comparison Population Exposures. 

Sabotage Event with and without an Exit Hole 

 

 SEIS RWMA 

 No Exit Hole With Exit Hole 

 (Pers-rems) (Pers-rems) 

Rail* 32,000 6,450,000 

Truck 47,000 2,660,000 

 

* SEIS rail cask has 26 PWR fuel assemblies; the TAD rail cask has 21 fa. 





























Table 12. Comparison MEI 

Sabotage Event W/ and W/O Exit Hole 

 

SEIS w/out Exit Hole 

(rems) 

RWMA w/ Exit Hole 

(rems) 

Rail 27.08 43,800 

Truck 43.25 24,000 












Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-298

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 24 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

Table 13. MEI Acute Doses at 100 m 

Sabotage Event w/ Exit Hole 

 Truck (rems) Rail (rems) 

Respirable Inhalation 600 1380 

 Groundshine 4 10 

 Cloudshine 3 6 

Non-Respirable Groundshine 5 2 

 Total 612 1398 





















































• 

 

30 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protection Actions for Nuclear Incidents, 

Second Printing.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-299

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 25 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

• 

• 

• 

















Table 14. Health Effects Associated with Whole-Body Absorbed 

Doses Received Within a Few Hours33

Whole Body Dose (rem) Early Fatalities 

140 5% 

200 15% 

300 50% 

400 85% 

460 95% 

Whole Body Dose (rem) Prodromal Effects 

50 2% 

100 15% 

150 50% 

200 85% 

250 98% 

 

31 USEPA; 1992. 32 USEPA; 1992. 33 USEPA; 1992.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-300

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 26 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-301

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 27 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-302

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 28 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-303

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 29 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-304

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 30 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 



Adkins, 2006. Adkins, Cuta, Koeppel, Guzman and Bajwa, 2006. “Spent Fuel Transportation 

Package Response to the Baltimore Tunnel Fire Scenario.” NUREG/CR-6886. November, 2006. 

Collins, H.E., "Recommendations for a Consequences Study of a Terrorist Attack Against SNF 

Shipments to Yucca Mountain," Final Draft Report, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear 

Projects, April, 2003. 

Dilger, F, 2008. “50-Mile Region of Influence for Yucca Mountain Transportation Sabotage and 

Accidents,” Memorandum prepared for State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, October 21, 

2008. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protection 

Actions for Nuclear Incidents, Second Printing. 

GRS 1994. Pretzsch, G and F Lange, “Experimental Determination of the Release of UO2 from 

a Transport Container for Spent Fuel Elements after Shaped Charge Bombardment,” 

Gessellshaft fur Anlagenund Reaktorsicherheit, Report GRS A-2157, May 1994. 

Halstead, R.J., et al, "State of Nevada Perspective on the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca 

Mountain Transportation Program," Paper presented at Waste Management 2008, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 25, 2008, http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2008/pdf/wm2008perspective.pdf 

Hardcastle, J, 2006. “Nevada County Population Projections 2006-2026.” Nevada State 

Demographer, U of Nevada, July 2006. 

“Hotspot, Version 2.06.” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory., https://wwwgs.llnl.ov/hotspot/index.htm. Steve Homann, contact. 

Luna, RE, 2006. “Release Fractions from Multi-Element Spent Fuel Casks Resulting from HEDD 

Attack.” WM 2006 Conference, February 26-March 2, 2006. 

Pennington, CW, 2007. “From Observations to Lessons Learned: TAD Specification 

Development and Proof of Concept Design Effort.” NEI Dry Storage Information Forum, 

Clearwater Beach, FL, May 16, 2007. 

“RISKIND, Version 2.0.” Argonne National Laboratory. SY Chen and BM Biwer, 

bmbiwer@anl.gov. 

RWMA, 2001. Lamb, M. and M. Resnikoff, “Worst Case Credible Nuclear Transportation 

Accidents: Analysis for Urban and Rural Nevada.” Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 

August 2001. 

RWMA, 2002. Lamb, M. and M. Resnikoff, “Potential Consequences of a Successful Sabotage 

Attack on a Spent Fuel Shipping Container: An Analysis of the Yucca Mountain EIS Treatment of 

Sabotage,” Radioactive Waste Management Associates, April 2002. 

SAND96-0957. Chanin, DI and WB Murfin, 1996. “Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable 

Costs from Plutonium-Dispersal Accidents,” Sandia National Laboratories, 1996. 

USDOE, 2002. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 

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

County, Nevada.” (Cited as YMFEIS) 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-305

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

Sabotage Consequences Page 31 

Resnikoff, Travers RWMA 

USDOE, 2008. “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository 

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

Nye County, Nevada,” DOE/EIS-0250F-S1. (Cited as SEIS) 

USDOE, 2008b. “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository 

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

Nye County, Nevada – Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor,” DOE/EIS-0250F-S2, and “Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and Operation of a 

Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” 

DOE/EIS-0369. (Cited as Rail Alignment EIS)
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-306

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General

ATTACHMENT  C

LETTER FROM GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL TO SECRETARY OF ENERGY STEVEN CHU

REGARDING DOE’S PROPOSED UNCONSTRAINED ROUTING SCENARIO
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-307

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-308

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 65 (cont’d): Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, 

State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-309

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011, 7:49 A.M.

NNSS SWEIS TOLL-FREE VOICE MAILBOX

MR. SPOTTS: Hello, my name is Richard Spotts, the last name, S-P-O-T-T-S. I

live at 1125 West Emerald Drive in St. George, Utah. These are my personal

comments.

I did attend one of the scoping meetings for this Draft EIS a while back in St.

George, Utah. And I did briefly look over the summary of the Draft Site-wide EIS. 

My comments are as follows: 

Overall, I was disappointed with the Draft Site-wide EIS for several reasons as

follows: 

1) There were proposals that I support or oppose in each of the three alternatives

and therefore I cannot recommend any of these alternatives for implementation. 

2) The alternatives appear to include proposals that are either mandated, (such

as nuclear testing and contamination removal), or prohibited, (such as excessive

take of threatened Mojave Desert tortoises and their habitats), by law, regulation,

or policies. This is inappropriate as beyond your discretion or decision space and it

skews the comparison of analysis -- of alternatives. 

3) The alternatives should have been framed in terms of different consistent

levels of discretionary proposals under each subject heading such as Stockpile

Stewardship, Environmental Restoration Program, Waste Management Program,

and Conservation and Renewable Energy. This approach would be less confusing

and a more efficient way to obtain public input. 

4) The Expanded Operations Alternative improperly combines positive solar

energy development with excessive take of tortoises and their habitat. With better

planning, there should be enough space at the NNSS to achieve solar energy and

tortoise conservation objectives without conflicts. 

5) The alternative should better address the new federal budget reality of how

agencies must be more efficient and effective with lower appropriations from

Congress. 

6) The Final Site-wide EIS should include a new realistic hybrid alternative that

maximizes efficient environmental restoration, waste management, tortoise

conservation, and solar energy development in non-tortoise areas. This is the

alternative that I would endorse and recommend for approval and implementation

as most beneficial and in the public interest.

Commentor No. 66: Richard Spotts

66-1

66-2

66-3

66-4

66-5

66-6

66-1	 Comment noted.

66-2	 All of the programs, projects, and activities included under each of the three

alternatives are appropriate to consider in an EIS. It should be noted that although

DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by the President,

conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the alternatives analyzed

in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been added in Chapter 3,

Section 3.0. Further, under the NNSS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009), which was

issued by the USFWS, DOE/NNSA is authorized to “take” a certain number of desert

tortoises incidental to its activities. One of the criteria for considering severity of

impact on desert tortoises, as discussed in Chapter 5 of this NNSS SWEIS, is whether

a program, project, or activity would cause a “take” of desert tortoises that exceed the

number authorized in the NNSS Biological Opinion.

66-3	 The No Action Alternative reflects the current level of activity under each of DOE/

NNSA’s missions in the state of Nevada. The Expanded Operations and Reduced

Operations Alternatives include increased or decreased levels of activity, respectively,

compared to the No Action Alternative.

66-4	 Commercial solar generation projects are considered under each of the three

alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS. The “excessive take of tortoises and

their habitat” identified by the commentor is an estimated potential impact of

constructing a commercial solar power generation facility. The impact is a function

of how much habitat would have to be permanently disturbed for construction of

the facility. Because the feasible locations for commercial solar generation facility

siting at the NNSS are all within desert tortoise habitat, it would not be possible to

avoid “taking” desert tortoises if such a facility were built. It should be noted that all

“takes” associated with desert tortoise impacts in this SWEIS would be by harassment,

which would be due to relocation by qualified desert tortoise biologists. Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.7, has been revised to clarify what is meant by “harassment” of desert

tortoises.

66-5	 Most Federal agencies have been faced with declining budgets for the past several

years and have found ways to accomplish the missions assigned by Congress within

the funding provided. Any activity proposed in this NNSS SWEIS would be subject to

the constraints of budget appropriations from Congress.

66-6	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the draft as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-310

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 66 (cont’d): Richard Spotts

And please send me a notice when the Final Site-wide EIS is available for public

review. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. Bye.

-oOo-
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-311

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

From:  Karen_Washington@nps.gov [mailto:Karen_Washington@nps.gov] On

Behalf Of PWR_Regional_Director@nps.gov

Sent:  Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:37 PM

To:  Nepa Cc: Alan_Schmierer@nps.gov; Jennifer_Back@nps.gov; Martha_Lee@

nps.gov; DEVA_Superintendent@nps.gov

Subject:  RE: ER11\0651 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the SiteWide Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of

Nevada (DOE/EIS-0426D)

OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Pacific West Regional Office

333 Bush Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, California, 94104-2828

L7619 (PWR-P)

December 8, 2011

Linda M. Cohn 

NNSA Nevada Site Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 98518 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

nepa@nv.doe.gov

RE: ER11\0651 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Site-Wide Continued 

Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration 

Commentor No. 67: Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, Pacific 

West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-312

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

(DOE/EIS-0426D)

Dear Ms. Cohn:

The National Park Service (NPS) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for continued operation of the Nevada 

National Security Site (NNSS). The NPS is supportive of efforts to develop 

renewable energy resources. However, the proximity of Death Valley National Park

to the area of proposed action, and the significant potential for cross- boundary

impacts, raises a number of concerns that we wish to share in order to help inform

this planning process.

Groundwater Impacts and Devils Hole

Under each alternative in the DEIS, including the No Action Alternative, one or

more commercial solar power generation facilities would add additional water

demands to groundwater resources. The DEIS identifies the source of this

groundwater extraction as the Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats subdivision. 

President Hoover created Death Valley National Monument by Presidential

Proclamation 2028 on February 11, 1933. The proclamation stated that the public

interest would be promoted by creating the monument for the “...preservation

of the unusual features of scenic, scientific, and educational interest therein

contained.”

Devils Hole was added to Death Valley in 1952 by Presidential Proclamation 2961,

for the purpose of protecting the Devils Hole pupfish and the water resources

connected to the unit, stating in part “...the pool is of such outstanding scientific

importance that it should be given special protection.” The National Park Service’s

reserved water right at Devils Hole established by this proclamation has been

upheld by decision of the Supreme Court (Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S.

128, 1976).

The proposed amount and source of water use identified under each alternative 

of the DEIS, including the No Action Alternative, is concerning for its potential

to adversely impact and even impair resources at Devils Hole and springs in

the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley. Seven hydrographic basins, including

Jackass Flats, Buckboard Mesa, Crater Flat, Oasis Valley, Rock Valley, Mercury

Valley, and the Amargosa Desert have a combined perennial yield of 24,000

acre-feet per year according to the Nevada State Engineer. In 2009, the Nevada

67-1

67-1	 In this Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has revised the list of groundwater basin

yields to contain only single values consistent with those previously established by

Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) (e.g., the Nevada State Engineer). 

While there is uncertainty associated with previous NDWR estimates (as there are with

any method of estimation), the previous NDWR estimates provide a reasonable basis

for determining whether proposed withdrawals could possibly exceed the perennial

yield of any particular basin, and possibly impact downgradient basins. While the

UGTA Project model and the SNJV 2004 study. are still referred to as alternative

sources of yield estimates in Section 4.1.6.2, the NDWR estimates are used as the

primary source of calculating the percentage of demand versus yield for each basin 

While DOE/NNSA has contributed to the development of the Death Valley Regional

Flow Model and considered its application to this purpose as the commentor suggested,

DOE/NNSA has determined that the Death Valley Regional Flow Model may not

provide a significant improvement over using the previous NDWR estimates for

purposes of analysis in this SWEIS.

	 As noted in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, of this final SWEIS, using long-term estimates

of basin yield and withdrawals is only one element of avoiding and mitigating potential

impacts on groundwater supply. Other elements would include site-specific modeling

efforts as new projects or well configurations are further developed, continuous

monitoring of well levels throughout the NNSS, and potential modification of well

pumping rates and/or points of diversion in response to any data or observances that

suggest an adverse impact on groundwater levels or other supply issues.

	 In regard to water usage conflicting with established water rights as suggested by the

commentor, DOE/NNSA also holds Federal reserved water rights similar to those

held by the NPS. When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the

NNSS, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the

reservation was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water

right at the NNSS to use groundwater to support its mission requirements. The rights

held by DOE/NNSA are, therefore, senior to other rights sought in basins underlying

the NNSS. 

In regard to the request to reduce water demand in this final SWEIS, DOE/NNSA

wishes to clarify two issues regarding future demand. First, the estimates of water

demand associated with DOE/NNSA activities under each alternative (excluding

demand from any commercial solar power facility) are conservative in nature and

likely overestimate the actual demand that would occur. For example, DOE/NNSA

used the highest annual demand seen between 2005 and 2009 as the baseline for
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-313

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

State Engineer issued a ruling stating that there was no additional water available

for appropriation in the Amargosa Desert because committed resources exceeded

the perennial yield. Since the Nevada State Engineer has determined that the

Amargosa Desert is over-appropriated, there is no additional water available in

the other six basins as well. Therefore, the use of groundwater in Jackass Flats,

Buckboard Mesa, and Crater Flat as proposed in the DEIS would conflict with

existing water rights and could adversely impact NPS water resources.

The NNSA suggests that revised estimates of recharge for Frenchman Flat should 

be used to determine water availability for this basin instead of the current method

used by the Nevada State Engineer. The NNSA selected the UGTA recharge 

model described in a 2004 report (SNJV, 2004) as the best tool to be used for 

recharge estimates in Frenchman Flat for the DEIS. The SNJV 2004 report was 

reviewed to evaluate the recharge estimates presented in that report.

It is important to note that the SNJV 2004 report was prepared to assess 

contaminant transport and not water available for appropriation. The NNSA

suggests that a recharge model known as the UGTA recharge model for

Frenchman Flat was the most conservative of several new recharge models. Yet

the SNJV 2004 report specifically states that other recharge models evaluated

at that time were not chosen because they provided less recharge overall, and

therefore were not conservative for an evaluation of contaminant transport. 

Therefore, it appears that the only recharge models considered by NNSA for the

purposes of the DEIS were recharge models that generally increased recharge,

and that other new recharge estimates that reduce recharge in some were not

included. It is important to note that a recharge model that is suitable for the

purposes of evaluation of contaminant transport may not be suitable for the

purposes of the determination of water available for appropriation.

In addition, although the UGTA model does increase the estimate of recharge for

Frenchman Flat, the UGTA model greatly reduced recharge in the Rock Valley,

Mercury Valley and Jackass Flats hydrographic basins. Yet the NNSA did not use

the lower estimates of recharge from the UGTA model in these three other basins

and continued to use higher estimates of recharge provided by the Nevada State

Engineer. The decision to revise the estimate of recharge in Frenchman Flat but

not in other basins appears to be arbitrary. A consistent approach should be used,

and if recharge is revised in any of the basins, a thorough discussion of the revised

estimates of recharge for all of the basins needs to be included. In addition,

if estimates of recharge are revised, the discussion needs to address how the

hydrologic budget has been balanced and how other parts of the flow system

are affected. A summary of all available credible evidence for new estimates of

recharge and discharge needs to be provided. It is important to consider that even

67-1

cont’d

estimating future demand (and scaled it higher or lower based on proposed activities in

each alternative), despite the general downward trend of water use at the NNSS and the

existence of water conservation efforts which should further decrease actual water use

in the future. 

Secondly, the potential groundwater demand associated with a commercial solar

power facility is described and considered separately in this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/

NNSA recognizes that such a facility would represent the single largest use of water

at the NNSS. However, DOE/NNSA also recognizes that any private applicant who

wished to construct a commercial solar facility would likely have to pursue its own

water rights, even if the NNSS water supply system were used to supply the water. It

is possible that constraints on acquisition of new water rights for an applicant (which

might entail purchasing and retiring existing rights to offset demand) could limit the

size of the solar facility, and thus its actual water demand. Therefore, the projected

demand associated with a commercial solar power facility in the SWEIS is also

conservative in nature and likely overestimates the actual demand.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-314

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

if there is evidence that recharge estimates should be revised upwards, it does not

necessarily mean that additional water is available for appropriation or that impacts

will not occur.

Finally, it is puzzling why the NNSA did not include or reference the recently 

completed Death Valley Regional Flow Model even though the Department of 

Energy contributed to the development of this model. The DEIS did not include 

a discussion of how the estimates of recharge and discharge used by NNSA

compare to the final calibrated regional flow model, or how new uses of water or

new locations of water withdrawals may affect down-gradient water dependent 

resources and water supplies. Application of the regional flow model by NPS staff

suggests that existing groundwater uses within the regional flow system have

already impacted NPS water dependent resources and will likely cause additional

impacts in the future.

For these reasons, the NPS requests that the water demands in these basins be 

significantly reduced in the Final EIS for the continued operation of the Nevada

National Security Site (NNSS).

Cumulative Impacts

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and DOE are currently evaluating

lands for potential industrial-scale energy development in the agencies’ Draft 

Programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States.

This document identifies and proposes to designate multiple areas immediately 

adjacent to the NNSS in the Amargosa Desert as “Solar Energy Zones” and “Lands 

available for Application under a Solar Development Program.” The cumulative 

impacts of this parallel planning process need to be incorporated in the analysis

for the continued operation of the NNSS, in particular for the proposed solar

development. The NPS requests that cumulative impact analysis incorporate the

effects of all proposed solar development in the Amargosa Desert to Death Valley

National Park for their potential for cross-boundary impacts to the park.

Visual Impacts

Death Valley National Park was recognized in its enabling legislation (California

Desert Protection Act of 1994, 16 U.S.C. §§ 410aaa through 410aaa- 83, October

31, 1994) as being nationally significant for a wide array of values, including

“scenic values.” The park contains many iconic desert and mountain observation

points whose viewshed is a critical component of the park’s legislated protection. 

The National Park Service requests that incorporation of the viewshed of Death

Valley National Park into analysis of impacts to visual resources. In doing so, the

Final EIS should identify and analyze cumulative viewshed impacts to Death Valley

National Park, and consider strategies for reducing these cumulative impacts.

67-1

cont’d

67-2

67-3

67-2	 In October 2011, DOE and BLM issued the Supplement to the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern 

States (Solar PEIS Supplement) (DES 11-49 DOE/EIS-040D-S). The purpose of the

Solar PEIS Supplement is to allow both agencies to better meet their solar energy

objectives. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.4.1, of this Final NNSS SWEIS provides an updated

discussion of both the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar 

Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (Solar Energy PEIS) (DES 10‐59

DOE/EIS‐0403) and the Solar PEIS Supplement. As noted in the updated Final 

NNSS SWEIS, Section 6.2.4.1, “Based on the information and analyses in the Solar 

Energy PEIS, DOE and BLM will develop and implement agency-specific programs

that establish environmental policies and environmental impact mitigation strategies

for solar energy development. The Solar PEIS Supplement includes modified and

new components of the proposed BLM Solar Energy Program and DOE’s proposed

programmatic environmental guidance. The Solar Energy PEIS and Solar PEIS 

Supplement do not provide specific analysis to support any particular project.”

However, DOE/NNSA identified a large number of proposed renewable energy

projects, primarily solar-energy-based, within the ROI for the cumulative impacts

analysis in this NNSS SWEIS. All of the proposed renewable energy projects for which

a reasonable level of project information is available were included in the cumulative

impacts analysis in Section 6.3 of this NNSS SWEIS.

	 DOE/NNSA reviewed the cumulative impacts analysis to determine what, if any,

potentially cumulative impacts may exist that would impact Death Valley National

Park (i.e., “cross-boundary impacts”). The primary resources for which there is a

potential for cross-boundary impacts on the park include surface water, groundwater,

air quality, and visual. The results of the analysis of potential cross-boundary impacts

on Death Valley National Park are addressed in Chapter 6, Sections 6.3.6.1, 6.3.6.2,

6.3.8, and 6.3.9, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

67-3	 Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.9.1, 5.1.9.2, and 5.1.9.3, have been revised to include a

statement that the project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review

for construction and operation of the commercial solar power generation facility would

include analysis of visual impacts resulting from the solar facility on NNSS lands to

key observation points from Death Valley National Park. DOE/NNSA would require

a potential commercial project proponent to coordinate with NPS to ascertain and

mitigate, to the extent feasible, visual impacts on Death Valley National Park. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-315

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

To aid in this planning process, the NPS has prepared a map (attached as 

“Viewshed Impacts from Proposed Energy Development”) analyzing viewshed 

impacts to Death Valley National Park’s key observation points from the 

cumulative solar development in the maximum BLM/DOE proposal and the NNSA/

DOE proposal. For the attached geospatial analysis, Death Valley National Park’s 

GIS Specialist consulted with the park’s Division of Interpretation and Visitor

Services and the park’s Wilderness Coordinator to select 30 key observation

points for analysis of the visual impacts of proposed solar development to the

3.4 million protected acres of Death Valley National Park. The methodology for

selection was to include sites that had a range of levels of established visitation

and provided outstanding opportunities for enjoying the scenic values recognized

and protected in the park’s enabling legislation. It is clear from this analysis that

there is a significant potential for adverse impacts to Death Valley National Park’s

viewshed and scenic values. We invite the NNSA and the DOE to engage directly

with Death Valley National Park to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to the

park’s protected visual resources.

Air Quality

Vegetation removal and mass grading activities on the scale of 36,900 acres, as

proposed in the Expanded Operations Alternative, has the potential to impact the

air quality of Death Valley National Park. Particulate matter and other emissions

should be evaluated for their potential to adversely affect the air quality of the

park, and all mitigations should be considered, including the reduction of the area

proposed for vegetation removal and mass grading.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) is evaluating a hypothetical 240-megawatt parabolic trough commercial 

solar power generation facility in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site. 

In the analysis of impacts to groundwater resources, the DEIS discloses that

this hypothetical 240-megawatt commercial facility would represent the largest

water demand from any single activity or project on the NNSS. Operation of a

240-megawatt solar power generation facility in Area 25 would add an additional

demand of approximately 250 acre-feet per year. During construction of the solar

power generation facility, there would be a temporary demand of approximately

350 acre-feet per year for 35 months to support dust suppression, soil compaction,

and other facility construction needs.

This is a new project with significant impacts to groundwater resources in an overallocated hydrographic basin, and it does not represent past or present conditions. 

While the 1996 Nevada Test Site EIS Record of Decision outlined plans for the

67-3

cont’d

67-4

67-5

	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.9, has also been modified to include an analysis of the potential

cumulative impacts on views from the Death Valley National Park from construction of

a commercial solar power generation facility in Area 25 of the NNSS. 

67-4	 Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, up to 36,900 acres within Area 25

would be designated as a Renewable Energy Zone, a change that would increase the

area available for solar power generation by 32,800 acres. DOE/NNSA considered

up to 1,000 megawatts of commercially proposed, constructed, and operated solar

power generation capacity within the Renewable Energy Zone under the Expanded

Operations Alternative; however there are no proposals by any commercial entity for

development of such a facility. If a total of up to 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar

power generation facilities were to be developed within this area it could permanently

disturb about 10,000 acres, as shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–1, of this NNSS SWEIS. 

For clarification purposes, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS

(where the facility is first discussed) has been edited to reflect that the 36,900 acres is

the size of the Renewable Energy Zone, not the area of permanent disturbance. 

The 10,000 acres would be developed over a number of years and would require

a State of Nevada air quality permit for surface area disturbance. The air quality

permit would require strong mitigation activities, including soil stabilization and the

use of watering to minimize dust emissions. Once developed, this acreage would be

graded and stabilized to minimize soil erosion and be maintained in an unvegetated

condition. Emissions of particulate matter associated with the construction of a solar

power generation facility are reported in Chapter 5, Table 5–38. The small increases

in particulate matter emissions would not be expected to lead to any violations of air

quality standards in Nye County or in Death Valley National Park. 

Additionally, DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent with

DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the Record of Decision (ROD) for

this SWEIS. Within this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both projectspecific mitigation measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies,

including the use of adaptive management techniques. Chapter 7, Section 7.0, has

been modified to reflect DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

67-5	 DOE/NNSA believes that inclusion of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power

generation facility in Area 25 of the NNSS under the No Action Alternative is

appropriate and consistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA

regulations and guidance. In the 1996 NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided

to “continue to support the Solar Enterprise Zone concept.” Although the Solar
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-316

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

construction and operation of a 100 megawatt or less solar power production

facility in Area 22, and the reservation of land and infrastructure in Area 25 for

potential future solar power development, it did not propose a site-specific project

on the scale of a 240-megawatt commercial facility.

Including a new project as part of the No Action Alternative misrepresents current

conditions and does not meet the mandate of the Council on Environmental

Quality’s (CEQ) regulations regarding EIS preparation to “include the alternative

of no action” in the analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). CEQ’s 40 Frequently

Asked Questions (46 Fed. Reg. 18026, March 23, 1981; as amended, 51 Fed.

Reg. 15618, April 25, 1986) provides further guidance regarding the value of

including a No Action Alternative: “This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling

decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action

alternatives... Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform the

Congress, the public, and the President as intended by the National Environmental

Policy Act, Section 1500.1(a).”

The NPS requests that the agencies’ No Action Alternative be revised in the Final

EIS to meet the mandates of the law and accurately reflect past and current

conditions, which do not include a hypothetical 240-megawatt parabolic trough

commercial solar power generation facility.

The National Park Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this DEIS, 

as all of the Alternatives under consideration have the potential to adversely 

impact the unique resources that Death Valley National Park was established

to protect. Please contact Superintendent Sarah Craighead (760) 786-3227 for

questions about our concerns or for further information as the effort to prepare the

Final EIS commences. We look forward to collaborating with you to ensure that

the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy, and the

National Park Service can meet the mandates of our missions.

Sincerely,

/s/ George J. Turnbull (signed original on file)

(for) Christine S. Lehnertz Regional Director, Pacific West Region

Attachment

(See attached file: DEVA Viewshed Impacts from Proposed Energy Development

Map.pdf)

cc: NPS-WRD, Jennifer Back DEVA Superintendent, Sarah Craighead

67-5

cont’d

Enterprise Zone is no longer a functioning entity, the concept of locating solar power

generation facilities at the NNSS is still supported by DOE/NNSA. As noted in

several locations in this SWEIS, DOE/NNSA is not evaluating a specific proposal for

a commercial solar power generation facility, but is conducting the updated analysis to

inform a potential future decision to continue to support such a concept. Inclusion of

a solar power generation facility under the No Action Alternative in this NNSS SWEIS,

therefore, represents a continuation of current site management at the NNSS and is

consistent with CEQ NEPA regulations and guidance. If, in the future, a commercial

solar power generation facility is proposed to be located at the NNSS, an appropriate

level of NEPA review would be conducted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-317

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 67 (cont’d): Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Viewshed Impacts from Proposed Energy Development

Produced by , Resource Management Division September 2011

Death Valley National Park

California

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

Death Valley NP Boundary

Nevada National Security Site Renewable Energy Zones (DOE)

25 Mile Buffer

Solar Energy Zones (BLM)

PEIS within 25 Miles of Park

Sample View Points in Park

Viewshed - Visible Points

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-318

Submitted:  Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:44 AM

Name:  Dr, Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

E-mail (optional):  drbonnie2002@yahoo.com

Organization:  self

Comment: 

NEPA requires meaningful alternatives. Your analyses shows only a “No Action 

Alternative,” an “Expanded Operations Alternative,” and a”Reduced Operations” 

Alternative. Yet many of the assessments say “Same as under the no action 

alternative.” This analysis is insufficient to make a decision.

None of the alternatives show the budgetary cost. This is a critical part of the

analysis of alternative choice and is omitted.

Under what authority did the NEPA consultation process change? In other words, 

how did the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations come to replace 

meaningful consultation between the heads of Tribal governments and the heads 

of the federal agencies? Are you assuming that Tribal governments all agree and

have one voice? How do you know that members of the CGTO communicate with 

other tribal members and traditional people with knowledge of the site? There 

are other indigenous organizations who have not been participating in the CGTO 

including the Corporation of Newe Sogobia which is only a few miles from the 

Test area at Cactus Springs. The Western Shoshone National Council should be 

consulted. Please show evidence that you have conducted meaningful discussion 

with all Tribes in the affected area, including Nevada and Utah and the Western

Shoshone National Council.

The Reference Section of the EIS cites only Federal and State agencies as 

sources of information. This is a conflict of interest. There is lack of confidence

in DOE operations and studies. Most radiation research is funded by U. S.

governmental agencies, primarily DOE, that support, defend,and promote nuclear

programs. These agencies have the option to classify documents in the “national

interest” and declassify them at their whim. No independent studies were used.

Thus, the EIS is not a scientific document which would lead to making good, safe,

reasonable decisions.

No critique of conclusions of existing studies that differ from government studies

are presented. Specifically, the Citizen’s Monitoring and Technical Assistance

Fund, or MTA Fund, was established as the result of a 1998 court settlement

between DOE and 39 non-profit peace and environmental groups. The fund

oversaw $6.25 million which was set aside “to provide monies to eligible 

organizations to procure technical and scientific assistance to perform technical

Commentor No. 68: Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

68-1

68-3

68-2

68-1	 DOE/NNSA believes the alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS are both

meaningful and address the full range of potential activities and operational ranges.

DOE/NNSA also believes that both the alternatives themselves and the impact analyses

in this SWEIS provide decisionmakers with a clear basis for choosing among the

options considered.

	 The vast majority of activities conducted by DOE/NNSA in Nevada support national

security and are not driven by a need for economic return. DOE/NNSA believes that

budget considerations would not provide a meaningful addition to the analysis of

potential environmental impacts and has not included budgetary information in this

Final NNSS SWEIS. 

68-2	 Since 1991, DOE/NNSA has worked directly with 16 culturally affiliated tribes,

consisting of the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley PaiuteShoshone Tribes, that have demonstrated cultural and historic ties to the NNSS and

offsite locations. These tribes have aligned themselves together to form CGTO, which

interacts with DOE/NNSA on matters involving the NNSS. Each tribal government

is responsible for designating their representatives, and DOE/NNSA does not interfere

with the internal affairs of tribal governments or their respective reporting protocols. 

68-3	 DOE/NNSA used the best relevant and credible references available in preparing this

NNSS SWEIS. Reference sources included numerous Federal agencies, agencies of

the State of Nevada, county governments, city governments, national laboratories,

universities, and private consultants, among others. 

In preparing this Final NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA reviewed the list of studies on the

Citizen’s Monitoring and Technical Assistance Fund website (www.mtafund.org) and

identified a number of studies that may be relevant to the NNSS. The topics of those

studies are: American Indian exposure to iodine-131 from nuclear weapons testing;

an analysis of the NNSS groundwater monitoring system; a groundwater contaminant

baseline for the Yucca Mountain Repository Project; and two papers dealing with soil

contamination on Yomba and Timbisha Shoshone lands. DOE/NNSA used the two

papers dealing with soil contamination on Yomba and Timbisha Shoshone lands (Bobb

2007a, 2007b) as valuable references in development of the Subsistence Consumer

analysis found in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.12 and Appendix G, Section G.2.4. The

study of Native American exposure to iodine-131 (Russ et al. 2005) is addressed in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.4. The two groundwater-related studies (Citizen’s Alert 2004

and HOME 2006) are discussed in Section 4.1.6.2. All of the studies cited in this

NNSS SWEIS are listed in Chapter 11, References.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-319

Commentor No. 68 (cont’d): Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

and scientific review and analyses of environmental management activities at DOE

sites” and disseminate the results of these studies. No reference to those studies

related to “Test Site” activities are presented. For instance, these studies showed

residual radiation in soils outside the boundaries of the Test Site. None of the

underground water models were referenced.

No long-term evaluation of health has been made since the origination of the 

Test Site. A base-line study should have been made for a comparison to current 

conditions. Please provide details of how human health responses and effects are

being measured.

Studies of radiation exposure fail to consider internal dose. Please discuss the

methods you used to determine the internal dose from exposure from blowing soil,

from wildfires or other fires within the test site on both humans and animals.

Please describe how wild animals, insects, and birds are kept from entering and

leaving the test site area. Please describe the effects of the proposed activities

on wild animals and the effect of the dose to humans who may consume these

animals. Please differentiate between cultural effects of internal dose through

such consumption. For example, specific animals, insects, and birds are preferred

by indigenous people more than non-indigenous people, and, many indigenous

people have preference for specific organs or muscles. Please describe the

effects of consuming organs and other animal body parts that concentrate

dose. Also, please describe the effect of radiation exposure to hides and other

animal body parts used in implements, clothing, and crafts. Please address the

bioaccumulative effects from consumption and exposure to the animals, birds, and

insects. Please list the studies that DOE/NNSA has done on entrance of radiation

into the food chain.

Separate environmental assessments or impact statements must be made for 

transportation of waste or for energy transmission lines. Proper assessment of 

this project cannot be made without all information. Please show the cumulative

impact of these routes and transmission corridors on the pinyon- jumiper forests,

underground water quantity and quality, animals, insects, and birds of the

impacted areas.

Please show where the proposed changes are included in the Resource

Management Plan of the area?

Please describe the effect of earthquakes on the proposed activities.

Please describe the effect of flooding and non-point source pollution from the 

proposed activities on groundwater both on-site and off-site.

68-3

cont’d

68-4

68-5

68-8

68-10

68-9

68-7

68-6

68-4	 Chapter 4 of this NNSS SWEIS presents information on the existing human health

environment. DOE/NNSA used information provided in the annual site environmental

reports (available at www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/aser.aspx). The annual

site environmental reports present a dose to a hypothetical MEI. The dose is based

on exposure data collected at onsite locations and includes exposures that would

result from direct exposure and radionuclides from past testing that could become

airborne. These onsite locations were selected to ensure any estimated doses would

exceed those that could be received by an offsite member of the public. As reported in

Section 4.1.12, the dose ranges from about 2 to 2.9 millirem per year. For comparison,

the dose from natural background radiation in the vicinity of the NNSS is about

355 millirem per year (see Table 4–51). 

In this SWEIS, the impacts are estimated by adding the dose from projected air

emissions to those mentioned above as the existing affected environment. As discussed

in Appendix G, Section G.1.1.6, the effects of radiation exposure are estimated using a

conversion factor of 0.0006 latent cancer fatalities per rem or person-rem.

68-5	 The analyses of radiological impacts from normal operations and facilities accidents

in this NNSS SWEIS include consideration of internal doses from inhalation and

ingestion of radioactive materials. The components included in the dose analyses

are described in Appendix G, Section G.6.1, for the modeling performed using the

GENII-2 computer code. Section G.6.2 describes the dose components for the

modeling performed with the MACCS2 computer code. Section G.3 includes analysis

of a number of facility accident scenarios that include fire as one of the mechanisms

for releasing and transporting radioactive materials; the impacts of these accidents,

calculated using the MACCS2 computer code, include internal doses from inhalation. 

Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address

the potential impacts from wildland fires. During some wildland fires that occur on

the NNSS, DOE/NNSA deploys high-volume air samplers to supplement data from

the routine sampling network. These supplemental samplers were deployed during

fires in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2011. None of these sampling activities has indicated

substantially elevated levels of manmade radionuclides as a result of the fires. For

example, results of sampling during a 2002 fire indicated the presence of cesium-137,

plutonium-239 and -240, and americium-241, but in concentrations that were less

than 4 percent of the concentration that would result in a dose of 10 millirem per year

(DOE/NV 2003). In 2005, there was a series of 31 lightning-caused wildfires, none

of which resulted in samples with activity higher than normally observed. None

of the fires occurred in areas with the highest levels of legacy radioactivity in soil,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-320

Commentor No. 68 (cont’d): Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

Under what authority are you permitted to violate the Endangered Species Act?

In general, there was insufficient time to read and critically analyze these 

documents and their source material. More time should be given for the public to

assess such an expansive, expensive, long-term project. I am opposed to any

expansion activities at the site. Increased activity leads to more nuclear and toxic

waste and further disturbance and distribution of existing residual radiation. Stop

building more weapons of mass destruction and invest our money in human needs

like shelter, food, and education.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

68-11

68-12

but DOE/NNSA conducted a special evaluation of the onsite and offsite radiation

doses that may have occurred if a fire had spread into an area with high surface

contamination, such as the SMOKY site in Area 8 of the NNSS. That evaluation found

that the radiation dose 2.5 miles downwind of the SMOKY site would be 1 millirem

and the highest offsite dose would be around 0.1 millirem at 24.8 miles from the

SMOKY site (DOE/NV 2006). As noted in the cited report, “...[t]his finding helps

confirm that radioactivity released from wild fires on the [NNSS] would not result in

hazards offsite.”

	 Doses to animals are not calculated in the impacts analysis. However, as with the

potential doses to humans, the radiological impacts on animals would be small. 

Appendix F discusses the potential impacts on animals under the alternatives evaluated

in this NNSS SWEIS.

68-6	 Wild animals, including insects and birds, are not prevented from entering or leaving

the NNSS. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.7.5, Effects of Past Radiological Tests and Project

Activities, and 4.1.7.6, Plant and Animal Monitoring for Radioactivity, describe the

effects past nuclear weapons testing and other activities at the NNSS had on wildlife

and the results of DOE/NNSA’s ongoing radiological monitoring program. An analysis

of the potential exposure of humans practicing a subsistence lifestyle has been added in

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.1 and Appendix G, Section G.2.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

68-7	 Projects that are more conceptual in nature and for which DOE/NNSA does not

have sufficient information to fully evaluate potential environmental impacts are

identified in this NNSS SWEIS by indicating that further analysis under NEPA would

be necessary if a specific project is proposed in the future. In this NNSS SWEIS, those

conceptual projects were analyzed to the extent possible at a more programmatic level. 

The conceptual projects include development of commercial solar power generation

facilities on the NNSS, including associated electrical transmission lines. Any NEPA

reviews conducted for proposed actions at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada will

consider all relevant resources that may be impacted. Conceptual proposed activities

that would require further, project-specific NEPA review if they are proposed for

implementation in the future are denoted by a footnote in Chapter 3, Table 3–1, and the

Summary, Table S–1.

	 The impacts of transportation of wastes and materials associated with DOE/NNSA

facilities in Nevada are fully addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.3, 5.2.3, 5.3.3,

and 5.4.3, of this NNSS SWEIS, and a specific EA or EIS is not necessary. Further,

the analysis of cumulative impacts in Chapter 6, Section 6.3, of this NNSS SWEIS
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-321

Commentor No. 68 (cont’d): Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

includes consideration of the programmatic level of impacts associated with conceptual

projects, as well as the more fully developed proposed projects. 

68-8	 DOE published a Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan in 1998. The purpose

of that plan was to integrate management and stewardship for the various natural

and cultural resources of the NNSS with accomplishment of DOE/NNSA’s National

Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense Missions. The plan

included defined goals for 12 resource areas, based on the principles of ecosystem

management. Over the intervening years, the Nevada Test Site Resource Management 

Plan was superseded by an Environmental Management System (see Chapter 7,

Section 7.14, of this NNSS SWEIS), which ensures that environmental issues are

systematically identified, controlled, and monitored and also provides mechanisms

for responding to changing environmental conditions and requirements, reporting

on environmental performance, and reinforcing continual improvement. Neither

the Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan nor the current Environmental

Management System for the NNSS addressed specific activities, but both provide a

framework within which DOE/NNSA conducts its activities in a manner that protects

the environment to the extent practicable, while still accomplishing its missions.

68-9	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.3, describes the current earthquake design standards that

DOE implements to ensure the safety of workers at its facilities in the NNSS and other

locations. DOE would continue to implement the orders for the existing facilities

and any new structures, which would minimize seismic hazards to workers at NNSS

facilities. In addition to this discussion, Section 5.1.12.2.1 in the health and safety

Section describes the risk assessment of a high-seismicity earthquake near the DAF. 

Chapter 9 of this NNSS SWEIS, “Laws, Regulations, and Permits,” has been updated

to include DOE Order G-420.1-2, Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena 

Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and Nonnuclear Facilities; DOE‐STD‐1020‐2002,

“DOE Standard Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for

Department of Energy Facilities;” and DOE‐STD‐1023‐95, “DOE Standard Natural

Hazards Assessment Criteria.”

68-10	 As noted in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.1, flooding events occasionally occur on the

NNSS; however, runoff is typically of short duration and onsite surface flows normally

do not migrate off site. Overall, there is little interaction between surface water and

groundwater in the area of the NNSS due to the large depth to groundwater in the area,

coupled with high evapotranspiration rates. Because of this and the nature of activities

proposed to be conducted at the NNSS in the future, no impacts on groundwater

quality were identified under any of the alternatives, as addressed in Chapter 5,
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-322

Commentor No. 68 (cont’d): Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb

Sections 5.1.6.2, 5.1.6.2.1, and 5.1.6.3, of this SWEIS. In addition, as described

under the subheading titled “Groundwater Monitoring and Quality,” in Section 4.1.6.2,

DOE/NNSA manages an extensive groundwater monitoring program both on and off

site. No noticeable effects of non-point-source pollution resulting from flood events on

groundwater quality have been recorded, nor would they be expected under any of the

alternatives.

68-11	 DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS are in full compliance with the Endangered

Species Act. As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7, activities within desert tortoise

habitat at the NNSS have been conducted under the auspices of a series of Biological

Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to the

requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NNSS Biological

Opinion (USFWS 2009) is a permit issued by USFWS that authorizes and sets forth

the conditions for DOE/NNSA to incidentally “take” a limited number of desert

tortoises and is based on the conclusion that the permitted “take” would not threaten

the continued existence of the species. The NNSS Biological Opinion provides a

framework to estimate potential environmental impacts on this species as discussed in

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7.1, and, more specifically, in Section 5.1.7.1.3. Sections 4.1.7

and 5.1.7 have been modified to clarify that DOE/NNSA conducts its activities at the

NNSS in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

68-12	 The commentor’s preference is noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-323

Submitted:  Friday, December 2, 2011 - 16:40

Name:  Robert DeBirk

E-mail (optional):  Rob@healutah.org

Organization:  Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

Comment: 

Dear Ms. Cohn:

The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah) is a non-profit organization

located in Salt Lake City, Utah. HEAL Utah has monitored the activities of the

Dept. of Energy and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) since the proposed Divine Strake

test in 2006. Among HEAL’s 4,000 members and supporters are a number of

”downwinders” whose health was severely affected by past nuclear weapons

testing at NTS.

The NTS has historically been used for the purposes of atmospheric and 

underground nuclear weapons testing which has resulted in significant adverse 

public health impacts to downwind communities. HEAL Utah’s comments on

the Site Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) reflects our supporters 

experience with past nuclear weapons testing.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING

HEAL Utah opposes the resumption of any nuclear weapons detonations at the 

Test Site.

HEAL Utah opposes open air detonations at NTS.

The SWEIS states “The primary purpose of continuing operation of the [Test Site]

is to provide support for NNSA’s nuclear weapons stockpile and stewardship

missions.” Once based on the explosive testing of nuclear weapons at NTS,

the stockpile and stewardship missions of the NNSA are now reliant on scientific

stewardship in the absence of explosive testing of the nation’s nuclear weapons

arsenal. The Test Site should continue moving away from nuclear weapons

testing and towards continuing to fulfill our commitments as signatories of the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

HEAL Utah is opposed to the resumption of any nuclear or explosives testing

at the Nevada Test Site. HEAL Utah believes that any expanded explosives

testing poses the hazard of releasing dangerous contaminants and disturbing

existing radionuclides. Furthermore, in the alternatives presented in the SWEIS 

the possibility of resuming underground nuclear weapons testing requires further 

analysis beyond the four paragraphs contained in the draft. Additional analysis

should include mapping and analysis of previous radionuclide releases and

impacts to soil and groundwater.

Commentor No. 69: Robert DeBirk, 

Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

69-1

69-2

69-1	 Although it maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by the President,

DOE/NNSA does not propose to resume nuclear weapons detonations at the

NNSS, and such detonations are not included under any of the alternatives in this

NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been added to Chapter 3, Section 3.0.

Tests and experiments involving open-air detonation of conventional explosives would

occur at the NNSS under any of the three alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS;

however, DOE/NNSA would not conduct such an activity in a radiological

contamination area. 

69-2	 As noted in the response to comment 69-1 above, conducting a nuclear weapon

test is not included under any of the alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. 

Because DOE/NNSA does not propose to conduct a nuclear weapons test under

this NNSS SWEIS, an analysis of resuming underground nuclear weapons testing

is not required. The paragraphs referenced by the commentor were not intended to

be an analysis of nuclear weapons testing and were included in error in Chapter 8,

Section 8.1.1.1.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS and have been deleted from this Final 

NNSS SWEIS.

	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and current knowledge of the extent of both radiological and chemical surface

soil contamination. Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added

in Section 4.1.5.1.1.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed for the

FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the

NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the

additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-324

Commentor No. 69 (cont’d): Robert DeBirk,

Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

The SWEIS is unclear with regard to the contamination from underground 

explosions and does not show the extent to which contamination may have 

migrated due to groundwater movement. Additionally, other than tritium, the DOE

lacks specificity as to the contaminants spread by past tests. The SWEIS should

supply the most comprehensive analysis possible of existing contamination at the

Test Site. When made available, this analysis should be as approachable - and

easy for the public to access and understand - as it is comprehensive.

69-3 69-3	 As noted in the response to comment 69-2, above, DOE/NNSA revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-325

Submitted:  Friday, December 2, 2011 - 15:45

Name:  Anabel Dwyer

E-mail (optional):  anabeldwyer@yahoo.com

Organization:  Board LCNP (for identification)

Comment:

Dear Ms. Kohn Thank you for the extended deadline for comments on the DSWEIS

for the future of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) now called the Nevada National

Security Site (NNSS). This is to request that the DOE further extend the deadline

for comments and expand the options considered to include the most realistic

national security option for the NTS or NNSS:

1. Systematically eliminate all nuclear, DU and HE weapons activity;

2. Systematically eliminate transport of all nuclear materials and

3. Document, contain/clean up and compensate for toxic chemical and

radioactive environmental and health contamination.

I am a lawyer concerned with and long involved in assuring that the US meets our

obligation for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Complete good-faith nuclear

disarmament is essential as a legal, moral and practical obligation because:

1. We know that nuclear weapons’ are inherently indiscriminate and

uncontrollable and thus ipso facto violate the peremptory and fundamental 

rules and principles of humanitarian law (the laws of war); and

2. Health and environmental damage and danger caused by the nuclear 

system, whether accidental or purposeful is extreme and long-lived.

The Draft SWEIS considers options within an outdated and unlawful context 

and thus is inadequate. Nuclear weapons are fundamentally unlawful. Indeed any 

weapon or energy system involving radioactive materials are both useless and 

highly dangerous.

The moratorium on nuclear testing exists because of now well understood 

catastrophic and cumulative effects of a wide range of radioactive materials 

released by nuclear explosions and by the nuclear system or fuel cycle as a whole.

The grave threat and mass destruction is not only to the Western Shoshone 

people but to us all because the radioactive materials produced and released by

the nuclear system are not contained in space or time.

Yours sincerely,

Anabel Dwyer

Commentor No. 70: Anabel Dwyer

70-1 70-1	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are outside

the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA acknowledges the preference of the

commentor that DOE/NNSA eliminate all nuclear, depleted uranium, and high

explosives weapons activity; however, these tests and experiments are necessary

to continue to ensure the safety and reliability of the remaining nuclear weapons

in the Nation’s stockpile and to support the current policies of the United States.

Transportation of nuclear materials is a necessary ancillary activity associated with the

above-noted tests and experiments. As described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2,

and 3.3.2.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA proposed under all three alternatives

to continue the Environmental Restoration Program, which is taking active measures,

in consultation with the State of Nevada, to characterize, contain and/or clean-up

radiological and chemical contamination resulting from past nuclear weapons testing

activities.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-326

Submitted:  Friday, December 2, 2011 - 16:04

Name:  Marion Lewis, President

E-mail (optional):  ISCA.NV@gmail.com

Organization:  Indian Springs Civic Association

Comment:

Indian Springs Civic Association

PO Box 1

Indian Springs, Nevada 89018-0001

email: ISCA.NV@gmail.com

December 2, 2011

ISCA Comments on NNSS dSWEIS,

Indian Springs Civic Association (ISCA), a Nevada non-profit community 

organization, appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-Wide 

Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for the Nevada National Security Site

(NNSS) and Off-Site Locations in Nevada. dSWEIS

ISCA strongly supports maintaining the current “commitment” (dSWEIS, Ch. 4,

p-28, see below) to avoid shipping of LLW and / or MLLW on US Hwy. 95 through

Indian Springs, Nevada and past or through communities and facilities in Clark

County adjacent to US Hwy 95, including, but not limited to: Cactus Springs,

Creech AFB, High Desert Correctional Facility, Southern Desert Correctional

Facility, Cold Creek community, Desert Game Range (USFWS) and Corn Creek

community, Lee Canyon community and recreation area, Snow Mountain Paiute

Reservation, Kyle Canyon community and recreation area, &c.

ISCA understands that proximity to and length of exposure time are two of

the important factors in the health consequences of radiation, as is age of

the individuals. Shipping through Indian Springs would place the trucks in

close proximity of not only the public K-12 school that serves the communities 

mentioned above, but also on the highway daily with school busses that serve 

those communities, with the school employees and their children that commute 

from Las Vegas, with the UAV pilots and Creech employees that commute from

Las Vegas, the US Postal workers adjacent to the highway, &c. This additional 

radiation exposure is not acceptable.

ISCA’s greater concern is the potential for an accident or terrorist activity on US

Hwy 95 that could involve spillage, explosion, fire, wind dispersal, &c. Depending

on location, such an incident would prevent emergency support access to one

or more of the communities or facilities, further increasing risks to life, health,

security, and property. Even the possibility of such an incident would likely have a

deleterious effect on the future of the communities, and on private property values,

Commentor No. 71: Marion Lewis, President,

 Indian Springs Civic Association

71-1 71-1	 The commentor’s preference is noted. In consideration of the environmental analyses

and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC

revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway routing

restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to revise

the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012). DOE/NNSA analyzed the potential impacts of a

transportation accident in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.3.1.1, 5.1.3.1.2, and 5.1.3.1.3, and of

intentional destructive acts (i.e., terrorism) in Section 5.1.12.3.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-327

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 71 (cont’d): Marion Lewis, President,

 Indian Springs Civic Association

whileincreasingthecosttolocalentitiestoprovideadequatestandbyemergency

andlongtermservices.

In

summary,ISCA,o

n

thesegmentdealingwiththeTransportationandstorage 

ofwaste,inthestrongesttermsopposesanyoftheOptionsthatwouldincrease

transportofhazardsnuclearortoxicmaterials,waste,ornon-waste,throughLas

VegasandonanyportionofUSHwy95inClarkCounty,Nevada.Presumablythat

wouldb

e

thecasewitheithertheN

o

ChangeOptiono

r

theReducedOperations

Option.InanycaseISCArequiresthatthe“verbalcommitmentfromtheDOE...

informalcommitment”that“historicallyavoidedshippingLLWandmixedlow-level

radioactivewaste(MLLW)usingtheInterstate15/U.S.Route95interchange” 

(NNSSSWdEIS–Ch.4,p.28)becodifiedandcontinuetobeenforcedwithout

exception.

ISCAdoesnotknowifthe“Options”mustbetakeninwhole,oriftheycanbe 

split,someactivitiesdiminished,othersincreased,orifanentireoptionmust

beadopted.Furtherwewouldliketoknowhowdamagesresultingfromthese

operationscanandwillbecompensated,nowandintothefuture.

Contact

information:IndianSpringsCivicAssociationAttn:Mrs.MarionLewis,

PresidentPOBox1IndianSprings,Nevada89018-0001

email:ISCA.NV@gmail.com

NNSSdSWEISCH.4–p.28(partial)NNSA/NSOhashistoricallyavoided

shippingLLWandmixedlow-levelradioactivewaste(MLLW)usingtheInterstate

15/U.S.Route9

5

interchange,basedo

n

averbalcommitmentfromDOE.This

informalcommitmentwasmadea

t

atimewhenthemajorhighwayinfrastructure,

specificallyInterstate15andU.S.Route95,wasunabletosafelyhandlethe

rapidlygrowingvolumeoftraffic.Sincethemid-2000s,U.S.Route95hasbeen

widenedandexpandedoverpasseshavebeenbuiltt

o

accommodatetraffic

muchmoresafely.I

n

addition,theLasVegasBeltway,whichextendsaround

approximatelythreequarterso

f

thevalley,wasbuilta

t

thefaredgeso

f

LasVegas

tofurtherreducetrafficloadsonInterstate15andU.S.Route95.Inaddition,a

bypassbridgehasbeenconstructedadjacentt

o

HooverDam.Thisbridgeopened

t

o

alltraffici

n

October2010.Therefore,truckstransportingwasteo

n

Interstate1

5 

fromthesouthavoidtravelingthroughLasVegasb

y

takingNevadaStateRoute 

160toitsintersectionwithU.S.Route95.Radioactivewastebeingtransported

frompointsnorthofLasVegasavoidsInterstate15inNevadabyusingU.S.Route

50,travelingwestt

o

U.S.Route6andthensoutho

n

U.S.Route95.A

s

aresulto

f

DOE’sinformalcommitment,more-circuitousroutesareusedforthetransporto

f

radioactivematerialsandwastes.Thefollowingcombinationso

f

routesaremost

commonlyusedtoshipradioactivematerialsandwastestoandfromtheNNSS

(NNSA/NSO2009b):

71-1

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-328

Submitted:  Friday, December 2, 2011 - 23:20

Name:  Johnnie L. Bobb

E-mail (optional):  newebuey2002@yahoo.com

Organization:  Western Shoshone National Council

Comment: 

Land described in Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued 

Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

(DOE/EIS-0426D is within the boundaries of land under the jurisdiction of Peace

and Friendship as affirmed by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863.

The Treaty of Ruby Valley (18 Statutes at Large 689), signed October 1, 1863, 

ratified June 26 1866, and proclaimed October 21, 1869, is still in full force 

and effect. The Treaty was one of peace and friendship between the people

and government of the United States and the Western Shoshone people. The

Western Shoshone National Council is the traditional government of the Western

Shoshone, successors to the signers of this Treaty. No land was ceded in the

treaty. The treaty provided safe passage to non-Indians passing through the

Shoshone Nation. All other rights remain with the Western Shoshone.

Western Shoshone were in continuous use of this land for food, medicine, water,

spirituality, burials, and cultural purposes until they were removed, against their

will, from this place. Western Shoshone continue to come to the site and bear

witness to the unlawful trespass and disturbing of peace against us and in violation

of the peace and friendship treaty through United States acts of universal violence

using the most deadly substances in existence.

The Western Shoshone National Council has not been consulted regarding either 

this project or any of the actions that were undertaken to obtain the use of the

land for the “Nevada Test Site” or the “Nevada National Security Site.” Our people

continue to suffer from exposure to radiation and other toxins at this site. The Site

should be cleaned and closed no matter how long that process takes.

Your suggestions of alternative energy projects will lead to more transmission 

and transportation routes that will continue to scar our land and destroy our 

plants, animals and our rights as human beings to safe air, water, and food. I am

attaching the Decision of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination 1(68). You may say that you do not have to listen to the

recommendations of this body because it is outside the United States. Yet, the

U.S. goes to the United Nations when other countries threaten development of

nuclear arsenals. The U.S. uses their decisions to your advantage, but not when

Commentor No. 72: Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief

Western Shoshone National Council

72-1

72-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates the comments of the Western Shoshone National

Council relating to important cultural perspectives. Since 1991, the DOE/NNSA has

worked with the 16 culturally affiliated Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute and Owens

Valley Paiute/Shoshone Tribes that are represented by CGTO. It is understood that

some Western Shoshone tribes belonging to CGTO might have concurrent affiliation

with the Western Shoshone National Council. Throughout the draft SWEIS, the DOE/

NNSA NSO has included tribal perspectives developed by CGTO for consideration

by DOE/NNSA in its analysis of this document. Additional information on tribal

involvement is included in Chapter 1, Section 1.6, Cooperating Agencies/Tribal

Involvement. 

The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.

	 As described in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and 3.3.2.2, DOE/NNSA, in

coordination with NDEP, would continue to comply with the FFACO to characterize,

monitor, and remediate contaminated areas, facilities, soils, and groundwater

on the NNSS. In the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE considered ceasing all operations at the

NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status (Discontinue Operations

Alternative). In its December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided

that it would implement the Expanded Use Alternative for all activities other than

LLW/MLLW management, which was to continue under the Continue Current

Operations Alternative. DOE later decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative

for LLW/MLLW management at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Based on these previous

decisions and the ongoing need to conduct a wide range of activities at the NNSS in

support DOE/NNSA and other agencies’ missions and programs, closing the NNSS

and leaving is not considered a reasonable action.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-329

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 72 (cont’d): Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief Western Shoshone National Council

theyregardtherightsofindigenouspeoples.Whatyouaredoingaffectsthe

populationsandfuturegenerationsoftheentireworld.

We

inviteyout

o

cometalkwithus,thesamea

s

w

e

havedoneformanyyears.W

e

hopeyouwillnotcontinuetoignoreus.

Sincerely,

JohnnieL.Bobb,ChiefWesternShoshoneNationalCouncilPOBox252Austin,

N

V

89310

COMMITTEEFORTHEELIMINATION

OFRACIALDISCRIMINATION

Sixtyeighthsession

Geneva,

20February–10March2006

EARLYWARNINGANDURGENTACTIONPROCEDURE

DECISION1(68)

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA

A.Introduction1. Atits67thsessionheldfrom2to19August2005,the

CommitteeconsideredonapreliminarybasisrequestssubmittedbytheWestern

ShoshoneNationalCouncil,theTimbishaShoshoneTribe,theWinnemucca

IndianColonyandtheYombaShoshoneTribe,askingtheCommitteetoactunder

itsearlywarningandurgentactionprocedureonthesituationoftheWestern

Shoshoneindigenouspeoplesi

n

theUnitedStateso

f

America.

2. 

Consideringthattheopeningo

f

adialoguewiththeStatepartywouldassist

i

n

clarifyingthesituationbeforethesubmissionandexaminationo

f

thefourthand

fifthperiodicreportso

f

theUnitedStateso

f

America,dueo

n

2

0

November2003,

theCommittee,inaccordancewitharticle9(1)oftheConventionandarticle65

ofitsrulesofprocedure,invitedtheStateparty,inaletterdated19August2005,

t

o

respondt

o

alisto

f

questions,withaviewt

o

consideringthisissuea

t

its68th

session.

3. 

Respondingt

o

theCommittee’sletter,theStateparty,i

n

itsletterdated1

5

February2006,statedthatitsoverdueperiodicreportsarebeingpreparedand

thattheywillincluderesponsest

o

thelisto

f

issues.TheCommitteeregretsthat

theStatepartyhasnotundertakent

o

submititsperiodicreportsb

y

aspecific

date,thati

t

hasnotprovidedresponsest

o

thelisto

f

issuesb

y

3

1

December

2005a

s

requested,andthati

t

didnotconsideri

t

necessaryt

o

appearbeforethe

Committeetodiscussthematter.

72-1

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-330

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 72 (cont’d): Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief

Western Shoshone National Council

4. The Committee has received credible information alleging that the Western

Shoshone indigenous peoples are being denied their traditional rights to land, and

that measures taken and even accelerated lately by the State party in relation to

the status, use and occupation of these lands may cumulatively lead to irreparable

harm to these communities. In light of such information, and in the absence of any

response from the State party, the Committee decided at its 68th session to adopt

the present decision under its early warning and urgent action procedure. This

procedure is clearly distinct from the communication procedure under article 14 of

the Convention. Furthermore, the nature and urgency of the issue examined in this

decision go well beyond the limits of the communication procedure.

B. Concerns

5. The Committee expresses concern about the lack of action taken by the

State party to follow up on its previous concluding observations, in relation to the

situation of the Western Shoshone peoples (A/56/18, para. 400, adopted on 13

August 2001). Although these are indeed long-standing issues, as stressed by the

State party in its letter, they warrant immediate and effective action from the State

party. The Committee therefore considers that this issue should be dealt with as a

matter of priority.

6. The Committee is concerned by the State party’s position that Western

Shoshone peoples’ legal rights to ancestral lands have been extinguished through

gradual encroachment, notwithstanding the fact that the Western Shoshone

peoples have reportedly continued to use and occupy the lands and their natural

resources in accordance with their traditional land tenure patterns. The Committee

further notes with concern that the State party’s position is made on the basis

of processes before the Indian Claims Commission, “which did not comply with

contemporary international human rights norms, principles and standards that

govern determination of indigenous property interests”, as stressed by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in the case Mary and Carrie Dann versus

United States (Case 11.140, 27 December 2002).

7. The Committee is of the view that past and new actions taken by the State

party on Western Shoshone ancestral lands lead to a situation where, today, the

obligations of the State party under the Convention are not respected, in particular

the obligation to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law in

the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, without

discrimination based on race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The Committee

recalls its General recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples,

in particular their right to own, develop, control and use their communal lands,

territories and resources, and expresses particular concern about:
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-331

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 72 (cont’d): Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief Western Shoshone National Council

a) ReportedlegislativeeffortstoprivatizeWesternShoshoneancestrallands

fortransfertomultinationalextractiveindustriesandenergydevelopers.

b) 

Informationaccordingt

o

whichdestructiveactivitiesareconductedand/or

plannedonareasofspiritualandculturalsignificancetotheWesternShoshone

peoples,whoaredeniedaccessto,anduseof,suchareas.Itnotesinparticular

thereinvigoratedfederaleffortstoopenanuclearwasterepositoryattheYucca

Mountain;theallegeduseo

f

explosivesandopenpitgoldminingactivitieso

n

MontTenaboandHorseCanyon;andtheallegedissuanceofgeothermalenergy

leasesat,ornear,hotsprings,andtheprocessingoffurtherapplicationstothat

end.

c) 

ThereportedresumptionofundergroundnucleartestingonWestern 

Shoshoneancestrallands;

d) Theconductand/orplanningofallsuchactivitieswithoutconsultationwith

anddespiteprotestsoftheWesternShoshonepeoples;

e) ThereportedintimidationandharassmentofWesternShoshonepeopleby 

theStateparty’sauthorities,throughtheimpositionofgrazingfees,trespassand

collectionnotices,impoundingofhorseandlivestock,restrictionsonhunting,

fishingandgathering,aswellasarrests,whichgravelydisturbtheenjoymentof

theirancestrallands.

f) Thedifficultiesencounteredb

y

WesternShoshonepeoplesi

n

appropriately

challengingallsuchactionsbeforenationalcourtsandinobtainingadjudicationon

themeritso

f

theirclaims,duei

n

particulart

o

domestictechnicalities.

C.Recommendations

8. 

TheCommitteerecommendstotheStatepartythatitrespectandprotectthe

humanrightsoftheWesternShoshonepeoples,withoutdiscriminationbasedon

race,colour,o

r

nationalo

r

ethnicorigin,i

n

accordancewiththeConvention.The

Statepartyi

s

urgedt

o

payparticularattentiont

o

therightt

o

healthandcultural

rightso

f

theWesternShoshonepeople,whichmayb

e

infringeduponb

y

activities

threateningtheirenvironmentand/ordisregardingthespiritualandcultural

significancetheygivet

o

theirancestrallands.

9. 

TheCommitteeurgestheStatepartyt

o

takeimmediateactiont

o

initiatea

dialoguewiththerepresentativeso

f

theWesternShoshonepeoplesi

n

ordert

o 

findasolutionacceptablet

o

them,andwhichcomplieswiththeirrightsunder,i

n

particular,articles5and6oftheConvention.Inthisregardalso,theCommittee

drawstheattentiono

f

theStatepartyt

o

itsGeneralrecommendation2

3

(1997)o

n

therightso

f

indigenouspeoples,i

n

particulartheirrightt

o

own,develop,control

andusetheircommunallands,territoriesandresources.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-332

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 72 (cont’d): Johnnie L. Bobb, Chief 

Western Shoshone National Council

10. The Committee urges the State party to adopt the following measures until

a final decision or settlement is reached on the status, use and occupation of 

Western Shoshone ancestral lands in accordance with due process of law and the 

State party’s obligations under the Convention:

a) Freeze any plan to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer

to multinational extractive industries and energy developers;

b) Desist from all activities planned and/or conducted on the ancestral lands of

Western Shoshone or in relation to their natural resources, which are being carried

out without consultation with and despite protests of the Western Shoshone

peoples;

c) Stop imposing grazing fees, trespass and collection notices, horse and

livestock impoundments, restrictions on hunting, fishing and gathering, as well

as arrests, and rescind all notices already made to that end, inflicted on Western

Shoshone people while using their ancestral lands.

11. In accordance with article 9 (1) of the Convention, the Committee requests

that the State party provide it with information on action taken to implement the

present decision by 15 July 2006.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-333

Commentor No. 73: Chris Giunchigliani, Commissioner 

Clark County Board of Commissioners

73-1

73-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-334

Commentor No. 73 (cont’d): Chris Giunchigliani, Commissioner

Clark County Board of Commissioners

73-1

cont’d

73-2 73-2	 The commentor’s support of renewable energy projects is noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-335

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 74: Richard Arnold, Spokesperson 

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-336

Commentor No. 74 (cont’d): Richard Arnold, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

74-1

74-2

74-3

74-4

74-5

74-1	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the position of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and

Organizations (CGTO) and appreciates their involvement and contributions to the

SWEIS.

74-2	 Figure 1–1 in Chapter 1 and Figure S–1 in the Summary show current land ownership

including reservation lands. Figure C–1 in Appendix C illustrates the historic land

areas used by various American Indian tribes and the locations of current tribal

lands. Map figures throughout the SWEIS are used to primarily display current and

potential future conditions; areas of historic use by American Indian Tribes are more

appropriately addressed in Appendix C.

74-3	 DOE/NNSA appreciates the comments and has corrected the spelling and punctuation,

as suggested. 

74-4	 As part of the DOE/NNSAAmerican Indian Consultation Program, tribal input has

been included throughout this NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA carefully reviews and

considers CGTO recommendations to evaluate compatibility with DOE missions and

proposed undertakings. The DOE/NNSA NSO responds and/or incorporates CGTO

recommendations to the extent practicable as part of the long-standing American

Indian Consultation Program. Additional information regarding tribal involvement

is included in Chapter 1, Section 1.6, Cooperating Agencies/Tribal Involvement, in

the final SWEIS. To preserve the unique cultural viewpoints of the CGTO, DOE/

NNSA has maintained CGTO descriptions of environmental impacts separately from

those developed using DOE methodologies. However, specific mitigation measures

developed in consultation with the CGTO have been added to the final SWEIS

throughout Chapter 7.

74-5	 DOE/NNSA’s Native American Interaction Program concentrates on the protection of

cultural resources and promotes a government-to-government relationship with tribes

and organizations (represented by CGTO). Its purpose is to help DOE/NNSA comply

with various Federal laws and regulations, including for example, the American Indian

Religious Freedom Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. DOE/NNSA

has provided funds for the conduct of, and members of CGTO have participated in,

various cultural resources-related activities such as ethnographic interviews, as well as

monitoring of cultural resource surveys. In addition, DOE/NNSA has provided funds

to enable the AIWS to prepare summary assessments and recommendations, the most

recent of which appear throughout the SWEIS. 

DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established the EPWG to

provide a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA,
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-337

Commentor No. 74 (cont’d): Richard Arnold, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

74-5

cont’d

74-7

74-6

the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and the six participating

counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). The grants, now totaling

about $10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake emergency preparedness

planning and response capability assessments; acquire emergency response resources

such as ambulances, fire trucks, and communication equipment for any locations,

including American Indian Reservations, within their counties. 

74-6	 This draft SWEIS included text on the perception of environmental justice

impacts identified by CGTO. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental impacts of Federal programs, policies, and activities

on minority and low-income populations. Based on this definition of environmental

justice impacts (human health and environmental impacts), no disproportionately high

and adverse impacts would be expected to the culturally affiliated Indian people. 

DOE/NNSA has reviewed past NEPA documents and continues to recognize CGTO’s

identification of Holy Land and cultural survival access violations. Although these

points do not fall within the definition of environmental justice as defined in Executive

Order 12898, DOE/NNSA remains committed to recognizing the American Indian’s

perception of disproportionately high and adverse impacts identified as Holy Land

and cultural survival access violations, and has added statements to this effect in

Section 7.13 of the final SWEIS. However, with regard to high and adverse human

health impacts, DOE/NNSA disagrees with the commentor. Analysis within the

SWEIS concludes there are no human health impacts identified for the general,

minority, or low-income populations within the ROI. However, Section 5.1.12.1

(Human Health and Safety, Normal Operations) has been modified to evaluate a

subsistence consumption scenario.

74-7	 Through the American Indian Consultation Program, DOE/NNSA has a longstanding

relationship with CGTO and attempts to respond to requests for access to culturally

important areas and activities. DOE/NNSA shares the concern regarding site

contamination and in accordance with applicable laws, DOE Orders, and the

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order has implemented comprehensive

characterization, remediation, and monitoring programs to evaluate contamination

levels and take appropriate actions to contain or remove contamination at the NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-338

Commentor No. 74 (cont’d): Richard Arnold, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

74-7

cont’d

74-9

74-8

74-8	 DOE/NNSA has added an analysis of a special receptor identified as a “subsistence

consumer” in Appendix G, Section G.2.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS of the

“subsistence consumer” is a hypothetical individual who is potentially exposed to

larger amounts of radioactivity than the typical maximally exposed individual (MEI) as

a result of a subsistence lifestyle (see Appendix G, Section G.2.4). In this scenario, the

receptor was assumed to acquire essentially all of their foodstuffs from the land around

the NNSS. This includes the consumption of animal and plant products raised on a

local farm and of wild game. Because there is an assumed higher level of consumption

of local foodstuffs, the “subsistence consumer” receives a higher dose than the MEI

member of the general public. It should be noted that, in both the case of the MEI and

the “subsistence consumer,” to ensure that the analyses did not underestimate impacts,

their assumed location is at the NNSS boundary in an area currently controlled by

the USAF and not accessible by the public. The analysis found that the subsistence

consumer would receive an estimated annual dose of 10 millirem, which represents

an increased risk of 1 in 170,000 of developing a latent fatal cancer for each year of

exposure.

74-9	 Through its American Indian Interaction Program, DOE/NNSA has provided funds for

activities such as ethnographic interviews and studies, as well as monitoring of cultural

resource surveys and updates on NNSS projects and activities. Funding has also been

provided for CGTO participation in these projects and activities. In addition, DOE/

NNSA has provided funds to enable the American Indian Writers Subgroup to prepare

summary assessments and recommendations in a number of NEPA documents, the

most recent of which is this SWEIS. Further, DOE/NNSA accepts, evaluates, and may

fund unsolicited proposals for various activities such as the ethnographic human health

study suggested by the commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are

evaluated pursuant to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies,

as well as in consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals

would assist DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of

funding.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-339

Commentor No. 74 (cont’d): Richard Arnold, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

74-9

cont’d

74-10

74-11

74-12

74-10	 The towns listed by the commentor (i.e., Bishop, Big Pine, Fort Independence, Lone

Pine, and Benton) are along U.S. Highway 395 in California, a highway that is not

typically used for NNSS transportation activities. Similarly, the highway to Death

Valley, California State Route 190, is not used for NNSS transportation. As such, these

towns are not shown on the transportation maps in the SWEIS and their inhabitants

would be unaffected by the transport to or from the site. Note that California State

Route 190 is shown in Appendix E on Figure E–14. 

74-11	 As noted in the response to comment 74-9 above, DOE/NNSA has provided funds for

a variety of activities and accepts, evaluates, and may fund unsolicited proposals for

various activities such as the ethnographic study to identify culturally important sites

along transportation routes that may be impacted by DOE/NNSA activities suggested

by the commentor.

74-12	 DOE appreciates the views of CGTO and acknowledges that those perspectives may

be contrary to DOE’s activities relating to disposal of LLW on the NNSS. All DOE

disposal activities are done in accordance with the requirement of DOE Order 458.1,

Radioactive Waste Management. Accordingly, site-specific performance assessments

are prepared to evaluate the long-term safety of waste disposal sites. Waste

management practices are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11. 

DOE/NNSA recognizes the concerns of the CGTO regarding respect for the

environment. As part of the opening of the new mixed low-level radioactive waste cell

at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex, DOE/NNSA welcomed the

participation of an American Indian elder to offer prayers and talk to the land. As new

facilities are developed on the NNSS, DOE/NNSA would consider providing similar

American Indian participation in the future. 

As identified in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11.3, there is an active pollution prevention

and waste minimization program in place at DOE/NNSA sites in Nevada. Similar

programs at other DOE sites help reduce the quantities of offsite waste that may

require disposal at the NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-340

Commentor No. 74 (cont’d): Richard Arnold, Spokesperson

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

74-13

74-14

74-13	 As indicated in this comment, the State of Nevada, as well as others, has encouraged

DOE/NNSA to maintain its commitment to the existing transportation agreement. 

In consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments and after

consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC process revision process, DOE/NNSA

determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of

LLW/MLLW. Although many trucks carrying LLW/MLLW use these roads, the

impacts have been and are projected to be very small because the waste transport

companies implement the mitigation measures indicated in Chapter 7, Section 7.3,

to reduce the potential impacts. DOE has established the Transportation Emergency

Preparedness Program to address transportation concerns and help ensure Federal,

state, tribal, and local responders have access to the plans, training, and technical

assistance necessary to safely, efficiently, and effectively respond to radiological

transportation accidents. The Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program

focuses on training and outreach along active or planned DOE transportation corridors

and is coordinated with local and state officials in the affected jurisdictions. The

program actively works with the corridor states and tribes to provide training, planning

assistance and exercises. More information on the Transportation Emergency

Preparedness Program can be found at www.em.doe.gov/otem. Many of the LLW/

MLLW shipments have very low levels of radioactivity, such that transportation

regulations do not require notification of the states and communities through which

they pass. When the radioactive content is sufficiently high, the transportation

companies do provide notifications to states and communities along the transportation

routes in accordance with DOT regulations. 

74-14	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established the EPWG to

provide a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA,

the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and the six participating

counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). The grants, now totaling

about $10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake emergency preparedness

planning and response capability assessments; acquire emergency response resources

such as ambulances, fire trucks, and communication equipment for any locations,

including American Indian Reservations, within their counties. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-341

Commentor No. 75: Katherine Gensler and Emily J. Duncan, 

Solar Energy Industries Association

75-1 75-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative, especially

in regard to solar power development, is noted. As stated in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments received

on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-342

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 75 (cont’d): Katherine Gensler and Emily J. Duncan,

Solar Energy Industries Association
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-343

Commentor No. 75 (cont’d): Katherine Gensler and Emily J. Duncan,

Solar Energy Industries Association

75-1

cont’d

75-2

75-3

75-4

75-5

75-1

cont’d

75-2	 The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and BLM on

July 27, 2012, announced the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States

(Solar Energy PEIS) to evaluate utility-scale solar energy development, to develop and

implement agency-specific programs or guidance that would establish environmental

policies and mitigation strategies for solar energy projects, and to amend relevant

BLM land use plans with the consideration of establishing a new BLM Solar Energy

Program (see solareis.anl.gov for detailed information). DOE/NNSA will use the

Solar Energy PEIS to guide its decisions on the development of commercial solar

power at the NNSS. However, there is no specific proposal for such a project at the

NNSS at this time. If a commercial solar power project were proposed at the NNSS in

the future, additional project-specific NEPA review would be required.

75-3	 DOE/NNSA used the estimates of land needed per megawatt of power as a way to

calculate maximum impacts. The estimates were based on actual commercial solar

projects in southern Nevada. These acreages were not intended to limit the generation

capacity of land tracts. DOE/NNSA has added text in Chapter 3, Section 3.0, to

recognize that more-efficient solar energy systems may result in increased generation

capacity per acreage of land.

75-4	 Comment noted. An evaluation of transmission line requirements and siting would be

done as part of the NEPA review conducted for any commercial solar power generation

facility proposed at the NNSS in the future.

75-5	 The commentor’s support for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. As stated

in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments

received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-344

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 75 (cont’d): Katherine Gensler and Emily J. Duncan,

Solar Energy Industries Association
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-345

Commentor No. 76: J. Morgan Blakeley

76-1 76-1	 DOE/NNSA distributed CDs (not DVDs) with the complete text of the draft SWEIS.

The CDs are readable on a personal computer or at a publicly available computer in a

library.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-346

Commentor No. 77: Mark R. Spencer, Field Manager, Pahrump Field 

Office, Southern Nevada District Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management

77-1

77-2

77-3

77-1	 This SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of a commercial solar power

generation facility located in Area 25 of the NNSS that would route power into the

commercial public grid. However, at this time, there are no active proposals from

private-sector entities to construct such a facility, and DOE/NNSA would not pursue

or allow construction without such a proposal. If a private-sector proposal for a solar

power generation facility were received in the future, it would be subject to future

NEPA review to address issues such as water availability and compatibility with other

existing land uses and activities. DOE/NNSA believes that detailed consideration of

withdrawal modifications is not ripe for analysis within this SWEIS.

77-2	 Under the No Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives, the power production

capacity of the facility would require the construction of a new transmission line that

would extend into adjacent lands managed by BLM (see Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.2

and 3.2.3.2, respectively). This transmission line is included in the total land

disturbance considered for the commercial solar power generation facility, and the

resulting potential impacts (e.g., habitat loss, particulate emissions, takes of desert

tortoise) are identified in Chapter 5. If a private-sector proposal for a solar power

generation facility were received in the future, it would be subject to future NEPA

review, which would include more-detailed consideration of issues such as specific

transmission line routing.

77-3	 The correct acreage is 39,600. The text has been corrected.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-347

Commentor No. 77 (cont’d): Mark R. Spencer, Field Manager, Pahrump 

Field Office, Southern Nevada District Office, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management

77-4

77-5

77-6

77-7

77-4	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS are subject to State of Nevada oversight through the Federal

Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), which was entered into in 1996 by

DOE, DoD, and the State of Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying

sites that have potential historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved

corrective actions, and instituting closure actions. Current and potential new activities

at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada are managed in compliance with numerous statutes,

regulations, orders, and policies that prevent environmental restoration sites from being

developed. For this reason the proposed pace of operations and new facilities proposed

under the Expanded Operations Alternative would not affect environmental restoration

sites at the NNSS, Tonopah Test Range, or Nevada Test and Training Range.

	 Specific activities associated with DOE/NNSA’s Environmental Restoration

Program, including the Soils, Industrial Sites, and UGTA Projects, are driven by the

FFACO. Because of this, the range of activities for the Environmental Restoration

Program is the same under all alternatives. Under the Expanded Operations

Alternative, DOE/NNSA considered the option of remediation to near-background

levels for several large soil contamination sites on USAF lands to analyze the

maximum potential amount of LLW that could be generated by the Soils Project. 

While the range of activities under the FFACO is set, the pace at which those activities

are accomplished is affected by annual appropriations from Congress.

	 The full FFACO may be accessed on the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

website at ndep.nv.gov/boff/ffco.htm.

77-5	 In the southern Nevada area, in the vicinity of the NNSS, there are a number of

sensitive locations for plants and animals. These areas include Bureau of Land

Management’s Ash Meadows and Amargosa Mesquite Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Desert National Wildlife Range

and Devils Hole National Wildlife Refuge. An analysis of potential impacts on

threatened and endangered species at these locations has been added to Chapter 5,

Sections 5.1.7.1.4, 5.1.7.2.4, and 5.1.7.3.4.

77-6	 A discussion of potential impacts on BLM Areas of Environmental Concern located

near the NNSS has been added to Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

Potential mitigation measures for impacts identified in this NNSS SWEIS may be found

in Chapter 7. In addition, DOE/NNSA will develop a detailed mitigation action plan,

as required by DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures in 10 CFR 1021.331.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-348

Commentor No. 77 (cont’d): Mark R. Spencer, Field Manager, Pahrump 

Field Office, Southern Nevada District Office, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management

77-7

cont’d

77-8

77-7 This NNSS SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of a commercial solar

power generation facility located in Area 25 of the NNSS. DOE/NNSA selected a

facility model for this SWEIS that provides a conservative estimate of impacts on

environmental resources such as groundwater use. The model proposed by any future

applicant could employ technologies that would result in markedly lower water use or

other impact types. However, this concept is evaluated in terms of general land use on

the NNSS. At this time, there are no active proposals from private-sector entities to

construct a solar power generation facility at the NNSS, and DOE/NNSA would not

pursue or allow construction of a facility without such a proposal. If a private-sector

proposal for a solar power generation facility were received in the future, it would

be subject to future NEPA review to address issues such as water availability and

compatibility with other existing land uses and activities. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, if a solar power generation facility is

proposed and constructed in Area 25 of the NNSS, it would permanently disturb about

10,000 acres, as shown in Chapter 5, Table 5–1. The site would be developed over

a number of years and would require a State of Nevada air quality permit for surface

area disturbance. The air quality permit would require strong mitigation activities,

including soil stabilization and the use of watering to minimize dust emissions. Once

developed, this acreage would be graded and stabilized to minimize soil erosion and

be maintained in an unvegetated condition. Emissions of particulate matter associated

with the construction of a solar power generation facility are reported in Table 5–38. 

The small increases in particulate matter emissions would not be expected to lead to

any violations of air quality standards in Nye County or in Death Valley National Park. 

77-8	 DOE/NNSA holds and exerts Federal reserved water rights to groundwater resources

located in hydrographic basins underlying the NNSS. These rights are associated

with the establishment of the NNSS (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and its associated

withdrawal of lands from public use. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.6.2, Hydrology – Groundwater, of this SWEIS provide estimates of the

amount of groundwater (expressed as perennial yield in terms of acre-feet per year)

underlying the NNSS, as well as historic and projected future demands on this

groundwater to support mission needs. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-349

Commentor No. 78: James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-1

78-2

78-1	 The Senior Executive Transportation Forum was established by the Secretary of

Energy in January 1998 to coordinate the efforts of DOE elements involved in the

transportation of radioactive materials and waste. In response to recommendations

from various DOE programs and external stakeholders, the forum agreed to evaluate

the shipping practices being used or planned for use throughout the Department,

document them, and, where appropriate, standardize them. The results of that effort

are reflected in DOE’s Radioactive Material Transportation Practices Manual for Use 

with DOE O 460.2A (DOE M 460.2-1A). This manual establishes a set of standard

transportation practices for DOE organizations to use in planning and executing offsite

shipments of radioactive materials, including radioactive waste. These practices

establish a standardized process and framework for interacting with state, tribal, and

local authorities, as well as transportation contractors and carriers, regarding DOE

radioactive material shipments. The manual was developed in a collaborative effort

with the State Regional Groups (Western Governors Association, Southern States

Energy Board, Midwest and Northeast Councils of State Governments) and tribal

representatives. DOE maintains a working relationship with the State Regional Groups

to address transportation planning issues as they arise. As California is a member of

the Western Governors Association, any issues on routing and emergency response

would be addressed through that venue. Use of the State Regional Groups ensures that

DOE/NNSA addresses concerns from one region to another when planning routing. It

should be noted that, for LLW, the carrier is responsible for the routing of the shipment

in accordance with DOT 49 CFR requirements. DOE does, however, provide specific

requirements in some cases, such as when the shipment enters Nevada and is headed

for the NNSS. 

78-2	 DOE’s Radioactive Material Transportation Practices Manual for Use with 

DOE O 460.2A (DOE M 460.2-1A) discusses the need for preplanning shipping

campaigns and stresses the need to provide information on planned shipments to

impacted states and tribes. The preferred method is the use of the Prospective

Shipment Report, which provides information regarding origin/destination, potential

routes (for LLW/MLLW; because the carrier is responsible for the routing, DOE

can only provide potential routes), shipment type, number of shipments, and

package type. DOE has established the Transportation Emergency Preparedness

Program to address these concerns and help ensure Federal, state, tribal, and local

responders have access to the plans, training, and technical assistance necessary to

safely, efficiently, and effectively respond to radiological transportation accidents. 

The Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program focuses training and outreach

along active or planned DOE transportation corridors and is coordinated with local
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-350

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency and state officials in the affected jurisdictions. The program actively works with the

corridor states and tribes to provide training, planning assistance and exercises. More

information on the Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program can be found at

www.em.doe.gov/otem.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-351

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-352

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-3

78-3

cont’d

78-4

78-5

78-3	 Impacts along the analyzed routes, including routes that pass through California, are

analyzed and presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, and in more detail in Appendix E.

The commentor is correct that the Expanded Operations Alternative reflects long-term

nuclear waste disposal forecasts at NNSS. These forecasts are typically conservative

estimates that provide DOE/NNSA flexibility to manage disposal operations. The

waste forecasts are provided by potential waste generators from across the DOE

Complex. DOE/NNSA performs transportation analyses to determine comparative

risks among alternatives using risks calculated for entire routes. The potential risks

associated with the Expanded Operations Alternative can therefore be compared

with the risks for maintaining the current level of waste shipments as analyzed

in the No Action Alternative. If DOE/NNSA determines that a major increase in

the number of shipments is indeed imminent, then this increase can be addressed

through consultations with the State Regional Groups as described in the response to

comment 78-1.

	 As described in Appendix E, Sections E.4 and E.4.1, route characteristics that are

important to the radiological risk assessment, and therefore are discriminating factors

when comparing the alternatives, include the total shipment distance and population

distribution along the route. The population distribution incorporates rural, suburban

and urban areas, thereby incorporating population centers along the route. The

population density along each analyzed route was projected to 2016, assuming

state-level population growth rates between 2000 and 2010. The risk over the entire

transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local area; therefore,

analysis of specific local hazards on many possible routes is neither practical nor

necessary for the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. The transportation of LLW/MLLW

and other radioactive materials would use existing highways and railroads, and, as

such, would represent a small fraction of the existing national and local highway and

railway traffic. Because no new land acquisition and construction would be required

to accommodate these shipments, this SWEIS focuses on potential impacts on

human health and safety and the potential for accidents along shipment routes. This

approach is consistent with CEQ’s guidance to agencies that EISs “focus on significant

environmental issues and alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.1) and discuss impacts “in

proportion to their significance” (40 CFR 1502.2(b)). Appendix E, Section E.6, was

revised to include additional discussion of this point. 

In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for emergency

situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA NSO has

provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country, including local
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-353

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-5

cont’d

and county participants from California. Please refer to the response to comment 78-1

regarding the State Regional Group’s role as the venue for addressing transportation

planning issues as they arise. 

78-4	 For decisions impacting the western states, DOE will use the established process of

coordinating discussions and decisions through the Western Governors Association

and the other State Regional Groups and affected tribes, as needed. As stated in the

response to comment 78-1, use of the State Regional Groups ensures that DOE/NNSA

addresses concerns from one region to another when planning routing. It should

be noted that, for LLW, the carrier is responsible for the routing of the shipment in

accordance with DOT 49 CFR requirements. DOE does, however, provide specific

requirements in some cases, such as when the shipment enters Nevada and is headed

for the NNSS.

78-5	 Appendix E, Section E.3.3, was updated to include a discussion of the standards that

carriers should use in determining transport routes, as described in DOE’s Radioactive 

Material Transportation Practices Manual for Use with DOE O 460.2A. It is the

carrier’s responsibility to make a determination of the suitability of CA-127 for

transporting materials and wastes to and from the NNSS. Specific concerns that the

State of California may have regarding this route can be addressed through the State

Regional Groups. Occasionally, highway route controlled quantity shipments are

made to the NNSS. DOE/NNSA recognizes that highway route controlled quantity

shipments must follow designated routes in compliance with DOT and state laws

and regulations, including state permitting. All DOE generators and their shipping

contractors are expected to comply with applicable requirements.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-354

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-5

cont’d

78-6 78-6	 The State of California’s concerns regarding the funding of emergency response

preparation are noted. These concerns should be addressed through the State

Regional Groups (Western Governors Association, Southern States Energy Board,

Midwest and Northeast Councils of State Governments) and are not germane to

the analyses performed in this NNSS SWEIS. Note that DOE has established the

Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program to address concerns related to

emergency preparedness and help ensure Federal, state, tribal, and local responders

have access to the plans, training, and technical assistance necessary to safely,

efficiently, and effectively respond to radiological transportation accidents. The

Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program focuses training and outreach

along active or planned DOE transportation corridors and is coordinated with local

and state officials in the affected jurisdictions. The program actively works with

the corridor states and tribes to provide training, planning assistance and exercises.

More information on the Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program can be

found at www.em.doe.gov/otem.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-355

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-7

78-8

78-10

78-9

78-7	 DOE/NNSA reiterates that no decisions on routing of LLW/MLLW and other

radiological materials will be made as part of this NEPA process. As discussed

in Appendix E, Section E.6.7 of the Final NNSS SWEIS, the risk over the entire

transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local area; therefore,

analysis of specific local hazards on many possible routes is neither practical nor

necessary for the purposes of the NNSS SWEIS. Because of the uncertainties

associated with performing a transportation analysis (as presented in Appendix E,

Section E.11), the results obtained should only be used to make order-of-magnitude

comparisons among the alternatives. The alternatives were not intended or developed

to provide a comparative analysis of the potential impacts of using different

transportation routes from the various DOE sites that may send waste to the NNSS

for disposal. Furthermore, as discussed in the response to comment 78-1, the routes

actually used are selected by the carrier. Route selection can be influenced by a

number of factors such as weather and road conditions, and these factors change over

time.

	 The routes analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS represent the most commonly used routes for

LLW/MLLW shipments from various regions of the country. Appendix E, Section E.4,

describes the use of the TRAGIS computer code to identify routes to be analyzed and

determine the population along the analyzed routes based on census data. Population

densities were projected to 2016 based on population growth rates between 2000

and 2010. Any urban areas along the analyzed routes were included in the analysis. 

Section E.4.1 explains that, for different regions of the country, a single location

was assumed as the origin for all waste shipments from that region in the analysis;

those locations were selected to provide a conservative (higher-result) estimate of

impacts. For example, all waste originating at sites in California was modeled as being

transported from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, although some of this

waste would travel much shorter distances (e.g., from General Atomics in San Diego). 

The transportation analysis in this NNSS SWEIS provides a reasonable, conservative

analysis that is representative of the potential impacts that could occur.

78-8	 The analysis approach to transportation of radioactive waste is appropriate for an EIS

and is consistent with standard practice for such analyses. Transportation analyses

performed in support of DOE NEPA activities consider the potential impacts on

the population along the transportation routes, incorporating any urban areas along

those routes. The analyzed route for LLW/MLLW shipments from DOE facilities in

California was assumed to originate from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

which is in the San Francisco Bay Area. The population along the routes was

projected to the year 2016. Incident-free and accident risks were calculated using the
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-356

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-10

cont’d

78-11

78-13

78-12

RADTRAN computer code and accounted for this population; the results are shown in

Appendix E, Table E–13. 

In this NNSS SWEIS, analyses were performed to show the incident-free impacts

on different types of MEIs that could be encountered along a route, as described in

Appendix E, Section E.5.3. These analyses were performed taking into consideration

all cargo types (e.g., shipments of LLW, TRU waste, different types of special nuclear

materials). Based on the data shown in Table E–15, a person within 98 feet of a truck

route, which would be an individual residing along the edge of an interconnecting

highway, would receive a maximum dose of 2.4 × 10-7 rem per shipment for the

highest-dose cargo at the regulatory dose limit set by DOT, assuming the individual

were outside and directly exposed to the emanating radiation from the cargo. If

that individual were exposed to all 80,000 shipments analyzed under the Expanded

Operations Alternative, then the total dose would be about 20 millirem over a 10‐year

period. Another MEI that was considered was someone in vehicle adjacent to a

radioactive waste shipment in a traffic jam for a half-hour. As shown in Table E–15,

this individual would receive a dose of 0.0097 rem per half-hour. These results for

MEIs are indicative of individual exposures along the routes, regardless of where they

would occur.

	 The consequences of potential accidents with the greatest impacts (maximum

foreseeable accident) were calculated, and the results are shown in Appendix E,

Table E–16, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. This analysis used census data projected to

the year 2016, as well as generic atmospheric conditions as described in Section E.6.4,

because an accident could occur at any location along a route. To estimate the most

conservative (greatest) impacts, neutral atmospheric conditions were assumed when

calculating impacts on the population within a 50-mile radius of the accident, and

stable atmospheric conditions were assumed when considering impacts on a maximally

exposed individual.

78-9	 Rail transport was analyzed for routes that traverse California, as depicted in

Appendix E, Figure E–3. As stated in Section E.4.1, Barstow, California, was used as

a proxy site for Parker, Arizona, to account for a rail-to-truck transfer point in Parker

in effect analyzing a site in California. As addressed in the response to comment 78-3,

risk over the entire transportation route is generally not dominated by one specific local

area; therefore, analysis of specific local hazards is neither practical nor necessary for

the purposes of this NNSS SWEIS. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-357

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

78-13

cont’d

78-14

78-15

	 While operations at a rail-to-truck transfer station were not specifically analyzed in this

NNSS SWEIS, DOE did publish two reports regarding operations at this type of facility. 

In the first report, Life-Cycle Cost and Risk Analysis of Alternative Configurations for 

Shipping Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999a), and as

shown in Appendix E, Table E–15, of this NNSS SWEIS, the dose to a transloading

facility worker would be up to 3.4 × 10-4 person-rem per container transferred. In

a second report, Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive 

Waste to the Nevada Test Site (DOE 1999b), accident consequences associated with

a large fire near the LLW shipping containers were provided. The consequences to a

population within 50 miles would be no (up to 1.7 × 10‐4) fatalities for a population

of about 195,000 people. DOE has added this information to Appendix E of the

Final NNSS SWEIS.

78-10	 The transportation analysis analyzes rail shipment of LLW/MLLW in Type A packages. 

As discussed in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, requirements for Type A packages are

detailed in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I. Commonly used Type A packages include

55-gallon drums and steel boxes. The regulations and limits on the radioactive

contents of Type A packages apply to transport of material by either truck or rail. 

Similar to the accident analysis for truck transport, the analysis of rail transport is

based on a range of accidents of various frequencies and severities. Consequently,

the human health impacts presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–11, do reflect consideration

of statistics specific to rail transport of the waste. As implied in the response to

comment 78-3, if waste were transported by rail, the rail companies would use existing

railroads and these shipments would represent a small fraction of the existing national

and local railway traffic. 

78-11	 Information on the radionuclide inventories used in the analysis is provided in

Appendix E, Section E.4.2, while Section E.6.6 addresses acts of sabotage or terrorism. 

DOE used conservative assumptions in determining the radionuclide inventory for

LLW/MLLW. As stated in Section E.4.2, many different radioactive waste streams,

each with a unique radionuclide inventory, would be transported to the NNSS for

disposal. To provide conservatism, the largest concentration of each radionuclide

across all contact-handled LLW streams received in 2009 was assumed to be present

in a shipment. The radionuclide concentration of each radioisotope was proportionally

adjusted for each type of container based on container volume. The purpose of

this assumption was to maximize the potential accident consequences. The actual

inventory for each shipment would likely be less than the assumed inventory listed in

Appendix E, Table E–5. Therefore, one should not consider the inventory in Table E–5

for anything other than its intended purpose. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-358

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency 	 This NNSS SWEIS does not list limits on radionuclides to be transported to and

disposed at the NNSS; instead, limits are incorporated by reference to existing

controlling documents. As stated in Appendix E, Section E.3.1, radioactive materials

shipped in Type A packages are subject to specific radioactivity quantity limits

identified as A1 and A2 values in 49 CFR 173.435 (e.g., 8.1 curies of strontium-90

per Type A package). Wastes containing radionuclides in quantities exceeding Type A

limits are shipped in Type B packages. There is no regulatory limit in 49 CFR Part 173

on the total curies of strontium-90 in a Type B package, but the certificate of

compliance for a given Type B package may limit the curie content. Type B packages

are designed and tested to withstand the conditions of both normal transport and

accident conditions. Additionally, as stated in Section E.4.2, waste shipped for disposal

would have to meet the NNSS WAC. As indicated above, the analysis assumes a

single conservative concentration value for all contact-handled LLW and MLLW

that is intended to encompass the characteristics of future shipments; specific origins,

numbers, and routes of shipments with high concentrations of strontium-90 over the

next 10 years are not known.

	 The accident risks shown in Appendix E, Table E–13, include the range of all possible

accidents, regardless of their likelihood. It was assumed that all Type A packages

containing LLW/MLLW in a shipment release their contents during an accident. 

Table E–16 summarizes the consequences associated with the most severe accident

conditions. In both types of accident analysis, the results show that there would be no

latent cancer fatalities.

	 The health effects in terms of consequences of a maximum reasonably foreseeable

accident are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5–13. The strontium-90 inventory used

in this accident, assuming the inventory concentration in Table E–5, would be about

1,750 curies. In this accident, all radioactive materials in the cargo were assumed to

be at risk of being released. As stated in Section E.6.5, radiological consequences

were calculated by assigning radionuclide release fractions on the basis of the type of

waste, the type of shipping container, and the accident severity category; the quantity

of strontium-90 released in the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident reasonably

foreseeable accident, with a likelihood of about 1.2 in a million years in a suburban

area within the state of Nevada, was estimated to be 27 person-rem, as shown in

Table 5–13. Table 5–13 also shows the consequence of this accident in an urban area

anywhere along the transportation route to be a dose of 180 person-rem (the probability

of this accident occurring along an urban route in Nevada is less than 1 chance in

10 million and was not evaluated separately). The accident consequences are based
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-359

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency on no evacuations or relocation of the exposed population. If such activities were

performed, the results presented in Table 5–13 would be less.

	 Economic impacts of an accident include direct costs associated with radiation surveys,

cleanup, and continued monitoring, as well as indirect costs such as temporary or

longer-term relocation of residents, temporary or longer-term loss of employment,

destruction or quarantine of agricultural products, land use restrictions, and public

health and medical care. The extent of contamination and the related costs would

depend on many factors, including the quantity and type of radioactive material

involved, type of release (spill, fire), location of the accident, meteorological

conditions, and surrounding land uses. Because of the myriad of factors associated with

a specific accident, a full quantitative, site-specific, accident analysis that incorporates

emergency response and cleanup activities was not performed for this NNSS SWEIS.

Appendix E, Section E.6, was revised to include additional discussion of this point.

	 The NNSS currently does not accept GTCC waste for disposal. Different potential

disposal sites for GTCC waste, including the NNSS, are evaluated in the Draft GTCC 

(DOE/EIS-0375). DOE has not yet made a decision regarding GTCC waste

disposition; therefore, rather than evaluating GTCC waste management at the

NNSS as a mission assigned to the NSO, it is included as a reasonably foreseeable

future action and addressed in Chapter 6, “Cumulative Impacts.” Section 6.2.1.2

includes a description of the facility, and Section 6.3 presents the cumulative

impacts of the activities evaluated in this NNSS SWEIS, as well as other activities,

including construction and operation of a GTCC disposal facility. The Draft GTCC EIS 

(DOE/EIS-0375) evaluates a GTCC LLW disposal site at the NNSS, but it does not

include an alternative for development of such a disposal site at Yucca Mountain.

78-12	 DOE/NNSA does not believe that the effects on groundwater of proposed activities

at the NNSS would extend to the areas identified by the commentor, and that the

description of the affected environment should therefore extend to that range. 

As discussed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.2.1, 5.1.6.2.2, and 5.1.6.2.3, of this

NNSS SWEIS, no direct or indirect impacts on groundwater were identified for

activities proposed under any of the three alternatives.

	 The ROI for cumulative effects, as shown in Chapter 6, Figure 6–1, includes portions

of Inyo County, California, and Death Valley National Park. Although no direct or

indirect impacts on groundwater were identified for any of the actions proposed in

this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA did analyze the impacts of past underground nuclear

weapons tests in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-360

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency 	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing

on the NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information

developed under the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe

current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The

text has been modified to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas,

and Figures 4–20 and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of

radioactively contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the

concentrations of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs

on and around the NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised

to incorporate the additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of

cumulative impacts on groundwater.

	 DOE/NNSA is addressing the issue of groundwater contamination through the

FFACO. Under the FFACO, DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, developed a

UGTA Corrective Action Strategy to address the contamination created by the testing

of nuclear devices in shafts and tunnels at the NNSS. The objective of the UGTA

Corrective Action Strategy is to analyze and evaluate each UGTA CAU through a

combination of data and information collection and evaluation, as well as modeling of

groundwater flow and contaminant transport. As noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2,

and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA’s UGTA Project, in

compliance with the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, is conducting a longterm effort to characterize the levels and flow directions and rates of groundwater that

was contaminated by underground nuclear weapons testing at the NNSS. Pursuant

to the terms, conditions, and goals of the FFACO, DOE/NNSA will characterize

and monitor the groundwater, both on and off of the NNSS, with the goal of first

establishing a “contaminant boundary” and, based on that boundary, establishing a

“regulatory boundary” for groundwater contamination. The contaminant boundary

is defined as a probabilistic model-forecast perimeter and a lower hydrostratigraphic

unit boundary that delineates the extent of radionuclide-contaminated groundwater

(i.e., water exceeding the SDWA radiological standards) from underground testing

over the next 1,000 years (FFACO 2011). Ultimately, DOE/NNSA and NDEP will

develop a regulatory boundary for each CAU, which would provide protection for the

public and the environment from the effects of migration of radioactive contaminants. 

If radionuclides were to reach this boundary, NNSA/NSO would submit to NDEP for

approval a plan to meet specific CAU regulatory boundary objectives (FFACO 2011). 

As noted in Section 4.1.6.2, a long-term closure monitoring well network will be

designed in consultation with NDEP, installed, and used for monitoring groundwater
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-361

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency to ensure public health and safety. Additional information has been added in

Section 6.3.6.2 to address the potential extent of radiological contamination that would

exceed the contaminant boundary levels over the next 1,000 years in the Frenchman

Flat and Pahute Mesa areas of the NNSS. Based on these modeled estimates, it is

unlikely that radiologically contaminated groundwater exceeding Safe Drinking Water

Standards would reach areas where it would be used by the public, based on the current

boundaries of the NNSS and Nevada Test and Training Range.

	 The commentor mentions specific concerns for potential groundwater contamination

from DOE/NNSA radioactive waste disposal activities at the NNSS. As noted in

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.1.4, and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, of this NNSS SWEIS, due

to the high evapotranspiration rate in the area of the NNSS radioactive waste disposal

facilities, water does not percolate beyond the root zone (i.e., about the first 6 feet from

the surface), and there is no pathway to groundwater for contaminants. 

78-13	 DOE/NNSA does take into account the potential impacts of seismic events on its

activities at all of its facilities in the state of Nevada. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2.3,

Faulting and Seismic Activity, in this NNSS SWEIS addresses seismicity at the NNSS

and discusses relevant policies, orders, standards, and guidelines that are followed

when planning activities at the NNSS. Sections 4.2.5.2.2, 4.3.5.2.2, and 4.4.5.2.2

address seismic activity at the Remote Sensing Laboratory, North Las Vegas Facility,

and TTR, respectively.

78-14	 To provide a conservative estimate (one that would ensure that potential impacts

would not be underestimated) of the potential volume of radioactive waste that could

be disposed at the NNSS, DOE/NNSA based its Expanded Operations Alternative for

these wastes as described in Appendix A, Section A.2.2.1: “...(1) projections of the

respective waste types that are designated for disposal at the NNSS, as well as those

without a designated disposal location, as projected in DOE’s Waste Information

Management System Database as of April 2010, and (2) input from prospective waste

generators regarding potential waste streams and/or volumes that are not currently

included in the database.” DOE/NNSA recognizes that many of the waste streams

that are currently without a designated disposal location will be disposed in onsite

facilities or at permitted commercial radioactive waste disposal facilities. Only a

small percentage of the LLW/MLLW generated by DOE is disposed at the NNSS. 

Approximately 90 percent of DOE’s annual generation of such waste is disposed at

the site where it is generated. Of the remaining 10 percent, approximately one-half is

disposed at a commercial disposal facility in Clive, Utah, and the balance is disposed
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-362

Commentor No. 78 (cont’d): James D. Boyd, Vice Chair, 

State Liason to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

State of California – Natural Resources Agency at the NNSS. Potential disposal decisions for DOE/NNSA radioactive wastes and their

potential impacts are addressed in NEPA analyses prepared by the generators. The

cumulative impacts of the volumes of radioactive waste disposed under the Expanded

Operations Alternative are addressed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3, of this NNSS SWEIS.

78-15	 DOE/NNSA will contact the California counties most affected by waste transport to

the NNSS and invite them to participate in the Transportation Working Group. As

members, they would receive routine updates of information provided to the group.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-363

Commentor No. 79: Dave Taylor, Senior Vice President, 

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc.

79-1

79-2

79-3

79-4

79-1	 Comment noted.

79-2	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

79-3	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for the Environmental

Management Mission under the Expanded Operations Alternative. Intentional

destructive acts are addressed in this NNSS SWEIS. Appendix E, Section E.6.6,

discusses acts of sabotage or terrorism as part of the transportation analysis. 

79-4	 As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.1, General Site Support and Infrastructure

Program under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE/NNSA would maintain the

existing infrastructure, provide site security, and manage all applicable existing permits

and agreements for the former Yucca Mountain site.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-364

Commentor No. 80: David Culp, Legislative Representative, 

Friends Committee on National Legislation

80-1

80-2

80-1	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s preferences for dismantlement of

facilities meant for use in testing nuclear weapons at the NNSS. Maintaining a

capability to test a nuclear weapon is a matter of national policy and outside the scope

of this NNSS SWEIS. 

80-2	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added to Chapter 3, Section 3.0. However, DOE/NNSA does propose to continue

to support the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program under all of the

alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS, as described in Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.2.1.1,

and 3.3.1.1.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-365

Commentor No. 80 (cont’d): David Culp, Legislative Representative, 

Friends Committee on National Legislation

80-2

cont’d

80-3

80-4

80-5

80-3	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. The missions, programs, projects, and

activities that are proposed under all three alternatives would support national security,

emergency preparedness, public safety, environmental remediation, other research and

development, and other purposes.

80-4	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, DOE/NNSA at the NNSS is required to fulfill

core missions established by Congress and the President. One of those missions is to

maintain readiness and the capability to conduct underground nuclear weapons tests if

so directed by the President.

80-5	 Comment noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-366

Commentor No. 80 (cont’d): David Culp, Legislative Representative, 

Friends Committee on National Legislation

80-5

cont’d

80-2

cont’d

80-6

80-7

80-6	 DOE/NNSA has for many years used the capabilities of the NNSS for purposes

related to treaty verification, arms control, and nonproliferation of nuclear and other

weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Under the No Action Alternative, as noted

in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.2, DOE/NNSA would continue these activities: “A key

component of nonproliferation activities would be the use of existing facilities as part

of an Arms Control Treaty Verification Test Bed dedicated to supporting U.S. arms

control initiatives and commitments. This component would support design and

certification of treaty verification technology, training of inspectors, and development

of arms control confidence-building measures.” Under the Expanded Operations

Alternative, DOE/NNSA would increase its support for these treaty verification,

arms control, and nonproliferation activities (see Section 3.2.1.2). Because of the

importance of these activities to national and global security, DOE/NNSA does

not propose any reduction for them under the Reduced Operations Alternative (see

Section 3.3.1.2).

80-7	 As noted in the response to comment 80-2, above, DOE/NNSA acknowledges the

commentor’s preferences for dismantlement of facilities meant for use in testing

nuclear weapons at the NNSS. Maintaining a capability to test a nuclear weapon is a

matter of national policy and is outside the scope of this NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-367

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 80 (cont’d): David Culp, Legislative Representative, 

Friends Committee on National Legislation

80-2

cont’d

80-5

cont’d

80-4

cont’d

80-6

cont’d

80-3

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-368

Commentor No. 81: Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service

81-1

81-1	 Many animals, particularly larger mammals and birds are able to and do move freely

between the NNSS and adjacent and nearby offsite areas, including the Nevada Test

and Training Range and Desert National Wildlife Range (Desert NWR). In addition,

seeds from plants on the NNSS may be transported by wind, animals, or other

mechanisms to these same offsite areas. Some of those animals and seeds may be

exposed to areas of radioactive soils and/or contain radionuclides from past nuclear

weapons testing activities at the NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.5, describes the effects

of past radiological tests and project activities at the NNSS on plants and animals, and

Section 4.1.7.6 addresses DOE/NNSA’s ongoing program for monitoring plants and

animals for effects from radioactivity. 

The results of this ongoing monitoring program have consistently demonstrated

that, while plants and animals that inhabit radiological sites or radioactive waste

containment covers may have elevated concentrations of radionuclides in their bodies,

the concentrations are below levels considered harmful to the health of the plants or

animals. Based on the results of many years of monitoring plants and animals within

and outside of areas of radioactive contamination, it is not likely that any animals that

migrate or seeds that are transported between NNSS and Desert NWR would pose

any threat to other wildlife and/or plants at that location. Additional information has

been included in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.6, of this Final NNSS SWEIS to support this

conclusion. Further, appropriate portions of Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.7.1.4, 5.1.7.2.4,

and 5.1.7.3.4, have been revised to include an assessment of radiological impacts on

biota under each of the alternatives.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-369

Commentor No. 81 (cont’d): Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service

81-1

cont’d

81-2

81-3

81-4

81-5

81-6

81-2	 Impacts on biological resources from all activities considered in this SWEIS, including

radioactive waste management activities, are addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.7.1,

5.1.7.2, and 5.1.7.3, of this NNSS SWEIS. Potential impacts on desert tortoises and

other sensitive and/or protected species under the No Action, Expanded Operations,

and Reduced Operations Alternatives are addressed in Sections 5.1.7.1.3, 5.1.7.2.3,

and 5.1.7.3.3. Information related to the impact assessment methodology for desert

tortoises is provided in Section 5.1.7.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.2, has been revised to include additional information specific

to golden eagles and desert bighorn sheep at the NNSS.

81-3	 The definitions for “Reserved Zone” and “Research, Test, and Experiment Zone,”

which is the proposed new designation for Area 15 under the Expanded Operations

Alternative, are defined in Chapter 4, Table 4–1. Currently, tests and experiments

related to verification of various nuclear weapons-related treaties are being conducted

in Area 15. It is anticipated that these activities would continue for the foreseeable

future. For this reason, DOE/NNSA has proposed to change the land use zone

designation for Area 15 from Reserved to Research, Test, and Experiment.

The primary pathways whereby activities at the NNSS could potentially cause

impacts at the Desert NWR are surface-water runoff, groundwater, air emissions, and

movement of contaminated biota between the sites. There are no activities planned

in Area 15 that would result in discharges to surface waters. Further, surface-water

flows from Area 15 are predominantly to the south-southwest toward Yucca Flat or

to the east-northeast toward Groom Lake, so runoff from Area 15 would not affect

the Desert NWR. Groundwater contaminated by underground nuclear testing at the

NNSS is not likely to affect plants or animals at the NNSS or Desert NWR based on

modeling conducted for the Frenchman Flat corrective action unit, which is addressed

specifically in the response to comment 81-4, below and discussed in Sections 4.1.6.2

and 6.3.6.2 of this SWEIS. In addition, as noted in the response to comment 81-1,

above, although animals may migrate between the NNSS and Desert NWR, ongoing

monitoring of animals that inhabit radioactive sites or radioactive waste containment

covers at the NNSS may show that they have elevated concentrations of radionuclides

in their bodies, but the concentrations are below levels considered harmful to the

health of the animals. The primary impacts from NNSS activities that could affect

Desert NWR resources would be via emissions to the air. As noted in Chapter 5,

Sections 5.1.8.1, 5.1.8.2, and 5.1.8.3, under all of the alternatives addressed in this

NNSS SWEIS, air emissions at the boundary of the NNSS would be well within

applicable regulatory limits and would be unlikely to impact plants, animals, or other

resources at the Desert NWR.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-370

Commentor No. 81 (cont’d): Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service

81-6

cont’d

81-7

81-8

81-9

81-10

81-4	 In this final SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has included new graphics (Figure 4–20 in

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and Figure 6–3 in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2) to show the

projected extent of the radioactive contaminant plume from the Frenchman Flat CAU

in 1,000 years. As may be seen in both figures, groundwater containing contamination

from underground nuclear testing is not expected to reach the western boundary of the

Desert National Wildlife Range within the next 1,000 years.

81-5	 The analysis in this SWEIS has convinced DOE/NNSA that there would be no

impacts on plants or animals that could affect Desert NWR; therefore, DOE/NNSA

believes it is not necessary to develop the requested mitigation action plan. However,

DOE/NNSA will be conducting characterization of the Small Boy site during 2012

and will determine whether there is elevated soil radioactivity on DNWR. If such

contamination is found and determined to be of sufficient magnitude to potentially

impact wildlife, DOE/NNSA will work with the USFWS to develop specific mitigation

measures. A statement to this effect has been included in Chapter 7, Section 7.7, of

this Final NNSS SWEIS. In addition, DOE/NNSA will review the USFWS Mitigation

Policy and incorporate applicable principles into the overall mitigation action plan

for the NNSS, which will be prepared in accordance with DOE’s requirements at

10 CFR 1021.331. Section 7.0 of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been modified to reflect

DOE/NNSA’s intentions to prepare a mitigation action plan.

81-6	 It is important to understand that as noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.0, of this

NNSS SWEIS there is no specific proposal for a commercial solar power generation

project at the NNSS at this time. Further, any commercial solar power generation

project at the NNSS would be required to obtain its own appropriation for groundwater

withdrawal from the Nevada State Engineer and would be subject to a projectspecific NEPA review. The purpose of the analyses of commercial solar power

generation facility development in this SWEIS is to ensure consideration of potential

environmental impacts in any decision by DOE/NNSA to support or not support a

proposal by a commercial entity for one or more solar power generation facilities at

the NNSS during the next 10 years. Potential groundwater withdrawal volumes from

ongoing and potential future activities, including potential commercial solar power

generation facilities on the NNSS, are addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.2.1,

5.1.6.2.2, and 5.1.6.2.3, of this NNSS SWEIS. The potential cumulative impact of

groundwater withdrawals resulting from continuation of current and potential new

activities at the NNSS and other reasonably foreseeable future actions by others are

addressed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2. As noted by the commentor, in the southern

Nevada area, in the vicinity of the NNSS, there are a number of sensitive locations for

plants and animals. These areas include Bureau of Land Management’s Ash Meadows
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-371

Commentor No. 81 (cont’d): Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service

81-12

81-10

cont’d

81-11

81-13

81-14

81-15

and Amargosa Mesquite Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Desert National Wildlife Range and Devils Hole National Wildlife

Refuge. An analysis of potential impacts on threatened and endangered species at

these offsite areas has been added in Sections 5.1.7.1.4, 5.1.7.2.4, and 5.1.7.3.4.

81-7	 Potential impacts on desert tortoises are addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.7,

5.1.7.1.3, 5.1.7.2.3, and 5.1.7.3.3, of this NNSS SWEIS. As noted in the response to

comment 80-3 above, designation as a “Reserved Zone” does not preclude activities

in an area. Although, under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE/NNSA would

redesignate an area of about 36,900 acres as a “Renewable Energy Zone,” there would

be no land disturbance associated with that redesignation unless a specific project was

proposed. This NNSS SWEIS addresses, at a programmatic level, the development of

a commercial solar power generation facility in Area 25 of the NNSS; the potential

impacts on desert tortoises from such a project are addressed in the above-noted

sections of this Final NNSS SWEIS. As it has done since the desert tortoise was

initially listed as a threatened species, DOE/NNSA will take positive steps to ensure

its activities do not threaten the continued existence of the species by implementation

of its Desert Tortoise Compliance Program and adherence to the NNSS Biological

Opinion (USFWS 2009). Additional information has been provided in Section 5.1.7 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS to better describe historical impacts on desert tortoises at the

NNSS and DOE/NNSA’s Desert Tortoise Compliance Program.

81-8	 DOE/NNSA will continue to implement its Desert Tortoise Compliance Program,

as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7, of this NNSS SWEIS, and will comply with

the terms and conditions of the NNSS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009) to ensure

protection of the desert tortoise on the NNSS.

81-9	 A mitigation measure has been added to Chapter 7, Section 7.7, Mitigation, to capture

the recommendation of the USFWS.

81-10	 As noted in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7, and Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, DOE/NNSA

annually conducts surveys of the NNSS to assess the hazards of wildland fires. 

Those surveys are conducted by qualified plant ecologists who additionally

survey for noxious or invasive plant species populations. In addition, invasion of

disturbed areas by invasive species is acknowledged in Section 5.1.7. When such

populations are identified during the survey, NNSS Maintenance is notified and may

undertake appropriate steps (i.e., application of herbicides or mechanical removal) to

selectively eradicate the target plants. Additional information has been included in

Sections 4.1.7 and 5.1.7 to describe the noxious/invasive weed control process at the
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-372

Commentor No. 81 (cont’d): Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service NNSS. DOE/NNSA does take positive steps to restore disturbed habitat on the NNSS

using native species appropriate to the area being revegetated. Revegetated areas are

monitored to determine their success and to gain data to inform future revegetation

efforts and improve their success. The annual Ecological Monitoring and Compliance

Program Report includes information regarding restoration of newly disturbed lands

and monitoring of previously revegetated areas.

81-11	 DOE/NNSA does take positive steps to restore disturbed desert tortoise and other

habitat on the NNSS. The annual Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program

Report includes information regarding restoration of newly disturbed lands and

monitoring of previously revegetated areas, as well as mitigation for loss of desert

tortoise habitat. The NNSS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009) requires mitigation for

loss of tortoise habitat resulting from DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS; to meet this

requirement, DOE/NNSA may perform either of two mitigation options: (1) prepay

funds into the Desert Tortoise Mitigation Fund administered by Clark County (the 2011

rate was $786.00 per acre disturbed), or (2) prepay mitigation funds at the current rate,

then revegetate disturbed habitat following specified criteria; once the revegetation is

successful, the money prepaid for mitigation will be refunded. DOE/NNSA is aware

of the new desert tortoise recovery plan and has been coordinating with USFWS and

others involved in the recovery of the species. A description of DOE/NNSA’s activities

related to habitat restoration activities has been added to Chapter 5, Section 5.1.7, and

Chapter 7, Section 7.7, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

81-12	 Potential impacts on the desert tortoise are addressed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.7,

5.1.7.1.3, 5.1.7.2.3, and 5.1.7.3.3, of this NNSS SWEIS.

81-13	 Chapter 6, Section 6.3.7, of this NNSS SWEIS addresses cumulative impacts on the

desert tortoise from actions proposed in this SWEIS and other reasonably foreseeable

future actions.

81-14	 As stated in the response to comment 81-6, above, Chapter 3, Section 3.0, of

this NNSS SWEIS explains that there is no specific proposal for a commercial

solar power generation project at the NNSS at this time. The purpose of the

analyses of commercial solar power generation facility development in this

SWEIS is to ensure consideration of potential environmental impacts in any decision

by DOE/NNSA to support or not support a proposal by a commercial entity for one

or more commercial solar power generation facilities at the NNSS, if such a proposal

were to be forthcoming during the next 10 years. Each alternative in this NNSS SWEIS

addresses commercial-scale projects (the size of the potential facility varies with each
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-373

Commentor No. 81 (cont’d): Shaun Sanchez, Complex Manager 

and Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service alternative). Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.7.1.3, 5.1.7.2.3, and 5.1.7.3.3, address potential

impacts on desert tortoises from a commercial solar power generation facility at

a programmatic level. As stated in Section 5.1.7 and the cited sections, based on

continued implementation of DOE/NNSA’s Desert Tortoise Compliance Program,

impacts on desert tortoises would be due to harassment from being relocated by trained

tortoise biologists. If a commercial solar power generation facility were proposed at

any time in the future, it would be subject to a project-specific analysis under NEPA,

which would address the specific potential impacts of the proposed project. Further,

the proponent of a commercial solar power generation facility would be required to

consult with USFWS to obtain a project-specific Biological Opinion. DOE/NNSA

believes the level of analysis in this NNSS SWEIS is appropriate, given the level

of uncertainty associated with potential development of a commercial solar power

generation facility at the NNSS. Text has been added in the above noted Sections to

clarify that “harassment” means “relocation” or “translocation” of desert tortoises, and

that there may be impacts associated with that action.

81-15	 The two proposed solar power development areas for which USFWS earlier issued

biological opinions were either terminated or indefinitely postponed. There are no

plans at this time to identify additional utility-scale energy project areas beyond

those identified in this SWEIS. While DOE/NNSA does not specifically identify

exclusion areas, DOE/NNSA does identify areas where solar projects could be

allowed. If a commercial entity expresses interest in developing a commercial solar

power generation facility, DOE/NNSA would fully coordinate with BLM before

such a decision would be made. Should DOE/NNSA and BLM decide to go forward

with a commercial solar power generation facility, a project-specific NEPA review

would be required. Specific measures to minimize and mitigate habitat loss would be

incorporated into any future project-specific NEPA reviews. DOE/NNSA has added

a statement to Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” that for any future solar power

development, mitigation measures provided in the BLM-DOE Solar Energy PEIS

would be incorporated, as applicable. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-374

Commentor No. 82: Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information Office

82-1

82-2

82-3

82-1	 DOE has not been directed by Congress or the President to consider alternative uses

of the Yucca Mountain site and only retains an obligation to reclaim lands disturbed

by its past activities and remediate the infrastructure and buildings associated with

the former Yucca Mountain Repository Project. Once funds have been appropriated

by Congress, DOE would prepare its detailed approach to reclaiming the lands and

remediating the infrastructure and buildings, and then undertake a NEPA review, as

appropriate. Chapter 1, Table 1–2, and Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2, have been clarified in

this regard. Remediation of the former Yucca Mountain site, as addressed in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent 

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

Nevada (DOE/EIS-250-F), is described in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1.3 and included in

the assessment of cumulative impacts in Section 6.3.

	 Although future uses of the Yucca Mountain site are not evaluated in this SWEIS,

under the General Site Support and Infrastructure Program for each alternative

(Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3.1, 3.2.3.1, and 3.3.3.1), DOE/NNSA would maintain the

existing infrastructure, provide site security, and manage all applicable existing permits

and agreements for the former Yucca Mountain site.

82-2	 Chapter 4 of this NNSS SWEIS describes the current environmental conditions at

the NNSS, which includes residual impacts related to past nuclear weapons testing

activities as well as impacts from ongoing activities. The No Action Alternative reflects

the use of existing facilities and ongoing projects to maintain operations consistent

with those experienced in recent years at the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada;

therefore, the impacts discussed in Chapter 5, of this NNSS SWEIS for the No Action

Alternative under each resource area are those that result from current operations

projected over the next 10 years. The cumulative impacts assessment in Chapter 6,

Section 6.3, addresses the incremental impacts of the proposed actions when added

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI. The

cumulative impacts analysis addresses the full range of potentially affected resources,

including soil, surface waters, groundwater, and air quality. 

82-3	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and current knowledge of the extent of both radiological and chemical surface

soil contamination. Figures depicting areas of soil contamination on the NNSS, TTR

and Nevada Test and Training Range have been added in Section 4.1.5.4.1.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-375

Commentor No. 82 (cont’d): Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information Office

82-4

82-9

82-5

82-6

82-11

82-8

82-10

82-7

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge

of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the

NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the

additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater.

82-4	 As noted in the response to comment 82-4, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. In addition,

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.1, describes surface hydrology at the NNSS. As noted in

that section, there are no perennial streams or lakes on or near the NNSS. The only

perennial surface-water features at the NNSS are springs, which on the NNSS are

associated with locally derived, or “perched,” groundwater that is not associated with

any of the aquifers affected by nuclear weapons testing.

82-5	 The analysis in this SWEIS is sufficient for differentiating among the alternatives

considered for continued operation of the NNSS. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2,

provides DOE/NNSA’s estimation of potential cumulative environmental impacts on

groundwater resources resulting from past nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS.

	 Groundwater resources at the NNSS, including groundwater use, depth to groundwater,

recharge and discharge, water supply systems, and groundwater monitoring and

quality, are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of the SWEIS. Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.6.2, provides estimates of the amount of groundwater (expressed as

perennial yield in terms of acre-feet per year) underlying the NNSS, as well as historic

and projected future demands on this groundwater to support ongoing and proposed

projects and activities under each alternative. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, analyzes the

potential cumulative impacts of past nuclear weapons testing on groundwater.

	 As noted in the response to comment 82-4 above, DOE/NNSA has revised this Final 

NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of groundwater

contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2 and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based on information

developed under the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe

current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-376

Commentor No. 82 (cont’d): Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information Office

82-6	 DOE/NNSA believes that Environmental Restoration is an important program at the

NNSS. Continuation of that program is included in each of the alternatives considered

in this NNSS SWEIS. In consultation with the Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), DOE/

NNSA will continue to characterize, remediate, and monitor sites and media that

were contaminated by past nuclear weapons testing activities, in compliance with the

FFACO. Additional information on the Environmental Restoration Program at NNSS

can be found at www.nv.energy.gov/envmgt.

82-7	 The transportation of waste typically would occur only on Federal or state highways

while avoiding small rural roads to the extent practical. DOE’s Radioactive Material 

Transportation Practices Manual for Use with DOE O 460.2A (DOE M 460.2-1A)

provides guidelines regarding how shipments should occur. The analysis in Chapter 5,

Section 5.1.3.1, of this NNSS SWEIS shows that the impacts on the public from

transportation under any of the alternatives would be small. These results are based on

a conservative assumption regarding the concentration of each radionuclide, based on

past receipts. 

The DOE/NNSA NSO has established a number of means of communicating with

and involving local communities. The Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board, which

consists of public representatives and stakeholders from Nevada communities around

the NNSS, works together with the DOE/NNSA NSO on many aspects of NNSS

environmental management, including waste transportation. Nevada Site Specific

Advisory Board meetings are open to the public and provide a forum for providing

community input to the DOE/NNSA NSO (see www.nv.energy.gov/nssab for more

information). The DOE/NNSA NSO has also established a Transportation Working

Group. This group was established for the specific purpose of interacting with Nevada

stakeholders on NNSS waste transportation topics and includes representatives from

local counties and municipalities. 

To assist the public in staying informed about waste shipments, the DOE/NNSA NSO

publishes an annual transportation report and quarterly routing reports that identify

shipment quantities, routes, origins, transporters, and incidents for all LLW/MLLW

shipments to the NNSS. For more information on NSO environmental management

and transportation, please visit www.nv.doe.gov/emprograms/default.aspx. For

regular updates regarding environmental management activities, the DOE/NNSA NSO

publishes an electronic newsletter that can be received automatically via email. Visit

the website and click the link to subscribe to the “NNSS News.”
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-377

Commentor No. 82 (cont’d): Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information Office

	 DOE/NNSA recognizes the increased burden placed on local community emergency

responders by its transportation of radioactive wastes and materials and has established

a mechanism to mitigate those burdens. DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the

State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide a forum for coordination of the LLW

grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency

Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). 

Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual grants among the counties through which

LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about

$10 million, have allowed the counties to undertake emergency preparedness planning

and response capability assessments; acquire emergency response resources such as

ambulances, fire trucks, and communication equipment; and construct training facilities

and emergency services buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training

to first responders for emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. 

The DOE/NNSA NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across

the country, including local, county, and state participants from Nevada. Additional

information has been provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3, to address the cumulative

impacts on local governments.

82-8	 To ensure a conservative analysis, the impact assessment in this NNSS/SWEIS assumes

that all new facilities would be located in undisturbed areas, which would maximize

the potential impacts. However, the DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects

in previously disturbed areas if the land area meets the project requirements. When

there are projects that have specific requirements that cannot be met by locating

them in previously disturbed areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area

disturbed and implements mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. 

Information regarding the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can

be found throughout Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use;

7.5, Geology and Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural

Resources.

82-9	 Returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for other use is

inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land was withdrawn

for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part of the USAF

Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to its remote

location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. As activities

on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn (i.e., the original

and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries) to ensure sufficient

land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain adequate buffers
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-378

Commentor No. 82 (cont’d): Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor 

Eureka County, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Information Office

between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and otherwise sensitive

testing, experimental, and training activities on site.

	 Returning NNSS land to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national

security needs, as well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. 

Consequently, there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these

two primary uses.

82-10	 Comment noted.

82-11	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-379

Commentor No. 83: Jacob L. Snow, General Manager 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

83-1

83-2

83-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made through

revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination

with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and

the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need to

revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

83-2	 Comment noted; please refer to the response to comment 83-1.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-380

Commentor No. 83 (cont’d): Jacob L. Snow, General Manager 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

83-2

(cont’d)

83-5

83-3

83-4

83-3	 DOE/NNSA and its contractors appreciate the commentor’s acknowledgement of the

precautions taken when transporting radioactive materials and waste. Note that the

definition of LLW presented in Chapter 12 of this NNSS SWEIS is radioactive waste

that is not classified as HLW, TRU waste, SNF, or byproduct material as defined

by Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Some LLW can

be highly radioactive, but much of the waste transported to NNSS for disposal is

lightly contaminated material such as waste from cleanup activities (building debris,

contaminated soil) and materials that are incidentally contaminated (anti-contamination

clothing, plastic, paper, shoe covers). DOE/NNSA is aware of public perceptions

related to radioactive materials and works hard to ensure that accidents do not occur.

83-4	 As noted in the response to comment 83-1 above, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP as part of the

WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 

DOE/NNSA does not believe that even a minor accident would have a severe impact. 

Of the range of accidents possible, most, especially those that would be characterized

as minor, would not result in any release of radioactive materials and, therefore,

would have no human health impact on the community. DOE/NNSA conducted a

detailed analysis of the potential human health effects associated with transportation

of radioactive wastes and materials under both normal operations and accident

scenarios. These analyses are presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of this SWEIS. 

However, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any adverse socioeconomic impacts

associated with waste transportation under normal operations or accident scenarios. 

In the 2002 Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE/EIS-0250) and 2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS

(DOE/EIS-0250-S1), DOE evaluated “perceived risk” and “stigma” associated with the

transportation of SNF and HLW. In those EISs, DOE concluded that there is no valid

method to translate public perceptions regarding waste transportation into quantifiable

economic impacts. DOE has not been presented with any new information since the

2008 Yucca Mountain SEIS that changes this conclusion. While stigmatization can be

envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. As a

consequence, DOE/NNSA did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from

risk perceptions or stigma in this SWEIS.

83-5	 Comment noted. Please refer to the responses to comments 83-1 and 83-4, which

address transportation routing and risks associated with LLW transport.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-381

Commentor No. 83 (cont’d): Jacob L. Snow, General Manager 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

83-6

83-7

83-8

83-6	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for the use of transfer

stations outside of the Las Vegas, Nevada, metropolitan region, but notes that

DOE is not proposing development or promoting use of any rail-to-truck transfer

stations. Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.1, was revised to more clearly state that NNSS

is not proposing the development of any new rail-to-truck transfer stations. This

NNSS SWEIS presents comparative analyses of different modes and routes for

transportation, including the use of existing rail yards in the vicinity of southern

Nevada (e.g., Arden and Apex) that a commercial entity might consider using for

rail-to-truck transfers. Regardless of the modes of transportation that may be used in

the future, in consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder comments

and after consultation with NDEP as part of the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA

determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of

LLW/MLLW.

83-7	 Comment noted. Please refer to the responses to comments 83-1 and 83-4, which

address transportation routing and risks associated with LLW transport.

83-8	 As noted in the response to comment 83-1, in consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments and after consultation with NDEP as part of the

WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-382

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

Commentor No. 83 (cont’d): Jacob L. Snow, General Manager 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

83-8

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-383

Commentor No. 84: Virgil Moose, Tribal Chairperson 

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley

84-1

84-2

84-1	 DOE/NNSA appreciates and considers all comments and acknowledges the

commentor’s endorsement of the AIWS text.

84-2	 CEQ “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act” (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) do require consideration of a no

action alternative in an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1502.14). However,

the basis for the “no action” alternative is not provided in those regulations. In

guidance subsequent to publication of 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, CEQ recognizes two

distinct interpretations of no action: (1) situations, such as the ongoing operation of the

NNSS, where an agency activity is already being conducted and (2) situations where

an agency is proposing a project that may or may not be initiated (51 FR 15618). In

the case of the first interpretation of no action, CEQ indicated that: “...’[N]o action’

is ’no change’from current management direction or level of management intensity. 

To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless

academic exercise. Therefore, the ’no action’ alternative may be thought of in terms

of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed.” For

this reason, the definition of “no action” in this NNSS SWEIS is compliant with all

applicable regulations and guidance.

	 Discontinuing operations at the NNSS is an alternative that DOE/NNSA considered,

but eliminated from further consideration, as discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1, of

this NNSS SWEIS. 

The three alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS describe the range of ongoing and potential

activities and operational levels at the NNSS over the next 10 years. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-384

Commentor No. 84 (cont’d): Virgil Moose, Tribal Chairperson 

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley

84-3

84-2

cont’d

84-3	 While recognizing that this SWEIS must address a wide range of technical activities

conducted across a large geographic area, DOE/NNSA has sought to describe proposed

activities and their environmental effects in plain language and made use of graphics

and tables to replace lengthy text descriptions.

	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge

of the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the

NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the

additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-385

We need the time to understand the EIS document, the contamination already 

present at the Site, the kinds of activities proposed for the site, and the biological

resources that are impacted there.

As you know, the draft EIS is over 1500 pages long and took 3 years to write. It is a

complicated document with many proposed activities, on-site contamination already

present and incompletely characterized, and a multitude of referenced documents

to find and understand.

It’s exciting to think that the site could host commercial solar development and

technology research. But we need to understand much better the contamination

threat and the biological resources there. Please give us the time to carefully

consider this package.

Campaign A

A-1 A-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA

extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-386

Individuals submitting this campaign:

Patricia McRae

Baley

William Belknap

Bob

Howard Booth

Ann Brauer

Garth Brown

Michele Burkett

Tom Burtntte

L. Busch

John S. Cheney

Warren Clark

Chris Clarke

Brian and Rita

Cohen

Clarence Collins

Alison Conley

Tim Cooper

Laura Cunningham

Jennifer Edwards

Brian Fadie

Jane Feldman

Alfredo Fernandez

Faith Franck

Tina Frisch

Robert Furtek

Evelyn Gajowski

Presley Garrett

Sally Greensill

Linda Gregg

Chance Hannon

Margery Hanson

Juanita Heffington

Brendan Hughes

Mary Humann

Eleanor Clinton Issa

MJ Kammerer

KN

Steve Kossack

Constance Kosuda

Joshua Kruger

William Kuehl

Ron Lew

Megan Little

Kim MacQuarrie

Elaine Manio

Peter Marozik

Bruce Mason

Joan Maurer

Curt McCormick

Leona Merrin

Marija Minic

Thomas R.

Mirkovich

Keith Morrison

Mayra Moya

Robert Mulle

Stephanie Myers

Anthony Parent

Gary A. Patton

Thereick Pearis

L. Pelmeri

Kay Peters

Larry Pringle

TC Reinertson

Justice B.

Rwechungura

Robert M. Samboy

Marrjorie Sill

Malcolm Simpson

Noel Smith

Eugene Souza

Ron Stauffer

Jason Steadmon

Mary Stoll

Rose Strickland

Rosemary Swartz

Bob Tregilus

Judy Treichel

Vera Vann-Wilson

Rainer Vogel

Zach

Julie Zimmerman

Carl Zimmerman

Adrian Zupp

Campaign A (cont’d)
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-387

Campaign B

B-1 B-1	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-388

Individuals submitting this campaign:

Paul Benigno

Robert A. Conway

James Cooksey

Richard Crawford

Wayne Dey

Darren Enns

Greg Esposito

Donny Grayman

James Halsey

Byron K. Harvey

Matt Lydon

Jack Mallory

Mark Mizzoni

Jeremy Newmanw

Frank O’Brien

Anthony Rogers

Eric Rubeck

Cordell Sanders

Warren Stender

Campaign B (cont’d)
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-389

Campaign C

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in decision-making about the future

of the Nevada Test Site, (called the Nevada National Security Site). Please note

that the online form is confusing since it seemed to indicate that the deadline for

comments was October 27 instead of the extended deadline of December 2, 2011.

Also, not accepting e-mail comments will decrease submissions. The document is

immense and organized in a complex way. I have relied on experts to inform my

comments, and even they had difficulty with the Draft SWEIS. If others share some

or all of the same language as me, it is vital that our comments not be treated as

“spam.”

Although there are many issues of importance, the following matter most to me.

1. The Department of Energy (DOE) should follow the positions of the Consolidated

Group of Tribes and Organizations throughout the SWEIS document. Also, the

DOE should clearly identify their Preferred Alternative in each instance.

2. The Draft SWEIS should be supplemented to provide necessary information that

is missing:

• Show current levels of Test Site contamination from past activities and map

its distribution, in order to evaluate what “more” or “less” activity as defined in

the SWEIS would really mean.

• Provide Test Site budget figures to understand resource allocation, program

impacts and priorities, both within the Test Site mission, and relative to our

national budget as a whole.

• Provide information on plans to address range fires and flash flooding to

prevent off-site contamination.

3. Whenever possible, new lands or contaminated areas should not be disturbed.

Where not toxic to employees and others, all activities, trainings and installations

should be conducted on previously disturbed lands. Undamaged land and

endangered species habitat should be protected. Existing contamination should not

be exposed.

4. The Test Site should focus primarily on:

• Restoring “safe” lands to public or tribal use once contaminant levels are

thoroughly defined and mapped.

• Restoring Native American access to sacred, cultural and resource sites. 

Tribal entities must be included in land and resource management, including

historic and cultural resources.

C-1

C-3

C-4

C-2

C-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO has a long-standing relationship with CGTO and reviews

all recommendations submitted to the DOE/NNSA NSO for consideration

and implementation whenever possible. The DOE/NNSA NSO values the

recommendations of CGTO and has incorporated CGTO comments that fall

within the scope of the SWEIS and were evaluated during the NEPA analysis. The

DOE/NNSA NSO generally tries to accommodate the recommendations of CGTO,

with the exception of those that would require more budget than is available or those

that might violate other policies or laws. As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this

NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments received on the draft SWEIS as

part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred

Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

C-2	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS)

and 4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding

the location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the

NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the

additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater. In addition, Chapter 5, Sections 5.1.6.1.1, 5.1.6.1.2, and 5.1.6.3, have

been revised to more clearly describe the potential for offsite impacts on surface waters

from ongoing and proposed DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS.

	 DOE/NNSA believes that cost and budget data are not necessary or useful in

understanding and evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed actions

addressed in this SWEIS. Future budgets for the NNSS and its various programs

are uncertain, and the costs of some future activities have not been defined yet. 

Therefore, budget and cost data do not provide a meaningful method for defining

and distinguishing between alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA has presented

a detailed description of the activities included under each alternative, as well as the

potential environmental consequences associated with implementing those activities.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-390

Campaign C (cont’d)

• Increasing programs for small-scale energy research projects not possible

elsewhere, solar power that minimizes water usage, and development of new

de-centralized power sources that reduce the need for transmission lines.

* On-site energy and resource conservation and small scale solar installations

on rooftops, over parking areas, and previously disturbed ground surfaces

wherever possible.

* On-site environmental restoration of soils, groundwater, surface waterways,

habitat and erosion control.

* Low-level wastes from cleanup activities, not waste generated by new wasteproducing projects. The Expanded Operations Alternative proposes new

projects that will create more waste, and also increases the current waste

production from on-going projects. The Test Site should not be seen as an

unlimited waste dumping area.

5. The Test Site should avoid:

• Nuclear weapons programs - scale back until eliminated completely. The U.S. 

should adopt the long-term national security goal of a nuclear weapons-free

future. Further environmental damage and federal expenditure on nuclear

programs is inconsistent with that goal.

• Expanded weapons and explosives testing, the use of Depleted Uranium

(DU) munitions, and release of dangerous contaminants from biological

warfare experiments.

• Geothermal energy production, a source of major water pollution as well as

degradation of Native sacred sites.

• Unreasonable transportation impacts on community health as well as small

rural roads leading to the Test Site from over 15 million cubic feet of projected

Low-Level Waste and 900,000 cubic feet of Mixed Low-Level Waste.

6. The scope of the Draft SWEIS was too narrow. The range of options being

considered (reduced operations, no action, and expanded operations) excluded the

option of eliminating most activity there, unlike the 1996 EIS process which at least

had closing the Nevada Test Site as an option.

C-5

C-6

C-9

C-10

C-11

C-7

C-8

	 Additional information has been added in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.12.2.4, to address the

potential impacts from wildland fires. 

C-3	 To ensure a conservative analysis, the impact assessment in this NNSS/SWEIS assumes

that all new facilities would be located in undisturbed areas, which would maximize

the potential impacts. However, the DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects

in previously disturbed areas if the land area meets the project requirements. When

there are projects that have specific requirements that cannot be met by locating

them in previously disturbed areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area

disturbed and implements mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. 

Information regarding the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can

be found throughout Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use;

7.5, Geology and Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural

Resources.

C-4	 DOE/NNSA works closely with those culturally affiliated tribes that participate with

the CGTO to maintain effective interactions. As such, arrangements are made to

address tribal requests for accessing sacred, cultural, and resource sites in accordance

with Federal mandates. DOE ensures that access to contaminated areas on the NNSS

have limited access or are restricted for the safety of all individuals.

C-5	 The commentor’s preference for renewable energy research and development is

noted. DOE/NNSA has included renewable energy–related activities as part of each

alternative in this SWEIS.

C-6	 Environmental restoration of soils, groundwater, surface waterways, habitat, and

erosion control is an important activity at the NNSS and is a primary component of

each alternative analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. 

C-7	 DOE/NNSA does not consider the NNSS an “unlimited waste dumping area” and

does not intend that it will be the sole recipient of offsite-generated DOE waste. 

Disposal of LLW and MLLW at NNSS is in accordance with programmatic decisions

reached pursuant WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200). In accordance with the WM PEIS ROD

(65 FR 10061) issued on February 25, 2000, DOE decided to continue onsite disposal

of LLW at NNSS and certain other DOE sites and to establish regional disposal

capacity at the NNSS and the Hanford Site. Specifically, in addition to disposing

their own LLW, the NNSS and the Hanford Site would dispose LLW generated at

other DOE sites, provided the waste met their respective WAC. DOE decided to treat

MLLW at a number of DOE sites, with disposal at either the NNSS or the Hanford
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-391

Campaign C (cont’d)

Site.NeitherdecisionprecludesDOE’suseofcommercialdisposalfacilitiesconsistent

withDOEOrdersandpolicy.Onlyasmallpercentageo

f

theLLWandMLLW

generatedbyDOEisdisposedofattheNNSS.Approximately90percentofDOE’s

LLWandMLLWi

s

disposedo

f

a

t

thesiteswheretheyaregenerated.Abouthalfo

f

the

remainingquantitiesaredisposedatcommercialfacilities.

	 TheincreaseinthevolumeofLLW/MLLWbetweentheNoActionandExpanded

OperationsAlternativesislargelyduetosourcesotherthannewNNSSprojectsor

increasedlevelso

f

operationa

t

theNNSS.A

s

showni

n

Chapter5

,

Table5‐49,the

volumeofLLW/MLLWgeneratedatNNSSincreasesfromabout1millioncubic

feetundertheN

o

ActionAlternativet

o

1.3millioncubicfeetundertheExpanded

OperationsAlternative.Thelargedifferenceinwastedisposalvolumesbetweenthe

twoalternativesisfromanassumedextensiveremovalofcontaminatedsoilfrom

cleanupactivitiesatNevadalocationsoutsideNNSS,withshipmenttotheNNSSfor

disposal,andtoincreasedprojectionsofwastesthatmaybeshippedtoNNSSfrom

authorizedout-of-stategenerators.Thetexti

n

Chapter3

,

Section3.2.2.1,wasrevised

t

o

moreclearlyindicatethesourceso

f

thelargerquantityo

f

wastethatwouldb

e

disposedundertheExpandedOperationsAlternative. 

AsaddressedinChapter5,Section5.1.11.2.1,ofthisNNSSSWEIS,theremay

beotheroptionsforaddressingthesoilcontaminationotherthanremovingitand

shippingittotheNNSSfordisposal.InaccordancewithagreementsbetweenDOE

andotherFederalandstateagencies,theseoptionsmayincludestabilizationi

n

place

oruseofenvironmentalrestorationdisposalsitesestablishednearerthepointsof

contamination.Theprojectionsofwastesfromout-of-statesourcesareconsidered

upper-boundestimates,andtheirgenerationwoulddependo

n

programmaticand

regulatorydecisions,funding,andotherconsiderationsthatareoutsidethescopeo

f

thisNNSSSWEIS.DOEOrder435.1,Radioactive Waste Management,requiresthat

allDOEradioactivewastegeneratorsimplementaWasteMinimizationandPollution

PreventionProgramtominimizethegenerationofwaste.Although,forpurposesof

conservativeNEPAanalysis,i

t

wasassumedthattheout-of-statewasteswouldallb

e

disposeda

t

NNSS,wastemanagersa

t

DOEsitesproactivelyseekt

o

usecommercial

disposalfacilitiesifthefacilitiesarecompliant,cost-effective,andhaveWACunder

whichtheyareablet

o

accepttheDOEwaste.

C-8	 DOE/NNSA

acknowledgesthepreferenceo

f

thecommentorthatDOE/NNSAscale

backandeliminateallnuclearweaponsprograms;however,testsandexperiments,

includingmanyusingconventionalexplosives,arenecessaryt

o

continuet

o

ensurethe

safetyandreliabilityo

f

theremainingnuclearweaponsi

n

theNation’sstockpileand
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-392

Campaign C (cont’d)

to support the current policies of the United States. The United States’ possession of

nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the stockpile, and the budget necessary to

support the stockpile is a matter of national policy set by the President and Congress. 

Decisions on these matters are outside the scope of this NNSS SWEIS. Biological

warfare agents are not used or released at the NNSS.

C-9	 DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s preference for avoidance of the geothermal energy

production.

C-10	 DOE/NNSA is committed to reducing impacts associated with LLW/MLLW

transportation to the NNSS. The transportation of radioactive waste typically would

occur on Federal and state highways when required. To mitigate impacts on affected

Nevada counties, a grant program was established. This program is funded by DOE

and administrated by the State of Nevada. The program aids the affected counties in

preparing for all kinds of emergencies.

C-11	 In its 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996), DOE considered ceasing all

operations at the NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status (Discontinue

Operations Alternative). In the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE also considered discontinuing all

defense-related and most Work for Others Program activities at the NNSS (Alternate

Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative). In its December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD

(61 FR 65551), DOE decided that it would implement the Expanded Use Alternative

for all activities other than LLW/MLLW management, which was to continue under the

Continue Current Operations Alternative. In addition, in this same ROD, DOE decided

to implement the public education elements of the Alternative Use of Withdrawn Lands

Alternative. DOE later decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative for LLW/

MLLW management at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Because discontinuing operations

at the NNSS was previously considered and DOE decided in 1996 to continue to

operate the NNSS at an expanded level, in addition to the continuing need for the

NNSS for National Security/Defense Mission programs, both closing the NNSS and

discontinuing National Security/Defense Mission programs, projects, and activities are

considered unreasonable alternatives at this time. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-393

Individuals submitting this campaign:

JoniArends

JoAnnBingham

RichardCalabro

Rev.JamesConn

AdrienneFong

LiliasGorden

LorraineHenry

Carole

Kartunen

ShelleyLynn

RaymondMedlin

C.E.Pretzer

Mark

Pringle

KennonB.Raines

RosalieG.Riegle

CynthiaShiroky

JoanneSkirving

RitaSloan

PhoebeAnne

ThomasSorgen

Midgene

Spatz

April

Tatro-Medlin

Kathleen

Thomas

Natasha

Tonres

Don

Timmerman

AnneWelsh

Campaign C (cont’d)
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-394

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C1-1

C1-2

C1-1	 Comment noted. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.4, includes a description of studies

regarding high doses and the incidence of latent cancers as a result of past exposures

from aboveground nuclear testing. It should be noted that aboveground nuclear testing

at NNSS ended in 1962 and all nuclear weapons testing ended in 1992. 

C1-2	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-395

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C2-1

C2-2

C2-3

C2-4

C2-1	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities

on the NNSS.

C2-2	 As discussed in the Summary, Section S.4.3, DOE/NNSA continues to develop a

regional three-dimensional groundwater computer model to improve the understanding

of where radiological contamination exists in the groundwater, predict where

contamination is moving, and define how far it will migrate. The model also would

form the basis for developing individualized models for each major area where

underground testing was conducted.

	 DOE/NNSA abides by all applicable groundwater regulations and standards.

C2-3	 The United States’ possession of nuclear weapons, the number of weapons in the

stockpile, and the budget necessary to support the stockpile is a matter of national

policy set by the President and Congress. Decisions on these matters are outside the

scope of this NNSS SWEIS.

C2-4	 DOE/NNSA notes the commentor’s opposition to the transportation of offsitegenerated radioactive waste to the NNSS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-396

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C3-1 C3-1	 Comment noted.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-397

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C4-1

C4-2

C4-3

C4-4

C4-1	 DOE/NNSA appreciates the comments related to American Indians and test site

contamination. This NNSS SWEIS contains tribal perspectives throughout the

document that were developed by CGTO through the DOE/NNSA NSO’s American

Indian Consultation Program. This program has a long-standing relationship with 16

culturally affiliated tribes and is committed to monitoring and protecting the important

cultural sites identified by CGTO that are located on the NNSS. 

C4-2	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s concern. DOE/NNSA must continue

the National Security/Defense Mission at the NNSS as directed by Congress and

the President. However, DOE/NNSA complies with all statutes, regulations, and

other requirements applicable to its activities, which reduces, if not eliminates

further contamination. As stated in Chapter 7, Section 7.14, of this NNSS SWEIS,

the DOE/NNSA NSO operations are evaluated to determine whether they have an

environmental aspect and to implement measures to minimize or eliminate any

potential impacts. Operations are evaluated by performing Hazard Assessments,

preparing Health and Safety Plans and Execution Plans, and preparing and reviewing

NEPA documents. These documents require that mitigation actions be identified to

minimize the risk of adverse impacts. 

C4-3	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. 

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the

NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate the

additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative impacts on

groundwater.

C4-4	 Activities at the NNSS are designed to minimize disturbance to the environment. 

When disturbance to the environment cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are

implemented to minimize that disturbance. Information regarding the types of

mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout Chapter 7,

“Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils; 7.6,

Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

2-398

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C5-1

C5-2

C5-3

C5-4

C5-1	 As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of

this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

One of DOE/NNSA’s primary missions in the state of Nevada is to characterize,

remediate, and/or monitor areas contaminated by nuclear weapons testing and other

activities that have occurred at the NNSS and TTR. As addressed in Chapter 3,

Sections 3.1.2.2, 3.2.2.2, and 3.2.3.2, DOE/NNSA would continue environmental

restoration activities under all alternatives considered in this NNSS SWEIS in

accordance with the FFACO and in consultation with NDEP.

C5-2	 Under each of the alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considers potential

renewable energy projects of varying types and sizes. All of the alternatives include

potential development of a commercial solar power generation project, although there

is not yet a specific proposal for such a facility. The Expanded Operations Alternative

includes consideration for a potential enhanced geothermal energy demonstration,

as well as a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy facility at the NNSS. In addition,

under all of the alternatives, DOE/NNSA would continue to pursue energy efficiency

and conservation.

C5-3	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

C5-4	 The commentor’s opposition to waste management activities is noted. While waste

management activities are an important mission activity at the NNSS, waste disposal

is confined to a relatively small area of the NNSS and is sited in previously disturbed

areas.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

2-399

Campaign C (cont’d)

Individuals submitting “Campaign C” with additional comments

C6-1 C6-1	 Comment noted.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-400

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

CASHMAN CENTER 

850 Las Vegas Boulevard North 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 

On 

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 

Beginning at 

 6:30 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-401

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2011, 6:30 P.M. 

CASHMAN CENTER, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

MS. LOWE: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to this formal public hearing of 

the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation of the 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National Security 

Site, an offsite location in the state of Nevada. 

Today is Tuesday, September 20, 2011, and this hearing is being convened at 

Cashman Center, located at 850 Las Vegas Boulevard North in Las Vegas, Nevada. And it 

is now 6:30. 

My name is a Wendy Lowe, and I have been asked by the Nevada Site Office of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to serve as the moderator for tonight’s public 

hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to provide you, the interested members of the public, 

with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

 Because this is a formal public hearing, I would like to request that you silence your 

mobile telephones and help me in keeping this room as quiet as possible so that everyone can 

hear those people that are here to comment. 

There are restrooms and water fountains right out the door here. And if we have to 

leave the building for an emergency for some reason, we want to go downstairs and then out 

the southwest corner to the parking lot. 

 Before we get too far along, I'd like to introduce Linda Cohn, who is here on my left, 

she’s the hearing officer for tonight’s hearing, and she is here to officially receive your 

comments on behalf of the federal government. 

 Tonight's public hearing is one of five that are scheduled over a two-week period in 

Las Vegas, Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. All of these 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-402

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

public hearings are being conducted in the same manner. If you just arrived, I would like to 

point out that there's an open house in Room 205. You go out the door and down the 

hallway where there are a number of informational posters and subject matter experts that are 

available if you have questions that you'd like to ask about the Site-wide Environmental 

Impact Statement. There's also some informational material handouts. The open house will 

be available until the hearing ends this evening. 

 In a few minutes I'll be going over the procedures that we'll follow when we're ready 

to take your comments in this hearing room. But before we do that, I would like to show a 

short video about the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

[Video shown.] 

 MS. LOWE: The front row is still open if some of you in the back would like to 

come up. 

 As explained in the video, your comments in this hearing will be considered by the 

National Nuclear Site Security Administration as it finalizes the Site-wide Environmental 

Impact Statement to support decisions about future operations at the Nevada National 

Security site and the related offsite locations. In particular, you're invited to make comments 

and suggestions about what you would like the agency to consider as it prepares the final 

environmental analysis. 

As the moderator of this meeting, it's my job to make sure that the hearing is 

conducted in a respectful manner and that everyone that’s interested in providing comments 

has a fair opportunity to do so. 

To allow as much time as possible for public comments, Linda Cohn and the other 

federal staff and the contractors who are here tonight will not be responding to comments 

and they will not be answering questions during the hearing. If you do have questions, I'd 

like to urge you to go across the hall to the open house room where the subject matter experts 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-403

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

are standing by. But please be aware that if you have conversations in the open house room, 

they will not be recorded and they will not be included in the formal record of this public 

hearing. So if you have something important you want to say, say it in here. 

 Now I would like to review the procedures I'll be following for taking oral comments. 

If you want to make oral comments for the record tonight, please sign up to do so at the 

registration table in the lobby. I will call people who have registered to speak on a firstcome, first-served basis. We will continue to accept speaker registration cards until 8 p.m., 

as was advertised in the announcement for this hearing. I wanted to show you, this is what 

the speaker card looks like, so if you've signed one of these, you’ve signed up to speak. 

 Please be aware that providing oral comments from the podium is only one of the 

ways that you can provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some 

of you may have prepared written comments and others of you may want to fill out a public 

comment form. I understand two of you already decided not to provide comments and you 

filled out a comment form, and that's fine. This is what the comment form looks like. And 

you're welcome to leave any written comments that you've already written down or comment 

forms here tonight. There's a comment box on the registration table and you're welcome to 

do that. 

 Let's see, you can also submit comments by mail or by fax, through telephone calls 

through a toll-free telephone line, or via the Internet. And the information on all the different 

ways to submit comments is available on a handout that looks like this. It's got all the 

information you need for submitting comments later if you want to think about things and 

then send them in later. 

All written and oral comments received during the public comment period, which will 

end on Thursday, October 27, 2011, will be given equal consideration. So you don't have to 

comment tonight for it to be on the record. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-404

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 In order to allow as many of you as possible to make comments, I will be asking each 

commenter to conclude his or her remarks within five minutes. No one will be allowed to 

yield their time to or share their time with another person. Carrie Stewart, who is here in 

front of the room, will be assisting by serving as a timekeeper tonight. And she has cards to 

hold up to let you know how you're doing on your time. And I'd like to urge you if you have 

a lot to say, keep your eye on Carrie because we want to make sure that you have the 

opportunity to get to your most important points before your time runs out. 

 If you have not concluded your remarks by the end of your time, I will ask you to stop 

and then I will invite the next person to come up to the podium. Just remember that the 

reason I’m doing that is to try to be fair to everyone else in the room that has registered to 

speak. 

When I call on you to provide your comment, please come forward to the podium and 

begin by stating and spelling your name. Please tell us the name of any agency or 

organization that you’re representing tonight. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. 

Jill Jacoby, who is at the other end of the table here, is serving as our court reporter this 

evening and it is her job to provide a complete transcription of everything that's said. We 

want to make sure that she's able to capture your comments accurately and that's why we're 

asking you to use the microphone. I have asked her to let me know if at any point she's 

having trouble hearing or understanding you. So we might ask you to slow down or 

something like that. The transcription of this hearing will be included as an appendix to the 

final Environmental Impact Statement. 

 If you have signed up for the mailing list, then you will be notified that the final 

Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and is available. If you 

haven't signed up for the mailing list, it's not too late. You can do that at the registration 

table tonight. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-405

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 So one final thought that I'd like to share with you. I know a lot of you in the room 

have strong opinions about the program. Some of you oppose it and some of you may 

support it. And the point of a public comment hearing is to give each of you an opportunity 

to make your comments and suggestions to the agency about what you would like for them 

to consider when they're preparing the final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. So 

regardless of your position on the program, I would appreciate your help in making sure that 

everyone who speaks tonight is treated respectfully. 

 So with that, I will now begin calling names. What I'm going to try to remember to 

do is call three at a time so you know when your turn is almost coming up. 

 So the first person I have is Gary Hollis. And Gary will be followed by Matt Lydon, 

who will be followed by Eric Vanderleest. And I apologize in advance if I pronounced 

something wrong. 

 MR. HOLLIS: Gary Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S. 

I'm a commissioner, Nye County Board of Commissioners, I'm a chairman. We 

appreciate the opportunity to work with you as a cooperating agency. We have some 

different views, but you may have included those views in the draft. However, presenting 

our views without action to recognize and mitigate past and present impacts is not enough. 

 Like many citizens of Nye County, I worked at Nevada Test Site and supported the 

United States through the Cold War years. My family and friends believe the support we 

gave to the federal government was worthwhile and we have no regrets. However, it is time 

now for the DOE and the rest of the federal government to recognize the impact they have 

caused and provide mitigation to Nye County. 

Resources have been taken from us and DOE should do everything in its power to 

return those resources to Nye County. Not allowing Nye County access to water on the 

Nevada National Security Site is a big deal to us. Our water rights permit request for water 

201-1

201-1	 When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also

implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation

was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right to

use groundwater at the NNSS to support its mission requirements. The means by

which the land was withdrawn did not provide for any form of compensation. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6, DOE/NNSA and other Federal agencies,

such as BLM and NPS, have for various reasons protested applications for water

withdrawals by others. In DOE/NNSA’s case, the protests were based on the need to

protect its Federal reserved water rights where the requested withdrawals could affect

those rights. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may

permit access to the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although

DOE/NNSA would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights

as appropriate; thus, the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its

own water appropriation from the State Engineer.

	 DOE/NNSA involves Nye County (the commentor) in its groundwater

characterization, modeling, and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. For

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board, regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA regarding groundwater studies and other

environmental management activities and has participated in annual groundwaterrelated public meetings.

	 Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA accepts and evaluates unsolicited proposals to determine

whether to fund various activities such as the hydrogeological investigations

suggested by the commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are

evaluated pursuant to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies,

as well as in consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals

would assist DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of

funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through

the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of

Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying sites that have potential
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-406

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

on the site have all been denied because of protests by the federal agencies, including DOE 

and DOE's refusal to allow access to water. DOE should closely coordinate all groundwater 

studies with our scientists and provide funding for Nye County to conduct our own 

groundwater science studies at the Nevada National Security Site. 

The ongoing impact of denying access to the County is a huge -- it's huge. And no 

compensation has been made for our loss of access of that water. This is a desert and access 

to water is a major issue for our residents. We understand some water on the Nevada 

National Security Site is contaminated. However, we believe and DOE has indicated that the 

vast majority of the water is perfectly safe for public use. The Nevada Assembly Joint 

Resolution No. 5, dated June 16, 2011, documents our concerns. The joint resolution urges 

the federal government to engage in discussions with Nye County regarding the mitigation 

and containment of water contamination in Nevada which resulted from nuclear testing and 

storage activities that were conducted by the federal government at the Nevada National 

Security Site and to reestablishment of any water contaminated because of those activities. 

 Our bottom line, DOE should take steps to mitigate this specific impact. One 

practical solution would be to provide the County reasonable access to sustainable clean 

water resources that exists at the Nevada National Security Site. 

Stop protesting our water rights requests. We appreciate the work you have done and 

look forward to working with you to resolve our issues. And we'll provide to you a formal -- 

more formal detailed comments in the future. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Hollis. 

Matt Lydon will be next, followed by Eric Vanderleest, and then Ian Zabarte. 

Is Matt Lydon in the room? Okay. 

201-1

cont’d

historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and

instituting closure actions. DOE/NNSA, under the NSSS Environmental Restoration

Program, will continue to ensure compliance with the FFACO by characterizing

and monitoring locations and resources that have sustained adverse environmental

impacts from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past

nuclear weapons testing. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-407

-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

How about Eric Vanderleest? 

MR. VANDERLEEST: Yes. 

MS. LOWE: Okay. Mr. Vanderleest. 

MR. VANDERLEEST: Good evening. I'm Eric Vanderleest and I'm representing 

myself as a private citizen who fortunately has been involved in the renewable energy 

industry strongly in the last five years as a photovoltaic power plant operator, commissioning 

manager, and startup director. I've been fortunate enough to maintain the photovoltaic power 

plant at Nellis Air Force Base for the last four years. I was also dispatched to Florida to 

develop a 40-megawatt, 135 KV grid-tied photovoltaic plant for power and light. I wanted 

to commend the report for including renewable energy projects in all the alternative options 

present there. I've been associated with the renewable energy industry for almost 30 years 

and feel fortunate to find myself in this position right now to be able to speak from 

experience long-term and both recently. 

I believe in the photovoltaic power plant as being a strong alternative for renewable 

energy projects to be considered going forward for a number of reasons. One would be solar 

PV that has a very low if not non water consumption factor to it. Really have any needs for 

water to run a solar photovoltaic plant to generate electricity except for the standard domestic 

features, bathrooms and water, drinking water, washing hands. 

We found that in this climate, photovoltaic modules have very, very little retention to 

any soil or dust because there are no climatic conditions being stirred to adhere that dust to 

the photovoltaic modules so there's no cleaning required on a photovoltaic plant. 

Second, the PV is extremely safe for any employees, visitors, anybody associated 

with a photovoltaic power plant. It's a very benign technology. There's no pressure, there's 

no heat, there's no steam, it's a very benign operation out there. 

At this point, we’re finding that the most densely loaded photovoltaic power plant can 

202-1 202-1	 The commentor’s preference for the establishment of photovoltaic power systems at

the NNSS is noted. For the purposes of analysis, DOE/NNSA selected a plant model

based on a BLM EIS for a project proposed near the NNSS: the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project (BLM 2010). 

This model uses CSP technology. While other types of power generation

technologies could result in lower levels of impacts on some environmental

resources, DOE/NNSA chose to use a conservative model for purposes of analysis

that provided an upper-end level of resource impacts. It is possible that a private

applicant would propose photovoltaic or another plant technology, rather than CSP.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-408

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

deliver 1 megawatt per every four acres of land. And that's about the cutting edge of 

industry technology right now, 1 megawatt per 4 acres of land. 

Photovoltaic power plants right now, the power plant at Nellis was installed in eight 

months, over 130 acres, and was up and running within 13 months from the first day the 

material hit the ground. So it's a very low-impact installation. But it’s already on the 

surface, these systems are ballasted, they actually float on the surface of the earth, there's no 

trenching involved, no deep foundations. They do a wonderful job at dispersing wind across 

the surface of the earth. They displace that wind in multiple eddies and currents that actual 

reduce the amount of dust that can be carried off the surface of the earth. I've seen that in 

live conditions. I was fortunate I was out in southern Colorado and this massive dust front 

came across a megawatt plant I was maintaining out there and the dust plume completely 

dissipated over the power plant. And I’ve seen this time and again at Nellis as well and I 

believe that's a very strong ploy for a PV plant. 

Excuse me just for a second, I was just putting my notes together, not quite ready to 

come up. 

I'd like to also maybe comment for a minute on the quality of the power delivered by 

a PV plant. It's been my experience up to this point that our power plant at Nellis Air Force 

Base that in four years of operation, two very critical electrical user, U.S. military and 

Veteran's Administration Hospital, they already did that. Not a single incident of power 

quality issue from what comes out of our power plant. No disruptions of power, no 

harmonics, no power frequencies, nothing like that to a very critical user being the U.S. 

military. 

For those reasons I believe the photovoltaic renewable energy projects deserves a 

really strong consideration and perhaps even additional modeling in any projects going 

forward. 

202-1

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-409

-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

And I thank you all for your time. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you. If you did not get through all your prepared remarks, you 

are welcome to submit them. 

MR. VANDERLEEST: Yeah, I understand. 

MS. LOWE: Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you. 

Okay. Ian Zabarte is next. He'll be followed Peter Ediger, hope I'm saying that right, 

and then Jim Haber. Thank you. 

 MR. ZABARTE: Good evening, my name is Ian Zabarte, that’s I-A-N; last name's 

Zabarte, Z, as in zebra; A; B, as in boy; A-R-T-E. 

On behalf of my chief, Raymond Gallo, I want to thank you for this opportunity to 

present these comments on behalf of the government of the Newe Sogobia. 

I am the principal man for foreign affairs of the government of Newe Sogobia, the 

land of people that has existed in the Great Basin for thousands of years. Newe Sogobia is 

Shoshone language which refers to Newe, the people, and Sogobia, our land of Mother 

Earth. And it's the embodiment of the Western Shoshone people with the land. 

The purpose of these comments by the government of Newe Sogobia is to provide the 

United States Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration direction in 

interpretation of the law relative to the mission established by the United States Congress for 

continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site formerly known 

as the Nevada Test Site and other United States Department of Energy National Nuclear 

Security Administration-managed sites in Nevada, including the Tonopah Test Range and 

environmental restoration areas on the United States Air Force -- United States Air Force 

Nevada Testing and Training Range. 

In 1863, the United States government was engaged in a civil war. The government 

203-1 203-1	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately

24 million acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based

on the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S.

Government has not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others

within their aboriginal territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before

numerous courts for adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme

Court that the monetary award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone

land claims. The DOE/NNSA NSO continues to maintain responsibility and

authority for mission-related activities on the NNSS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-410

-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of Newe Sogobia allied itself with the United States government to allow rites of passage 

across Newe Sogobia to facilitate the transportation of gold east. The Treaty of Ruby 

Valley, 18 Statute 689, was an instrument of international law employed as a purchase 

agreement for the rights sought by the United States government that were owned by Newe 

Sogobia. In Article 7 of the Treaty of Ruby Valley, the United States acknowledged and 

agreed to pay for the interests owned by the government of Newe Sogobia. No other rights, 

title, or interests were sold or acknowledged to be transferred to the United States 

government. Only one payment was received that we are aware of and that was the one 

which was stated in the Treaty of Ruby Valley itself. 

 Newe Sogobia does not consent to the inclusion of any part of Newe Sogobia into the 

boundaries or jurisdiction of any state or territory. Attached to these comments are a map 

and 28 pages listing of Western Shoshone lands by state, meridian, township, and range for 

reference purposes only and do not imply that the lands are actually a part of any state or 

territory that conforms to the boundaries of Article 5 of the Treaty of Ruby Valley. Any 

claim or right, title, or interest that does not conform to the supreme law of the land vis-a-vis 

the treaty, are not legitimate and are a violation of the organic law of the states involved. 

 The Western Shoshone people have a long history of experience to adverse 

consequences as a result of the United States aboveground and underground nuclear testing 

and other nuclear and nonnuclear activities conducted in support of United States national 

security objectives. It is the unfortunate experience of the Western Shoshone people that the 

very measures put into place to safeguard America subsequently mistreat Western Shoshone 

land and people. No single overt act or collective acts encompasses the impact to Newe 

Sogobia. The cumulative effect can best be characterized as negligence. The United States 

has engaged in a systematic process intended to dismantle the living culture of the people of 

Newe Sogobia. The use of such methods in policy and practice with a disproportionate 

203-1

cont’d

203-2

203-3

203-2	 Please see the response to comment 203-1 above.

203-3	 DOE/NNSA disagrees that the U.S. Government is engaged in a systematic

process to dismantle the culture of the Western Shoshone. Furthermore, through

the DOE/NNSA NSO’s American Indian Consultation Program, the government

promotes continued efforts to study and document Indian traditions and cultures. 

Requests to access the NNSS for these studies and to conduct traditional ceremonies

are accommodated whenever possible while maintaining the safety of the Indians

while on site.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-411

-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

burden borne by the Western Shoshone people is a serious violation of international 

humanitarian law and the Proxmire Act of 1987. The government of Newe Sogobia seeks to 

end, correct, and prevent the continued maltreatment of Newe Sogobia and the Western 

Shoshone people with the United States in a dialog on the current Draft Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation of the Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Nuclear Security Site proposal to that end. 

 We will also provide additional written comments. Copies of my comments will be 

available in the back of the room. 

Thank you. 

 MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you very much. Peter Ediger will be followed by Jim Haber, 

who will be followed by Molly Johnson. 

MR. EDIGER: Good evening, my name is Peter Ediger; P-E-T-E-R, E-D-I-G-E-R. 

Environmental Impact Review fails to address one very important question and that is 

the question of the reality of the erosion of public trust. The activity and the operation at the 

Nevada Test Site, as it's formerly known and now named Nevada Nuclear Security Site, has 

been eroding public trust through the years. Nothing is said about that reality in this report. 

Public trust is a foundational cornerstone of the democracy. Without public trust, democracy 

fails. Public trust and having full disclosure of all that has been done and is being done at 

this site has been eroding beginning with the violation of the Treaty of Ruby Valley which 

our brother just alluded. From that tragic erosion of trust and confidence to the continuing 

minimization and denial of responsibility for the negative health impact on many people 

through the years, public trust keeps being eroded. That record is dismal at best and tragic at 

worst. 

The latest review not only omits any reference to or evaluation of this reality but adds 

203-3

cont’d

204-1

204-1	 Although the erosion of public trust in its government is a matter of very serious

concern, it is not an area that is appropriate for consideration in this NNSS SWEIS. 

DOE/NNSA is aware that mistrust could arise regarding its mission activities and

has taken numerous steps to improve the transparency of its activities; however, the

fact remains that some activities must be considered classified for reasons of national

security. In this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has addressed impacts that would occur

as the result of all activities at the NNSS, including those for which specific details

may not be disclosed. DOE/NNSA also recognizes that there are many questions

and concerns among some members of the public regarding various issues. To the

extent reasonable within the context of a NEPA document, DOE/NNSA has provided

a comprehensive and detailed description of the NNSS and other DOE/NNSA sites

in Nevada, the activities that are or proposed to be conducted at those sites, and the

potential environmental impacts that may be expected. In response to requests for

additional information on specific topics, DOE/NNSA has provided revised text

and new figures in this Final NNSS SWEIS, particularly as it applies to existing

radiological contamination of soil and groundwater (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1

and 4.1.6.2, respectively). In addition, to give reviewers more time to review and

provide comments on the Draft NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA extended the comment

period from 90 to 126 days.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-412

-13- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

further to the concern giving very brief time, not nearly enough time for preparation and 

expression of public comments and lacking in specifics and cloaked in the garb of national 

security, this document leaves me with many questions and more concern about plans for 

future activities at this site. 

I'm 85 years old, I've seen what goes on in the world through many decades. I saw 

what was going on in the Soviet Union with secrecy. I saw what was going on in Nazi 

Germany with secrecy. I'm concerned what's going on now in the U.S. of A. with secrecy in 

the name of national security. I suggest a cessation of all this nuclear activity and I'm 

proposing an alternative and that is we invest a small percentage of that budget of billions of 

dollars into developing an institute for the study of nonviolence, learning from Dr. Martin 

Luther King, learning from Mahatma Gandhi, learning from Jesus, learning from spiritual 

leaders through the centuries, and learning more about what it means to be human instead of 

this insanity of spending trillions to plan to kill each other and then spending more trillions to 

clean up the mess we created by spending those trillions and bombing the Earth to Hell. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

 MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Ediger. 

Jim Haber will be next, followed by Molly Johnson, followed by Judy Treichel. 

MR. HABER: Thank you. I'm Jim Haber. That’s H-A-B, as in boy, E-R. And I will 

also submit written comments further down the road in this process. 

But for tonight -- and I represent an anti-nuclear organization called Nevada Desert 

Experience. We organize interfaith resistance to nuclear weapons and war. So it shouldn't 

be a surprise that I'm not in favor of much of activity out at the Nevada National Security 

Site. 

 But for tonight, just a couple of technical things. One is that, I mean, this document 

is very long and complex and I've been involved in antinuclear work for a while and looked 

204-1

cont’d

204-2

205-1

204-2	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s concerns. The mission and purpose

of NNSA activities in the state of Nevada are determined by Congress and the

President.

205-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/

NNSA extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-413

-14- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

at documents and it's a lot. And there's not that much time, really, for people to get through 

for myself or other people so I don't see how this process even with the friendly, you know, 

conversations out there and the posters and the good graphics, I don't see actually serving the 

public interest for transparency just by some people's best efforts. So I would ask that the 

comment period be extended. I do think that as a minimal step that would have some ability 

to increase people's ability to comprehend and comment which we need for a informed 

legitimate democracy. 

I want to second some of the other comments that were made by Peter Ediger and also 

Ian Zabarte. 

Another point I want to make is the 1996 document, the current Site-Wide EIS needs 

to be easier to find. I've looked, it's not, as far as I can tell, anywhere that the public can get 

at on the NNSS site and it seems like since it’s the baseline that we're looking to either 

extend or retract -- retreat from needs to be viewable and so I would ask that the NNSA 

make that available as well as extend the public comment period. 

Finally, for now I would just want to comment that international law and treaties need 

to be respected, whether it's from 1863, the Treaty of Ruby Valley, or if it's the Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Treaty or other conventions that various programs in my mind are violated 

by activities at the Test Site. Perhaps worse at some other nuclear facilities we have like the 

Y-12 plan or Kansas City or Los Alamos where the nuclear weapons infrastructure is being 

quadrupled to quadruple output of nuclear weapons components. 

In relation to the Nevada National Security Site, I would ask that -- or suggest that its 

ongoing operations further undermine the credibility of our commitment to nuclear 

disarmament that we are obligated to that under treaties that we have signed and are law of 

the land. And so even if I'm something of an anarchist, I feel like in this day unfortunately 

it’s the anarchists who appeal to international law and its people who have more ostensible 

205-1

cont’d

205-2

205-3

205-2	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

205-3	 DOE/NNSA abides by applicable laws and treaties as they pertain to their operations

at NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. 

The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately

24 million acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based

on the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S.

Government has not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others

within their aboriginal territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before

numerous courts for adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme

Court that the monetary award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone

land claims. The DOE/NNSA NSO continues to maintain responsibility and

authority for mission-related activities on the NNSS.

	 Regarding the NPT, the U.S. Senate ratified the NPT on March 5, 1970. The

basic provisions of the NPT are to (1) prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,

(2) provide assurance, through international safeguards, that the peaceful nuclear

activities of states that have not already developed nuclear weapons will not be

diverted to making such weapons, (3) promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy,

and (4) express the determination that the treaty should lead to further progress in

comprehensive arms control and nuclear disarmament measures. Although not

directly germane to the scope of this SWEIS, many of the projects and activities

described in Chapter 3 support U.S. efforts to address these provisions. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-414

-15- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

belief in the rule of law that seem to feel like it doesn't matter and we can't trust the other 

side. Well, we need to abide by the laws that we've agreed to and take it on faith that we will 

be able to stand strong and secure and not be hypocritical when it comes to issues of nuclear 

security and national defense as well in the word defense because a lot of it is really 

offensive to me, so I don't like to using the word defense in relation to our military. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Haber. 

Molly Johnson will be followed by Judy Treichel, followed by Launce Rake. Hope I 

said that right. 

MS. COHN: Yes. 

MS. JOHNSON: Good evening, my name is Molly, M-O-L-L-Y; Johnson, 

J-O-H-N-S-O-N. I'm here representing Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth, otherwise 

known as HOME. 

The first thing, we will be submitting full comments, written comments, at a later 

date. We do hereby, along with everyone else, ask for an extension of the comment period to 

at least 120 days to allow the public to fully explore the issues as well as to locate some of 

the information that's only available on certain other records documents within the EIS. 

Also, we do not believe that the SWEIS provides accurate information about current 

environmental impacts exactly what kinds of radionuclides are moving though our land out 

there, what kind of radionuclides are maybe contaminating groundwater, we are very 

concerned about that. And I as a California resident believe that this is not just a Nevada 

issue, this is also a California issue. Amargosa Valley is partially in California and this 

being this corporate harmony always told us there is only one water, so if you contaminate it 

here, you contaminate it everywhere. 

205-3

cont’d

206-1

206-2

206-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/

NNSA extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.

206-2	 DOE/NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better

understand the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear

weapons testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and

4.4.5.4.1 (TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the

location and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination.

Figures depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around

the NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate

the additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative

impacts on groundwater.

	 In addition, the ROI for the cumulative impacts assessment in this NNSS SWEIS

incorporated portions of Inyo County, California, that are within 50 miles of the

boundary of the NNSS. All impacts that could reasonably be expected to affect the

state of California are addressed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3, of this NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-415

-16- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We will also continue to insist that the U.S. follow federal and international laws in 

upholding Western Shoshone Treaty of Ruby Valley ratified by Congress in 1863. 

Additionally, the Shoshone oppose any further ground disturbance on their treaty lands, we 

agree with that. Whatever safe access to sacred cultural and resource sites must be provided 

for. The tribal entities must be included in land and resource management inputting historic 

and cultural resources and we fully support the tribes being fully involved in this process. 

We do not believe that there should be any resumption of any nuclear or other 

explosive testing at all until complete studies have been done as to the contamination already 

done to that area out there by the nuclear testing throughout the years both above ground, 

below ground, as well as subcritical. And we definitely oppose completely using 120 acres 

to be testing depleted uranium weaponry. We all know that depleted uranium weaponry is 

dangerous, it causes cancer, it should be banned and therefore there's no reason to be testing 

that stuff. 

The Nevada desert and its inhabitants are slowly the healing of over 60 years of 

nuclear toxic and destructive human activities and we believe that whenever it's not toxic to 

employees or others, that all activities, training, and installation should be conducted on 

previously disturbed land. Undamaged land and endangered species’ habitats should be 

protected and all care must be taken to minimize disturbance where below surface 

contamination could be exposed. 

We also believe strongly that safe groundwater standards must include all living 

species. This document actually states that contaminated groundwater is acceptable because 

we humans could go out and buy bottles of water and we believe that it is all living creatures 

that need to be protected, not just humans. 

We do believe that research projects as well as installations of systems that conserve 

energy will have long-term economic employment and academic level. We support using 

206-3

206-4

206-5

206-6

206-7

206-3	 DOE/NNSA abides by applicable laws and treaties as they pertain to their operations

at NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. Regarding the Ruby Valley Treaty

of 1863, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 held that aboriginal title to the land was

extinguished, and an Indian Claims Commission award to the Western Shoshone

pursuant to the Ruby Valley Treaty was made in accordance with statutory authority

and constituted full and final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. 

DOE/NNSA’s American Indian Consultation Program concentrates on the protection

of cultural resources, and promotes government-to-government relationships with

culturally affiliated tribes and organizations (represented by CGTO). Its purpose is

to help DOE/NNSA comply with various Federal laws and regulations, including,

for example, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act. DOE/NNSA has provided funds for activities such as

ethnographic interviews and studies, as well as monitoring of cultural resource

surveys and updates on NNSS projects and activities. In addition, DOE/NNSA

permits American Indians to access cultural resource sites on the NNSS as part of the

American Indian Consultation Program. 

206-4	 Although DOE/NNSA maintains the readiness to conduct a test if so directed by

the President, conducting a nuclear weapon test is not included under any of the

alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. A clear statement to this effect has been

added to Chapter 3, Section 3.0.

	 As noted in the response to comment 206-2, above, DOE/NNSA has revised this

Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface

soils and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the

NNSS and TTR. 

The commentor’s opposition to testing depleted uranium weaponry is noted.

206-5	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and

Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources. 

The DOE/NNSA NSO agrees that undamaged land and endangered species habitat
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-416

-17- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

disturbed land for solar, wind, any other type of renewable energy development. And while 

we fully support renewable energy development, we do believe that large-scale facilities 

with major transition lines are really not the best approach. Solar panels should be installed 

on NTS/NNSF rooftops of the parking areas and previously disturbed ground and we believe 

that any land not disturbed and not part of the Nevada Security site should be returned to the 

Western Shoshone. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Judy Treichel, followed by Launce Rake, followed by Brian Felske. 

MS. TREICHEL: My name is Judy, J-U-D-Y; Treichel, T-R-E-I-C-H-E-L. I'm with 

the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. 

I first would like to request there be more time given for the review of this Draft EIS. 

We are currently here in Nevada dealing with two other drafts and we had no idea when this 

one was coming, we've been expecting it for over a year. And if it took DOE years to get it 

done, it should be understood that we would need more time than 90 days in order to do a 

good review of it. So we ask that you do that. 

It takes a lot of time to go through this document because it's site-wide rather that 

programmatic so you have to keep going back and forth and going over things that you've 

already read. There's also no preferred option. I'm not sure that I disagree with that but it 

does make it more difficult when you're not looking at a preferred option and evaluating that. 

So it may be better to have the smorgasbord approach but the fact is that it takes longer to do 

that and so we request more time. 

We also would like to have available the 1996 Final EIS that this is going from 

because as you're going back and forth, you're also trying to look up references as what was 

206-7

cont’d

206-8

207-1

207-2

should be protected, and exposure of below-surface contamination should be avoided

where practical, with the exception of characterization and cleanup activities.

206-6	 DOE/NNSA abides by all applicable groundwater regulations and standards.

	 The commentor is incorrect. DOE/NNSA did not state or suggest that contaminated

groundwater is acceptable and using bottled water is a recommended practice for the

public.

206-7	 The commentor’s preference for alternative energy development on previously

disturbed lands, with an emphasis on smaller systems, is noted.

206-8	 There are no plans in the foreseeable future to relinquish land at the NNSS. The

DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates the comments related to the Western Shoshone land

claims. As an agency of the U.S. Government, the DOE/NNSA NSO must adhere to

Federal directives, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions that apply to NNSS/NSO

operations.

207-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/

NNSA extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days. 

DOE/NNSA had not identified a preferred alternative prior to issuance of the Draft 

NNSS SWEIS; therefore, none was identified in that document. DOE/NNSA’s

Preferred Alternative is now described in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this Final 

NNSS SWEIS. As required by CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1506.10, DOE/NNSA will

not make a decision on the actions proposed in this NNSS SWEIS until at least 30

days following publication in the Federal Register of the EPA notice of filing. CEQ

refers to the period of time between the notice of filing of a final EIS and issuance

of a decision by an agency as a “review period.” Comments received on the Final 

NNSS SWEIS during the review period will be evaluated and addressed in the ROD.

207-2	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-417

-18- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

stated earlier, this one's very difficult to find and it's hard to do the comparisons with what 

has already been okayed and what has not. 

We favor also the renewable energy issues that are in here, we'd like those expanded 

and are in favor of doing those. However, we do oppose additional ground disturbance. 

First on safety measures, we were one of the people that more strongly opposed the test 

Divine Strake that was proposed for the Nevada Test Site because it would have disturbed a 

lot of additional ground and could have resuspended radiation. So in making further 

disturbance as a safety implication and that you can get radiation moving again in the air. 

But it’s also a matter that's very important to the Native Americans and there's a lot of solar 

and other source of renewables that can be done where you're covering buildings, you're 

covering parking areas, you're covering other things that have already been disturbed. So we 

would be in favor of that. 

Thank you very much, 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Ms. Treichel. 

Launce Rake, followed by Brian Fadie, followed by Don Felske. 

MR. RAKE: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is 

Launce Rake, L-A-U-N-C-E, R-A-K-E. I am representing the Nevada Conservation League 

this evening. For identification purposes, I'm also a member of the executive committee of 

the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club which represents Nevada and some of California. 

Just really briefly, I wanted to say again thank you for the DOE for this opportunity. 

We have a couple of concerns. One is that I really wish there was easier access to the '96 

Environmental Impact Statement which I think would give us a better idea of the evolution 

of activities of the Test Site over the years. I think we may be able to find it if we dig deep 

enough, but if the Department of Energy could make that more accessible, we would really 

207-2

cont’d

208-1

207-3 207-3	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support of renewable energy. The

DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and

Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

208-1	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-418

-19- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

appreciate it. Thank you. 

One of issues that I would like to speak to briefly is the issue of the transportation and 

disposal of nuclear waste materials at the Nevada Test Site today. Low-level radioactive 

waste and sometimes we're talking about gloves, and instruments, tools, and things like that 

that have been contaminated are being disposed with at the Test Site. So first of all, people 

need to know that that's happening. It's not just Yucca Mountain, it's other kinds of materials 

that are happening there right now. 

Also people need to know that that material is being transported through Las Vegas. 

So this is a real issue for us, particularly if, God forbid, there was an accident involving this 

material, our first responders are police and firefighters would in fact be the first responders. 

They need the training, the equipment, and the funding to respond adequately. So we would 

ask the federal government and the Department of Energy, and where appropriate other 

federal agencies, to respond to those concerns in detail and again provide the training, the 

funding, and the equipment to respond. 

And with that, I thank you very much. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you. 

Brian Fadie, followed by Don Felske. 

MR. FADIE: Thank you. I'm Brian Fadie; B-R-I-A-N, F-A-D-I-E. I'm just 

representing myself today. 

I'm here to ask that the public time period be extended by at least 90 days to give the 

public adequate time to analyze the DEIS. This document is 1500 pages long, it took three 

years to compose. It includes over 300 footnote references, each of which is its own 

individual document to be understood, to fully understand the DEIS as a whole. Three 

months is just simply not enough time to fully understand, read, and analyze this entire 

208-1

cont’d

208-2

209-1

208-2	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to

provide a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA,

the State of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark,

Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed

annual grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en

route to the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the

counties to undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability

assessments; acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks,

and communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency

services buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first

responders for emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The

DOE/NNSA NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the

country, including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.

209-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/

NNSA extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-419

-20- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

document and to provide a cogent comment of what this entire document means. 

You know, myself and most members of the public are not lawyers, are not engineers, 

we're not in colleges, and we don't have -- you know, this is not the kind of document that 

we're used to reading, that we're used to dealing with on an everyday basis. But 

nevertheless, we are residents of this community and we deserve a chance to understand and 

provide competent feedback on what is being proposed. 

So, again, I'd ask that the comment period be extended at least 90 days, preferably 

more. 

Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Fadie. Don Felske. 

MR. FELSKE: Good evening, my name is Don Felske, I'm representing myself. The 

last name is spelled, F-E-L-S-K-E. 

I reviewed the three alternatives, No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced 

Operations. Currently, each alternative provides current and reasonable foreseeable 

missions, programs, capabilities, and projects at the NNSS. With the -- within the 

socioeconomic section, this is the summary statement for the site-wide, it's Section S.3.1.3, 

the site-wide EIS estimates that implementation of No Action Alternative would result in the 

creation of about 150 permanent jobs in addition to the current baseline workforce of about 

1700 employees. Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in the 

creation of 625 permanent jobs in addition to the current workforce baseline of 1700. 

Job creation at this time is needed in Southern Nevada. It's not just job creation that 

Southern Nevada requires but a diversified employment base and the Expanded Alternative 

operations should be supported because of its projection to create 625 meaningful 

employment opportunities for Southern Nevada. 625 new jobs should be the starting point 

as we collectively rebuild the economic engine of Nevada. I therefore support the Expanded 

209-1

cont’d

210-1 210-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

	 In addition, the error noted regarding employment under the Reduced Operations

Alternative (reduction of 45 individuals versus 45 percent) has been corrected in this

final SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-420

-21- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Operations Alternative and the new jobs that come along with it. 

I had a note also in the handout that I put across the table that I'd like you to go back 

and review. The summary statement on Reduced Operation Alternative, I think you may 

have some misstated numbers in there. You talk about a 45 percent reduction in the 1700 

and yet you state, I believe it's 1,655 individuals. It looks like you're doing addition as 

opposed to applying a percentage factor which potentially would take employment down to 

935. And so based on the fact that at best we'd probably hope that politicians read the 

summary, make sure you get the numbers right. 

Thank you. 

MS.COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Felske. 

That is the end of registered speakers that I have. 

 Oh, thank you for reminding me. Is Matt Lydon in the room? Okay. So he is not. 

I will double check with the front desk to see if any additional people have registered 

to speak. No? Okay. We’re good. Okay. Did anyone conclude before they were really 

ready? Okay. 

Well, we will adjourn until such time as another person signs up to speak. We'll go 

back into session -- have you registered? 

MR. FRAGOSA: No. 

MS. LOWE: You'd like to speak? 

MR. FRAGOS: Yes. 

MS. LOWE: Could you run out and fill out a card? Okay. 

Thank you. Okay. Oh-oh, Fragosa -- you're going to have to tell us your name. 

MR. FRAGOSA: Yes. My name's Fragosa, F-R-A-G-O-S-A. 

I just want to make a comment that we need more time to review this. And as the 

210-1

cont’d

211-1 211-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/

NNSA extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days. 

DOE/NNSA has also made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996)

available to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/

library/publications/historical.aspx).
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-421

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-22- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

other speakers have indicated that, you know, we don't have access to prior documents. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you very much. I was reading the date for your name. That's 

terrible. So. 

Anyone else interested in speaking? Okay. We will adjourn until such time as 

someone indicates that they would like to comment. We have advertised that we'll be here 

until 8:00. So we won't go anywhere. If you change your mind, then let us know and we'll 

go ahead and take your comments tonight. 

[Meeting temporarily adjourned] 

 MS. LOWE: Okay. Let the record reflect that it is now 8:00 p.m. All registered 

speakers have been called upon to speak. We will now adjourn this public comment hearing. 

Thank you so much for coming tonight. 

[Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.] 

-oOo211-1

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (September 20, 2011)

2-422

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-23- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 2nd day of December 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-423

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

PAHRUMP NUGGET 

681 South Highway 160 

Pahrump, Nevada 

On 

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 

Beginning at 

 6:30 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-424

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

PAHRUMP NUGGET, PAHRUMP, NEVADA 

[Comment given before public hearing began] 

MICHAEL KELLY: I'm a minister in this valley, an ordained minister. But I'm also 

a Local 88 member. So I'm in favor of the expansion of any and all work that we can get. 

Most of us who have worked out here, it's been a year and a half, two years since we've had 

work. And my comment would be we are in favor of all expansion, all resources, as far as 

solar renewable energy. As far as stopping the production, that's not us. We want, you 

know, we want to see things progress forward, not stand still. 

 That's the only comment I really have. I just was asked to come and speak. I don't 

have to speak in front of a bunch of people, I can tell you or you and say yes, we are in favor. 

I have, you know, six kids, and I like to feed them and I like to eat. 

I actually live off the grid. 

 

[Public Hearing begins at 6:30 p.m.] 

MS. MARSHALL: Good evening, this is Wednesday, September 21, 2011, and this 

hearing is being convened at the Pahrump Nugget, located at 681 South Highway 160 in 

Pahrump, Nevada. It is now 6:30 p.m. 

My name is Ann Marshall, and I’ve been asked by the Nevada Site Office of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration to serve as the moderator for tonight’s meeting. The 

purpose of this public hearing is to provide you, interested members of the public, with an 

opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

Because this is a formal public hearing, we would like to request that you silence your 

cell telephones. We request your help, also, in keeping the room as quiet as possible so that 

301-1 301-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-425

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

everyone can hear all the comments. Pay special attention, please, to the noisy snack 

wrappers. 

The restrooms are located straight through the open house area and down the hall 

almost down to the casino. And if we have to leave the room in an emergency, we will want 

to use the exits on the west side of the building, this one right here and then there’s one in the 

open house area as well. Ice water is located in the open house area. 

Before we get too far along, I would like to introduce Linda Cohn, she sits here in the 

center. She is the hearing officer for tonight’s hearing. She is here to officially receive your 

comments on behalf of the federal government. 

Tonight's public hearing is one of five that were scheduled over a two-week period in 

Las Vegas, Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and in St. George, Utah. All of 

these public hearings are being conducted in the same way. When you arrived, you probably 

noticed that there is an open house right next door where the Nevada Site Office has 

informative posters and handouts and experts are available to talk about various subjects 

addressed in the Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. That open house will be 

available until the hearing ends. 

In a few minutes I will go over the procedures we will follow when we are ready to 

take your comments in this hearing room. But before I do that, we would like to show a 

short video about the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

[Video shown.] 

MS. MARSHALL: As explained in the video, your comments at this hearing will be 

considered by the National Nuclear Security Administration as it finalizes the Environmental 

Impact Statement to support decisions about future operations at the Nevada National 

Security Site and the related offsite locations. In particular, you're invited to make 

comments and suggestions about what you want the agency to consider as it prepares the 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-426

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

final environmental analysis. 

As the moderator for this meeting, it is my job to make sure that the hearing is 

conducted in a respectful manner and that everyone who is interested in providing comments 

has a fair opportunity to do so. 

To allow as much time as possible for public comments, Linda Cohn and the other 

federal staff and contractors who are here tonight will not be responding to comments or 

answering questions during the hearing. If you do have questions, I urge you to go to the 

open house where subject matter experts are standing by. You do need to be aware that any 

discussions that you have in the open house will not be recorded and will not be included in 

the formal record of this hearing. So if you have something important you want to say for 

the record, please sign up at the registration table and make your statements here. 

Now I’d like to review the procedures I will be following for taking your oral 

comments. If you want to make oral comments for the record tonight, please sign up at the 

registration table in the lobby. I will call people who have registered to speak on a firstcome, first-served basis. We will continue to accept speaker registration cards until 8 p.m. as 

was advertised in the announcement for this hearing. This is what the speaker card looks 

like so if you’ve signed this, you are registered to speak. 

Please be aware that providing oral comments from the podium is just one of several 

ways that you can comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some of you 

may have prepared written comments, others may wish to fill out a public comment form. 

Those are available at the registration table and also around the room in the open house. 

They look like this. You are welcome to leave them with us before you go home. 

You may also submit comments by mail or fax, through telephone calls through a 

toll-free telephone line, or via the Internet. The information on all the ways available that 

you can submit comments is available at the registration table and in the open house. It 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-427

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

looks like this. All comments received during the public comment period whether it’s 

tonight or at any time until the end of the comment period on Thursday, October 27, 2011, 

will be given equal consideration. 

To allow as many of you as possible to make comments, I will be asking each 

commenter to conclude his or her remarks within five minutes. No one will be allowed to 

yield their time to or share their time with other people. Carrie Stewart will be assisting by 

serving as our timekeeper tonight. She’s here in the front row. So if you have a lot to say, 

you may want to keep your eye on her to make sure you are able to conclude your most 

important points before your time runs out. If you have not concluded your remarks by the 

end of your time, I will ask you to stop and then I will invite the next person to come to the 

podium so that everyone wanting to comment will have a fair opportunity to speak. 

When I call on you to provide your comment, please come to the podium and begin by 

stating and spelling your name. Please tell us the name of any agency or organization that 

you are representing tonight. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Jill Jacoby is 

serving as our court reporter this evening and it is her job to provide a complete and accurate 

transcription of everything that is said at this hearing. These guidelines will help ensure that 

she captures your comments correctly. I’ve asked her to let me know if she's having trouble 

hearing or understanding. The transcription of this hearing will be included as an appendix 

to the final Environmental Impact Statement. 

If you’ve signed up for the mailing list, you will be notified when the final Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement is completed and is available. It is not too late to sign up 

for the mail list, you may do so at the registration table tonight. 

One final request that I would make of you. I am aware that a lot of you have strong 

opinions about this program. Some of you may oppose it while others may support it. The 

point of a public comment hearing is to give each of you an opportunity to make comments 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-428

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and suggestions to the agency about what you would want them to include in the final Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement. Regardless of your position, I would appreciate your 

help in making sure that everyone who speaks tonight is treated respectfully. 

All right. With that said, I’ll begin by calling the names of the first three speakers 

tonight. I plan to call speaker names by three throughout the evening so that you will have a 

little warning when your time is coming up. And I apologize if I mispronounce your name. 

Okay. The first three speakers coming up. First is Gary Hollis; second, John Pawlak; 

and third, Launce Rake. 

MR. HOLLIS: Good evening. I’m Commissioner Gary Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S, 

representing Nye County. 

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you as a cooperative agency. We have 

some different views, but you’ve included those views in your draft. However, presenting 

our views without action to recognize and mitigate past and present impacts is not enough. 

 Like many citizens of Nye County, I worked at the Nevada Test Site and supported 

the United States through the Cold War years. My family and friends believe the support we 

gave our federal government was worthwhile and we have no regrets. However, it is now 

time for the DOE and the rest of the federal government to recognize the impacts they have 

caused and provide mitigation to Nye County. 

 Resources have been taken from us and DOE should do everything in its power to 

return those resources to the County. Not allowing Nye County access to water on the 

Nevada National Security Site is a big deal to us. And our water rights permits request for 

water on site have all been denied because of our protests by the federal agencies, including 

DOE and DOE's refusal to allow access to the water. DOE should closely coordinate all 

groundwater studies with our scientists and provide funding for Nye County to conduct our 

own scientific groundwater studies at the Nevada Test Site. 

302-1

302-1	 When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also

implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation

was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right to

use groundwater at the NNSS to support its mission requirements. The means by

which the land was withdrawn did not provide for any form of compensation. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6, DOE/NNSA and other Federal agencies,

such as BLM and NPS, have for various reasons protested applications for water

withdrawals by others. In DOE/NNSA’s case, the protests were based on the need

to protect its Federal reserved water rights where the requested withdrawals could

affect those rights. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may

permit access to the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although

DOE/NNSA would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights as

appropriate; thus, the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its own

water appropriation from the State Engineer.

	 DOE/NNSA involves Nye County (the commentor) in its groundwater

characterization, modeling, and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. For

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board, regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA regarding groundwater studies and other

environmental management activities and has participated in annual groundwaterrelated public meetings.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-429

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 The ongoing impact of denying access to the County is huge. And no compensation 

has been made for our loss of access to that water. This is a desert and access to water is a 

major issue to our residents. We understand some water on the Nevada National Security 

Site is contaminated. However, we believe and DOE has indicated the vast majority of the 

water is perfectly safe for public use. The Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5, dated 

June 16, 2011, documented our concerns. The joint resolution urged the federal government 

to engage in discussion with Nye County regarding the mitigation and containment of water 

contamination in Nevada which resulted from nuclear testing and storage activities that were 

conducted by the federal government at the Nevada National Security Site and 

reestablishment of any water contamination because of those activities. 

Our bottom line, DOE should take steps to mitigate this specific impact. One 

practical solution would be to provide the County reasonable access to sustainable clean 

water resources that exists on the Nevada National Security Site. 

Stop protesting our water rights requests. And we appreciate the work you have done 

and look forward to working with you to resolve our issues. 

We will provide you with formal more detailed comments in the future. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Commissioner Hollis. 

Our next speaker is John Pawlak who will be followed by Launce Rake and George 

Maper [sic]. 

MR. PAWLAK: Good evening. My name is John Pawlak, P-A-W-L-A-K. I’m a 

former member of the CAB, Community Advisory Board, for Nevada Test Site programs. 

Currently, I’m the acting chair of the Pahrump Nuclear Waste and Environmental Advisory 

Board and chair of the Southern Nye County Conservation District. 

302-1

cont’d

303-1

	 Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA accepts, evaluates, and funds unsolicited proposals

for various activities such as the hydrogeological investigations suggested by the

commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are evaluated pursuant

to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies, as well as in

consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals would assist

DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through the

FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of Nevada. The

FFACO provides a process for identifying sites that have potential historic (legacy)

contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and instituting closure

actions. DOE/NNSA, under the NSSS Environmental Restoration Program, will

continue to ensure compliance with the FFACO by characterizing and monitoring

locations and resources that have sustained adverse environmental impacts from past

DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past nuclear weapons testing. 

303-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4

of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-430

-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

As a local environmentalist, I favor the Expanded Operations Alternative. Under it, 

the NNSA would continue to identify and implement energy conservation measures and 

renewable energy projects. Also, the NNSA would purposely build a 5 megawatt 

photovoltaic solar power system near Area 61 construction facilities. The NNSA would 

allow the development of full-scale commercial solar power generation plants in Area 25 of 

the NNSS. I want to call it the NTS but it’s so hard, it’s the NNSS now. 

Development of the solar power generating plants near Area 51 would require 

construction of additional transmission infrastructure in the region thus creating jobs and 

revenue in Nye County through Valley Electric, our citizen-owned cooperative here. The 

NNSS will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of demonstrating an enhanced 

geothermal system for generating electricity also. 

Finally, the NNSA would continue to host existing environmental research projects at 

the NNSS and would actively promote and expand the National Environmental Research 

Program. 

I have been a resident for 11, 12 years in the area and before I came out here, I lived 

in Illinois. And I did a lot of my homework before I came out here to understand what the 

area was like, whether it was Yucca Mountain, whether it was the Nevada Test Site. In 

doing so, I found out that this area was a safe area to live in no matter if it was the Nevada 

Test Site or if it was the interim storage of Yucca Mountain that was supposed to be built. 

So I have faith in the Nevada Test Site with what may happen in the future with the 

Expanded Alternative. So I am for that alternative. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Pawlak. 

 The next speaker is Launce Rake followed by George Maper [sic] and Ming. 

303-1

cont’d

303-2

303-3

303-2	 The commentor’s interest in renewable energy activities is noted.

303-3	 As noted above in the response to comment 303-1, DOE/NNSA will consider

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4, of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-431

-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Go ahead, Mr. Rake. 

MR. RAKE: Good evening, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I 

appreciate the Department of Energy presenting this venue in Pahrump. I am from Las Vegas 

but I have many friends from Pahrump and I appreciate this community very much. 

 I actually made a couple of comments yesterday and I would like to clarify and 

amplify those. I spoke about our concerns from the community. And for the record, I’m 

representing the Nevada Conservation League about the transport and disposal of nuclear 

waste at the Test Site. As you will see from the display in the other room, an Expanded 

Operations Alternative would amount to as much as 52 million cubic feet of radioactive 

waste being disposed of at the Test Site. So we’re concerned about that. We don’t want to 

see that, but we’re also concerned about the transport. 

 The urban area of Las Vegas would only have a small part affected by transport 

through on the existing routes. We do not want to see those routes expanded to include 

downtown Las Vegas just because the concentration of population is so much greater. But 

we’re also concerned about our friends in Pahrump and we believe that first responders 

should be well-trained, they should be-- they should have the equipment to respond to an 

accident, God forbid. They should have the funding to do that. And I’m not sure that 50 

cents per cubic foot, which is the formula right now, is enough. We would like to see that 

increased. 

 Turning to another tough subject, I’d like to amplify on the gentleman that just spoke. 

We would, in fact, like to see renewable energy developed at the Nevada Test Site. I think 

that would be a great transition that would allow for industrial redevelopment of Southern 

Nevada generally. And we believe that photovoltaic systems installed there provide real 

opportunity for Pahrump, for Nye County, and all of Southern Nevada to develop a 

technology which we believe are only going to be more important in the coming years. 

304-1

304-2

304-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final NNSS SWEIS), 

DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases: a Constrained Case

that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater metropolitan Las Vegas,

Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes within greater metropolitan

Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds of existing regulatory

parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes and upgrades to the

Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over the past 15 years. 

By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences in

potential environmental effects between different routing options (which incorporated

changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS‐0243,

August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to the public, and seek

stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated

that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding specific waste transportation

routes via this NEPA process. Any changes to existing routing would be made

through revisions to the NNSS WAC. Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in

coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the Agreement in Principle between the State of

Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO (State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need

to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).

	 DOE/NNSA, working jointly with the State of Nevada, established EPWG to provide

a forum for coordination of the LLW grant program between DOE/NNSA, the State

of Nevada (Division of Emergency Management), and six counties (Clark, Elko,

Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine). Since 2000, EPWG has distributed annual

grants among the counties through which LLW/MLLW shipments travel en route to

the NNSS. The grants, now totaling about $10 million, have allowed the counties to

undertake emergency preparedness planning and response capability assessments;

acquire emergency response resources such as ambulances, fire trucks, and

communication equipment; and construct training facilities and emergency services

buildings. In addition, the DOE/NNSA NSO offers training to first responders for

emergency situations involving radioactive waste and materials. The DOE/NNSA
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-432

-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 However, we want to make sure that it’s done right. We have concerns that areas that 

have radionuclides in the soils, we need to make sure that we don’t disturb those up. And we 

don’t want to expose, God forbid, workers to those materials. So we have to choose a site 

carefully. Also, we’d like to protect areas that are in existence now and our wildlife habitat. 

So let’s keep it on soils that are already disturbed. 

 Thank you. Those are my points this evening. And, again, I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak. 

 MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Rake. For the record, remind me, did you spell 

your name? 

 MR. RAKE: L-A-U-N-C-E. Rake, R-A-K-E. 

 MS. MARSHALL: Thank you. The next speaker is George Maper [sic], followed by 

Ming, followed by Mary Lovas Peterson [sic]. 

Mr. Maper. 

 MR. MAPES: Thank you, Ann. I’m George Mapes. 

 MS. MARSHALL: Mapes. 

 MR. MAPES: M-A-P-E-S. I’m a resident of Nevada for 49 years, 23 years of those 

were at the Atomic Energy Commission and former organizations. I would certainly like to 

promote additional work at the Test Site. The history of this Test Site was tremendous. It 

had tremendous advances that affected not only Nye County, Clark County, the state, the 

country and the world. Many of these are known publically and many of them are not 

public. 

 With the advancing technology that we’ve had in the past ten years alone, that 

technology can advance also as the previous speaker said with the various opportunities that 

are provided at the Test Site. 

 The infrastruct -- excuse me, the infrastructure of the Test Site is already there that is 

304-2

cont’d

305-1 305-1	 The commentor’s support for additional work at the NNSS is noted. As stated in

Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments

received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.

NSO has provided training to over 124,000 first responders across the country,

including local, county, and state participants from Nevada.

	 DOE/NNSA acquires grant funding every year by charging its national network of

waste generators a $0.50 fee for every cubic foot of waste disposed at the NNSS. If

waste volumes were to increase under the Expanded Operations Alternative, funding

of the LLW grant program would increase. DOE/NNSA provides a minimum of

$250,000 (total) for each year the grant program is in effect. This funding is provided

to ensure maintenance of emergency management programs during temporary

reductions in waste volumes.

304-2	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for renewable energy projects

at the NNSS and concern that they be developed in previously developed areas

where radionuclides would not be disturbed. None of the proposed locations for

renewable energy projects are in areas where radionuclides may be disturbed. The

DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas if the

land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have specific

requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed areas, the

DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements mitigation

measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding the types

of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout Chapter 7,

“Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils; 7.6,

Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources. The DOE/NNSA

NSO agrees that undamaged land and wildlife habitat should be protected.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-433

-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

adaptable to practically any industrial operation, research, engineering. And it has provided 

there at the Test Site in the past from 5,000 to 7,000 employees located in Las Vegas, up 

here, any extending environment. We’d like to see that come back. I would. Particularly 

with the economic status which this country and Nevada is. First and foremost, Nevada’s 

first and foremost in the area if we’d like to see change. 

 And I just think that it would be tragic to throw this away. Sure there’s been 

problems, there’ve been radionuclide migration of some manner, but these can be mitigated 

in the future and provide tremendous opportunity for you people as residents, for new people 

that come in here. 

 Thank you very much. 

 MS. COHN: Thank you. 

 MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Mapes. 

 Our next speaker is Ming, followed by Mary Lovas Peterson [sic]. 

 MR. LAI: Do you want me to spell my name? 

 MS. MARSHALL: Yes, please. 

 MR. LAI: It’s R-I-C-H-A-R-D; L-A-I. I’ll be brief. I’m with the Nevada Desert 

Experience. 

Please extend the public comment period by three months as the Draft SWEIS is 

complex during duration. 

Please do not disturb previously undisturbed lands and ecological systems. 

Please provide easier direct access to the previous SWEIS, both physically and online. 

Please choose Reduced Activity Option or combination of options towards the 

reduced activities. 

And ultimately, abide by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. 

Where do I submit this? 

305-1

cont’d

306-1

306-2

306-3

306-4

306-5

306-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA

extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.

306-2	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and Soils;

7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

306-3	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

306-4	 The commentor’s preference for the Reduced Operations Alternative is noted. As

stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a

preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4

of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-434

-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. COHN: Right here. Thank you. Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: The final speaker we have registered so far this evening is 

Mary -- please help me with your name. 

MS. ANDERSON: It’s Mary Lou Anderson, I have bad writing. 

MS. MARSHALL: Oh, Mary Lou Anderson. 

MS. COHN: That was her next guess. 

MS. ANDERSON: Sorry. 

MS. MARSHALL: Okay. Go ahead. Please spell your last name, please. 

MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Good evening, thanks for the opportunity to comment. 

I’m with the Nevada Desert Experience, I’m an antiwar, antinuclear activist, and a lover of 

Mother Earth, peace, and all that’s good. 

A few quick responses. I’ve been an employer for 25, almost 30 years, I’ve hired 

thousands of people and realize the economy is in the tank and jobs are necessary and 

important and we have a high unemployment rate in Nevada and the Test Site and Yucca 

Mountain. An enormous amount of income to people who are able to raise their families and 

children and hopefully retire healthy and happy and leave a legacy behind them. 

Having said all that, we’ve contaminated the land, we’ve contaminated the earth. We 

have friends and acquaintances who are downwinders who are very ill. We’ve just spent two 

weeks in Japan and spent time with the people who had been recently affected by Fukushima

nuclear energy fallout radiation. None of this is okay. It’s one thing to support your family, 

it’s another thing to kill your family and kill your friends. 

As long as we keep the Test Site open and continue to dedicate a dollar towards 

increased testing or a dollar towards maintaining weaponry, which is not safe out there. It’s 

not safe. We have porous land. We have water -- we’ve got surface water out there, we 

have sand. As long as we maintain that or dedicate money to increase it, we’re putting our 

307-1

306-5	 The Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the Ruby

Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone assert that the U.S. Government has

not proven title to Western Shoshone lands occupied by others within their aboriginal

territory, including the NNSS. This issue has come before numerous courts for

adjudication, resulting in a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the monetary

award constituted final settlement for Western Shoshone land claims. The DOE/NNSA

NSO continues to maintain responsibility and authority for mission-related activities on

the NNSS.

307-1	 DOE/NNSA acknowledge the concerns expressed by the commentor, including a

desire for operations to cease at the NNSS, contaminated areas to be remediated,

and the land to be given the Shoshone. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1, of this

NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA is not considering discontinuing operations at the NNSS

as part of any of the alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS. In its 1996 NTS EIS

(DOE EIS-0243, August 1996), DOE considered ceasing all operations at the

NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status (Discontinue Operations

Alternative). In its December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided

that it would implement the Expanded Use Alternative for all activities other than

LLW/MLLW management, which was to continue under the Continue Current

Operations Alternative. In addition, in this same ROD, DOE decided to implement

the public education elements of the Alternative Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative. 

DOE later decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative for LLW/MLLW

management at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Because discontinuing operations at the

NNSS was previously considered and DOE decided in 1996 to continue to operate

the NNSS at an expanded level, in addition to the continuing need for the NNSS

for National Security/Defense Mission programs, both closing the NNSS and

discontinuing National Security/Defense Mission programs, projects, and activities

are considered unreasonable alternatives at this time. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-435

-13- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

families and we’re putting ourselves at risk. And, you know, at the expense of a paycheck, 

God bless all of us, I’m personally out of work I know what is to not make good money, I 

know what it is to make incredibly good money. 

The DOE has given us glorious presentations that cost a ton of money out there. I 

want to give thanks to the Test Site has done, is doing, and wants to do. In my opinion, 

anything less than shutting it down, cleaning it up, reclaiming the land, giving it back to the 

Shoshone. And hopefully our president, current and future, God help us, whoever that may 

be, they have the fortitude to take those monies and reinvest them in the economy. 

So I wrote a bunch of notes and I’m actually not going through too many of the notes. 

That’s my best, my heartfelt opinion on all of them. 

 And, you know, I hope we have some conversation with the DOE folks and the Test 

Site folks, and I hope the public commentary is worth something. Because if you take a look 

around the world, we’ve spent a lot of time traveling the world this year, things aren’t getting 

better and I’m not a doom and gloom person, actually, I’m a very upbeat person. But the 

reality is spending millions and millions and millions on war and you’re living in a state 

that’s maintaining nuclear weapons and a nuclear arsenal. And it’s out there. And granted 

it’s probably helped people raise their families and put their children through college. And 

there has to be an alternative. 

I’m getting the two-minute thing. 

I think we need to extend the time period on a 1700 pages of data which is very 

typical of governmental data, I’m not saying it’s bad, but it’s 1700 pages worth of data, it’s 

very difficult to read. I think we need more time to be able to go through everything, the 

public needs to understand what the financial impact is and I think we need to have full 

disclosure and transparency and we don’t have it. And I think we’re putting ourselves at 

risk. So I’m hoping that the public commentary is truly used as a vehicle to make this 

307-1

cont’d

307-2 307-2	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA

extended the public comment period on the Draft NNSS SWEIS from 90 to 126 days. 

DOE/NNSA is committed to providing stakeholders with a transparent presentation

of all key issues, as well as the means to provide informed comments on the proposed

action and alternatives. Potential socioeconomic impacts (including subtopics such as

public finance and employment) are presented for all proposed activities as part of the

interdisciplinary approach to impact assessment used in this SWEIS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-436

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-14- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

happen. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Ms. Anderson. For the record, would you spell your 

name, please. 

MS. ANDERSON: A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. 

MS. MARSHALL: S-O-N. And Mary Lou is spelled? 

MS. ANDERSON: Two words, M-A-R-Y; L-O-U. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Did you want to submit those 

comments? You mentioned that you had notes. 

MS. ANDERSON: This is on the record, right? 

MS. MARSHALL: It’s up to you. 

MS. ANDERSON: Okay. 

MS. MARSHALL: And you can certainly submit them later if you wish. 

MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: At this time I have gone through all the cards of people who 

signed up. If any of you would like to give other comments you want to expand on, you may 

do that at this time. If we have other people who would like to sign up. 

MS. COHN: Got some public cards here. 

MS. MARSHALL: We’ve got some cards right here. If you want to sign up to 

speak, please do so. 

If we don’t have anybody sign up at this moment, what we’ll do is we’ll adjourn the 

hearing for this for now. But we will remain ready to reconvene at any time that anybody 

does sign up and take further comments up until 8:00 this evening. 

Thank you all for coming and for listening respectfully. We’ll adjourn for the 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-437

-15- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

moment. 

 [Meeting temporarily adjourned] 

[Comment given after temporary adjournment] 

MR. WAITE: My name is Mark Waite, M-A-R-K, W-A-I-T-E. And I'm a resident of 

Pahrump. I've been a resident since 2000. 

 I read an article that if we had a hundred square miles of solar panels, we could have 

enough electricity for the whole U.S. And I'm looking at the 13,000 square miles, whatever, 

on the Nevada Nuclear Security Site and just thinking that it might be a prime location to 

have just a large solar power complex. And I think the federal government could get 

involved in constructing one because a lot of the proposed solar projects here in Nye County 

and Southern Nevada are encountering problems of one sort with endangered species or 

water or other problems. I think the federal government could just take the reins and 

construct a large project on the NNSS with all the land that's available there, it would be a 

good venture. 

 I might point to the solar project out at Nellis Air Force Base which is, of course, is a 

much smaller scale than I would be advocating but I think if the Expanded Operations option 

is chosen, I think a large solar plant would be a good amenity to add to that. 

 That's all I've got to say. 

 I think also that this could tie in with the mission of national defense since it would 

reduce our reliance on foreign oil and energy is a security issue in the United States. 

[Public Hearing reconvened] 

MS. MARSHALL: Let the record reflect that it is now 8 p.m. All registered speakers 

have been called upon to speak. We will now adjourn this public comment hearing. Thank 

you so much for coming tonight all of you. 

[Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.] 

-oOo308-1 308-1	 The commentor’s preference for large-scale solar power development on the NNSS is

noted. As a point of clarification, DOE/NNSA is not proposing to directly construct

and operate such a facility. Although there are no proposals for a commercial solar

power generation facility at the NNSS, DOE/NNSA is considering whether it would

support a private applicant to construct and operate such a facility. Regardless of the

party who would construct such a facility, environmental concerns such as impacts

on endangered species must still be addressed. However, DOE/NNSA agrees that

Area 25 of the NNSS is a reasonable location to site a large facility.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Pahrump, Nevada Public Hearing (September 21, 2011)

2-438

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-16- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 3rd day of December 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-439

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

COURTYARD BY MARRIOT 

185 South 1470 East 

St. George, Utah 

On 

Thursday, September 22, 2011 

Beginning at 

 6:35 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-440

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, 6:35 P.M. 

COURTYARD BY MARRIOT, ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

MS. MARSHALL: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to this formal public 

hearing for the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation 

of the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National 

Security Site, an offsite locations in the state of Nevada. 

Today is Thursday, September 22, 2011, and this hearing is being convened at the 

Courtyard by Marriot, located at 185 South 1470 East, St. George, Utah. It is now 6:35 p.m. 

My name is Ann Marshall, and I’ve been asked to be the -- asked by the Nevada Site 

Office of the National Nuclear Security Administration to serve as the moderator for this 

public hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide you, members of the 

interested public, with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-wide Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Because this is a formal public hearing, we would like to request that you silence your 

mobile telephones. We request your help in keeping this room as quiet as possible as well so 

that everyone can hear all the comments. And that’s why I also encourage you to move 

forward if you would like so you don’t have the competition next door. 

The restrooms are located through the open house and to the right at the end of the 

hallway. If we should have to leave this room in an emergency, we are to use the exit doors 

that are clearly marked on the east side of the building, east side of the room. Ice water is 

available in the open house room. 

Before we get too far along, I would like to introduce Linda Cohn, seated at the center 

of the table, who is the hearing officer for tonight’s hearing. She is here to officially receive 

your comments on behalf of the federal government. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-441

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Tonight's public hearing is one of five that are scheduled over a two-week period in 

Las Vegas, Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. All of these 

public hearings are being conducted in the same way. When you arrived, you no doubt 

noticed that there’s an open house next door that the Nevada Site Office staff have 

informative posters and handouts and experts are available to talk about the various subjects 

addressed in the Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. That open house will be 

available until the hearing ends. 

In a few minutes I will go over the procedures we will follow when we are ready to 

take your comments in this hearing room. But before I do that, we would like to show a 

short video about the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

[Video shown.] 

MS. MARSHALL: As explained in the video, your comments at this hearing will be 

considered by the National Nuclear Security Administration as it finalizes the Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement to support decisions about future operations at the Nevada 

National Security Site and the related offsite locations. In particular, you're invited to make 

comments and suggestions about what you want the agency to consider as it prepares the 

final environmental analysis. 

As the moderator of this meeting, it's my job to make sure that the hearing is conducted 

in a respectful manner and that everyone who is interested in providing comments has a fair 

opportunity to do so. 

To allow as much time as possible for public comments, Linda Cohn and the other 

federal staff and contractors who are here tonight will not be responding to your comments 

here during the hearing. If you do have questions, I urge you to go into the open house next 

door where subject matter experts are standing by. You do need to be aware that any 

discussions you have in the open house will not be recorded and will not be included in the 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-442

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

formal record of this hearing. So if you have something important you want to say for the 

record, please sign up at the registration table and make your statement in here. 

Now I’d like to review the procedures I will be following for taking your oral 

comments. If you want to make oral comments for the record tonight, please sign up at the 

registration table on one of these little cards. I will call people who have registered to speak 

on a first-come first-served basis. We will continue to accept speaker registration cards until 

8 p.m. as was advertised in the announcement for this hearing. This is what a speaker card 

looks like so if you’ve signed this, it means you’ve registered to speak. It’s also not too late 

to sign up. 

Be aware that providing oral comments from the podium is just one of several ways 

that you can comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some of you may have 

prepared written comments, others may wish to fill out a public comment form available also 

at the registration table and in the open house. It looks like this. You're welcome to leave 

either of those with us before you go home. 

You may also submit comments by mail or fax, through telephone calls through a 

toll-free line, or via the Internet. The information on all the ways that you can submit 

comments is available at the registration table throughout the open house. All comments 

received during the public comment period whether it’s tonight or anytime until the end of 

the comment period on Thursday, October 27, 2011, will be given equal consideration. 

As we have done at other locations, I will be asking each commenter to conclude his or 

her remarks within five minutes. No one will be allowed to yield their time to or share their 

time with other people. Carrie Stewart, who is in the front row here, will be assisting by 

serving as our timekeeper tonight. If you have a lot to say, you may want to keep your eye 

on her to make sure you are able to conclude your most important points before your time 

runs out. If you’ve not concluded your remarks by the end of that time, I will ask you to stop 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-443

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and then we’ll invite the next person to come to the podium so everyone wanting to comment 

will have a fair opportunity to speak. 

When I call on you to provide your comment, please come to the podium and begin by 

stating and spelling your name. Please tell us the name of any agency or organization that 

you are representing tonight. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Jill Jacoby is 

serving as our court reporter this evening and it is her job to provide a complete and accurate 

transcription of everything that is said at this hearing. These guidelines will help ensure she 

captures your comments correctly. I have asked her to let me know if she's having trouble 

hearing or understanding you. The transcription of this hearing will be included as an 

appendix to the final Environmental Impact Statement. 

If you’ve signed up for the mailing list, you will be notified when the final Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement is complete and available. It is not too late to sign up for 

the mail list, you may do that also at the registration table tonight. 

One final request that I would make of you tonight. I’m aware that many people have 

strong opinions about this program. Some oppose it while others support it. The point of a 

public comment hearing is to give each of you an opportunity to make comments and 

suggestions to the agency about what you would like them to include in the final Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement. Regardless of your position, I would appreciate your help 

in making sure that everyone who speaks tonight is treated respectfully. 

All right. With that said, I’ll begin by calling the names of the first three speakers 

tonight. I plan to call speaker names by three throughout the evening so that you’ll have a 

little warning when your time is coming up. And I apologize if I mispronounce any names. 

The first three names are Gary Hollis, Claudia Peterson, and Richard Lai. 

Commissioner Hollis. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-444

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. HOLLIS: Good evening. My name’s Gary Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S, Nye County 

commissioner, Nye County, Nevada. 

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you as a cooperating agency. We have 

different views, but you’ve included those views in the draft. However, presenting our views 

without action to recognize and to mitigate past and present impacts is not enough. 

 Like many citizens of Nye County, I worked at the Nevada Test Site and supported 

the United States through the Cold War years. My family and friends believe and support -- 

believe the support we gave the federal government was worthwhile and we have no regrets. 

However, it is time -- now time for the DOE and the rest of the federal government to 

recognize the impacts they have caused and provide mitigation to Nye County. 

 Resources have been taken from us and DOE should do everything in its power to 

return those resources to Nye County. Not allowing Nye County access to water on the Test 

Site, Nevada Test Site is a big deal to us. Our water rights permits request for water on the 

site have all been denied because of protests by federal agencies, including the DOE and 

DOE's refusal to allow access to the water. DOE should closely coordinate all groundwater 

studies with our scientists and provide funding for Nye County to conduct our own 

groundwater science studies of the Nevada Test Site. 

 The ongoing impact of denying access to the County is huge. And no compensation 

has been made for our loss of access to that water. This is a desert and access to water is a 

major issue to our residents. We understand some water on the Nevada Test Site is 

contaminated. However, we believe and DOE has indicated the vast majority of the water is 

perfectly safe for public use. The Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5, dated June 16, 

2011, documents our concern. The joint resolution urges the federal government to engage 

discussions with Nye County regarding the mitigation and containment of water 

contaminated in Nevada which resulted from nuclear testing and storage activities that were 

401-1

401-1	 When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also

implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation

was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right to

use groundwater at the NNSS to support its mission requirements. The means by

which the land was withdrawn did not provide for any form of compensation. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6, DOE/NNSA and other Federal agencies,

such as BLM and NPS, have for various reasons protested applications for water

withdrawals by others. In DOE/NNSA’s case, the protests were based on the need to

protect its Federal reserved water rights where the requested withdrawals could affect

those rights. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may

permit access to the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although

DOE/NNSA would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights

as appropriate; thus, the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its

own water appropriation from the State Engineer.

	 DOE/NNSA involves Nye County (the commentor) in its groundwater

characterization, modeling, and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. For

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board, regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA regarding groundwater studies and other

environmental management activities and has participated in annual groundwaterrelated public meetings.

	 Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA accepts, evaluates, and funds unsolicited proposals

for various activities such as the hydrogeological investigations suggested by the

commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are evaluated pursuant

to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies, as well as in

consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals would assist

DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through

the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of

Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying sites that have potential

historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and

instituting closure actions. DOE/NNSA, under the NSSS Environmental Restoration

Program, will continue to ensure compliance with the FFACO by characterizing
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-445

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

conducted by the federal government at the Nevada Test Site and reestablishment of any 

water contaminated because of those activities. 

Our bottom line, DOE should take steps to mitigate this specific impact. One practical 

solution would be to provide the County reasonable access to sustainable clean water 

resources and -- that exists on the Nevada Test Site. 

Stop protesting our water rights requests. We appreciate working with you -- having 

worked with you. 

And we'll be providing you with formal more detailed comments in the future. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Commissioner Hollis. 

The next person is Claudia Peterson followed by Richard Lai. 

MS. PETERSON: Okay. I'm not really prepared because I found out about this late 

last night. But that's very disconcerting because I don't know where it was advertised. 

And I'm concerned about the amount of time the community has to offer comments 

and write in letters. If we could expand that time, it would be great for our community, if 

you could please let me know. 

I didn't spell my name. Sorry. Claudia Peterson, P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N. 

I'm a downwinder, lived in St. George and Cedar City my whole life. My biggest 

concern here is the health effects of what may be coming. I understand that if the solar 

power is implemented, they will have to prepare a large portion of the land and that will be 

stirring up dust and whatever. I'm concerned about the whole thing. I don’t -- we -- 

Last time you had an environmental impact, we fought really hard to get our message 

heard for what we were experiencing as downwinders. My family has been devastated by 

what happened with the testing back in the '50s and '60s and up till 1992. My father died of 

401-1

cont’d

402-1

402-2

and monitoring locations and resources that have sustained adverse environmental

impacts from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past

nuclear weapons testing. 

402-1	 DOE/NNSA has a sincere interest in public participation in the NEPA process and

provided notices of the public hearings in local newspapers, on its website, and

through a Federal Register notice. In response to numerous requests from the public

and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA also extended the public comment period on this

SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.

402-2	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s concerns. As stated in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.12.1.1, of this NNSS SWEIS: “No members of the public receive direct

gamma radiation exposure that is above background levels as a result of past or

present NNSS operations. Radioactively contaminated areas on the NNSS are

isolated from members of the general public, given the considerable distances

between these areas and the site boundary, so members of the public are not

exposed to any measurably contaminated soil, either directly or through resuspension

(DOE/NV/25946-790).”

Although there are not current proposed commercial solar power generation projects

at the NNSS, if one or more were proposed they would be sited in areas that are not

contaminated by nuclear testing. A project-specific NEPA review would be required

for any commercial solar power generation project at the NNSS. As a result,

impacts specific to such a project would be evaluated in detail in the project-specific

NEPA review. The public and other stakeholders would have the opportunity to

express their concerns during the public scoping and draft document review periods

associated with the NEPA review process.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-446

-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a brain tumor. I had a sister die at 36 of melanoma. Lost a child to leukemia. Lost a 

nephew to colon cancer. A few years ago, his 33-year-old sister had a colostomy this year. 

29-year-old’s just had her colon removed. And a 24-year-old niece has just found out that 

her colon is clear full of cancer because of a mutation that happened to my sister when she 

was a child. She passed that on to her children. It's been genetically -- we believe 

genetically proven, but we believe that happened from being downwinders. 

So the most important thing for us is that we can trust what you're saying because we 

have never been able to trust what was happening. It seems like we -- every time we have a 

fight, two years later, I mean, we feel like we can relax things are going to be safe and okay, 

something else comes up. Divine Strake, we get to the point where okay, we can relax, 

something else happens. Yucca Mountain, subcritical tests, never get a chance to relax on 

this. We need -- we would like you to clean it up and preserve it and make it back to the way 

it was before it was so damaged. 

I’m concerned about the indigenous Indian. Shoshones that are concerned about and 

their fight for the land. Not only the air, the water, the ground, the people in the 

communities that live around there. 

And I will be writing a statement later that's better prepared. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Ms. Peterson. 

The next person is Richard Lai. 

MR. LAI: So, I'll make my comments brief. 

Sorry, my name is Richard, R-I-C-H-A-R-D; L-A-I. 

402-3

402-4

402-3	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s concerns. As noted in Chapter 3,

Section 3.1.1.1, and Appendix A, Section A.1.1.1, of this NNSS SWEIS, “As part

of its National Security/Defense Mission, NNSA is tasked with strengthening

national security through the military application of nuclear energy and reducing the

global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” Conducting tests

and experiments involving nuclear materials, depleted uranium, and explosives is

necessary to support DOE/NNSA’s National Security/Defense Mission. 

The DOE/NNSA Environmental Restoration Program is addressed under all

alternatives in this NNSS SWEIS. In consultation with NDEP and pursuant to the

FFACO, DOE/NNSA has and continues to conduct characterization of potentially

contaminated areas on the NNSS, TTR, and Nevada Test and Training Range. Based

on the results of the characterization, DOE/NNSA and NDEP develop appropriate

strategies to contain and/or clean up contaminated areas. The Environmental

Restoration Program addresses contaminated soils sites, industrial sites, and

groundwater. Further detail regarding the Environmental Restoration Program may

be found at www.nv.energy.gov/envmgt. 

402-4	 Since 1991, DOE/NNSA has worked with 16 culturally affiliated Western Shoshone,

Southern Paiute and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone Tribes that are represented

by CGTO. Throughout this NNSS SWEIS, the DOE/NNSA NSO has included tribal

perspectives developed by CGTO for consideration by DOE/NNSA in its analysis of

this document. DOE/NNSA is further aware of and values the cultural perspectives

related to natural resources and communities that have ties to the NNSS. The

Western Shoshone have long claimed aboriginal title to approximately 24 million

acres of land in Nevada, Idaho, California, and Utah. This claim is based on the

Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863, from which the Western Shoshone assert that the U.S.

Government has not proven title to these lands.

	 In response to lawsuits by the Western Shoshone asserting title to the lands, the U.S.

Supreme Court in 1985 held that an Indian Claims Commission award was made

in accordance with statutory authority and constituted full and final settlement for

Western Shoshone land claims. Later, the Western Shoshone challenged aboriginal

title in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit followed the

Supreme Court’s decision and ruled against the Western Shoshone. In a final appeal,

the Supreme Court refused to hear the Western Shoshone Case, letting the appellate

court decision stand. As an agency of the U.S. Government, the DOE/NNSA NSO

must adhere to Federal directives, including Supreme Court decisions that apply to

NNSS/NSO operations.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-447

-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Thank you for your work and opportunity for public comments. Please extend the 

public comment period by at least three months as the Draft EIS is a large document needing 

optimal duration. 

Please do not disturb previously undisturbed areas. Please make the previous EIS 

widely known, go online or physically. And please adopt the Reduced Use option or some 

combination that transports reduced use. 

That's it. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Lai. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: With that, we have gone through the list of people who have 

registered to comment. If there are other people who would like to register to comment, we 

have cards here, you don’t even have to go back to the registration table. Or perhaps any of 

the people who have already spoken, if you have something else you would like to add, you 

may do so at this time. 

Our next speaker is Georgia Barker. 

MS. BARKER: Thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity of seeing all the 

displays, they were really great. And the people that were here were wonderful, they’ve 

explained a lot things with all my questions. 

I have looked at all of that and the number one thing I have is that I do not support 

expanding what you're proposing. I think if you stay at the current level or reducing it. I've 

got a great concern on transportation. I understand that the trucks are enclosed and that 

things are sealed and all, but we live right here by the freeway and have all the trucks coming 

through and the vehicles is a great concern. 

I still think that there may be environmental impacts and I'm going to have to study 

those information that you handed out. But I just feel that with everything that I've looked at 

403-1

404-1

404-2

404-3

403-2

403-3

403-4

403-1	 In response to numerous requests from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA

extended the public comment period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.

403-2	 The DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and

Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources.

403-3	 DOE/NNSA has made the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996) available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx).

403-4	 The commentor’s support for the Reduced Operations Alternative is noted. As stated

in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered comments

received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying a preferred

alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.4 of this

Final NNSS SWEIS.

404-1	 The commentor’s opposition to the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. As

stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

404-2	 Appendix E, Table E–15, shows the maximum impacts that could occur to an

MEI residing along a route. This MEI would incur no more than 2.4 × 10-7 rem of

exposure per shipment during incident-free conditions. In other words, the MEI

would have to be present outdoors next to the route and exposed to over 4,000

shipments of LLW to obtain a dose of 1 millirem, which is about the same dose a

person would receive from a dental x-ray. 

404-3	 Please see the response to comment 404-1, above.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-448

-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and the background with the military and defense department that I just feel that what you're 

doing at this point is the maximum that should be done and that I would really prefer the 

reduced, at least no more than what you're doing now. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Ms. Barker. For the record, would you spell your 

name, please? 

MS. BARKER: Oh, I'm sorry. 

MS. MARSHALL: That's okay. 

MS. BARKER: It's Georgia, like in -- G-E-O-R-G-I-A; and then Barker, 

B-A-R-K-E-R. 

MS. MARSHALL: Our next speaker is Judy -- 

MS. JAEGER: Jaeger. 

MS. MARSHALL: Jaeger. 

MS. JAEGER: My name is Judy Jaeger, J-A-E-G-E-R. 

And I've lived in St. George for the last 16 years. I'm not a downwinder, but I did see 

the last atomic bomb testing program when I was a kid. 

Anyhow, the reason I'm concerned is -- or the reason I'm here tonight is that I saw 

your advertisement in the paper yesterday and that was it, nothing prior to that. And again it 

didn’t say in the announcement exactly who was putting on this assembly or whatever, 

however you want to call it. And so I came here blind tonight, not knowing what I was 

coming to. 

As far as transportation, having been in the transportation industry for almost 25 

years, I never had anything that was nuclear or waste but several people that I know have. 

And precautions are taken are above and beyond what is normally put on any type of 

transportation trucks, per se. So I'm not about concerned about that. 

404-3

cont’d

405-1

405-2

405-1	 DOE/NNSA has a sincere interest in public participation in the NEPA process and

provided notices of the public hearings in local newspapers (including legal notice

in the St. George Spectrum on September 1, 2011, announcing the date, time, and

purpose of the meeting); on its website; and through a Federal Register notice. In

each case, DOE/NNSA specified that it was the agency that was hosting the public

hearing and that the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the draft SWEIS and seek

comments on it from the public.

405-2	 DOE/NNSA understands that the commentor is concerned about air quality in St. 

George, Utah, both from radioactive waste management activities at the NNSS

and from pollution associated with all vehicles. This NNSS SWEIS evaluates the

potential impacts of operations at the NNSS from current and projected operations. 

A conservative estimate of the radiological impacts from current operations is

presented annually in the site environmental report (available at www.nv.doe.

gov/library/publications/aser.aspx). In this NNSS SWEIS, the potential impacts

were estimated by assuming that a hypothetical person would receive the dose as

reported in the annual reports in addition to doses from various facilities that may

have radioactive emissions. The hypothetical person who would receive this dose

was assumed to live at the boundary of the NNSS, about 100 miles away from St. 

George. The highest annual dose to that hypothetical individual is calculated to be

4.8 millirem (equivalent to approximately five dental x-rays); the risk of a cancer

from this dose is about 1 chance in 333,000. The dose and risk to anybody further

away would be much lower.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-449

-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

What I am concerned about is air quality. I have a family, four grandchildren and 

they all live here in St. George. And from all of my family, I’m the only one that has had 

cancer of all my parents, grandparents backwards. So the first thing I did when I found out 

that I had cancer was look up how prominent it was in the area. Came to find out that 

Connecticut has a higher rate of breast cancer than we do in St. George. So that made me 

feel good. At the same time, I still wasn't happy about it because don't believe everything 

that you read. But I’m concerned for my children, my grandchildren, not my children, but -- 

well, I have a daughter who lives here, that this place will not remain, you know, as pristine 

as it is. And I don’t mean, you know, housing, that's long gone, that left here in ’94 with the 

California rush -- or I should say ‘98. 

Anyhow, I worry about the air quality. We’re talking -- you see more and more about 

the quality, the air pollution from vehicles from whatever and then we have to add to that the 

fear of the air quality from a growing and can grow even larger than what we are even 

talking about now area for nuclear waste management. And that can be changed at any time, 

it can get bigger. And they're going to have another one of these get-togethers and how 

many people will not know about that then any more than the ones that don't know about this 

one tonight. So that is a concern. 

I have two minutes. I talk, like, forever. 

And the other thing is water. Where is the water coming from to go to the waste 

treatment facility now? You know, I mean, Nevada's already complaining that they're not 

getting enough water from Utah. And we're not going to give them any more. You know, I 

mean, everybody's deserving of their state's rights and Utah has state's rights over Nevada. 

And a lot of people in Nevada don't know that, but we do. So where are they getting the 

water from that they need to use in this facility? Question, answer. 

Thank you. Have a good evening. 

405-2

cont’d

405-3

	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final 

NNSS SWEIS), DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases:

a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes

within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds

of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes

and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over

the past 15 years. Use of certain routes in Las Vegas would have made Interstate 15

a logical route for transporting waste from some of the DOE generator sites in the

East. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand the differences

in potential environmental effects between different routing options (which

incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since the 1996 NTS EIS

[DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate those differences to

the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of transportation routes. 

DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any decisions regarding

specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. Therefore, Interstate 15

through St. George, Utah, would not likely be used for such shipments.

405-3	 All water uses described in the SWEIS are supplied by onsite groundwater wells, not

any sources in or bordering Utah, such as the Colorado River. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-450

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Ms. Jaeger. 

MS. JAEGER: Thank you. 

MS. MARSHALL: Is there anyone else who would like to comment this evening? 

Sign up to comment? Would any of the previous commenters like to add to their comments? 

If not, we will have a temporary adjournment and we'll remain open for comments up 

until 8:00 this evening. So if anyone else comes in, we will reconvene and you’re invited to 

return or if you decide later you want to make an additional comment, please -- I suppose 

you need to do another card so that we've got the record for that and we'll reconvene. 

But for now, we are temporarily adjourned. Thank you for coming. Thank you for 

commenting. 

[Meeting temporarily adjourned] 

MS. MARSHALL: Let the record reflect that it is now 8 p.m. All registered speakers 

have been called upon to speak. We will now adjourn this public comment hearing. Thank 

you so much for coming tonight all of you. 

[Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.] 

-oOo- 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the St. George, Utah Public Hearing (September 22, 2011)

2-451

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-13- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 30th day of November 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-452

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

TONOPAH CONVENTION CENTER 

301 Brougher Avenue 

Tonopah, Nevada 89049 

On 

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 

Beginning at 

 6:30 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-453

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011, 6:30 P.M. 

CONVENTION CENTER, TONOPAH, NEVADA 

MS. LOWE: Good evening. I would like to welcome you to this formal public hearing of 

the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation of the 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National Security 

Site, an offsite location in the state of Nevada. 

Today is Tuesday, September 27, 2011, and this hearing is being convened at the 

Convention Center, located at 301 Brougher, Avenue in Tonopah, Nevada. And it is now 

6:30 p.m. 

My name is a Wendy Lowe, and I’ve been asked by the Nevada Site Office of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to serve as the moderator for tonight’s public 

hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide you, the interested members of the 

public, with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact 

Statement. Because this is a formal public hearing, we would like to request that you silence 

your mobile telephones and make every effort to be as quiet as possible in the room so 

everyone can hear when someone’s commenting. 

There are two restrooms located right up here; one for each gender, and then two in the 

lobby area. If we all need to leave the room because of an emergency, there’s an exit back 

this direction, one through the kitchen, and then one the way most of us came in through the 

building. And we do have ice water and snacks up here on the level above. 

Before we get too far along, I'd like to introduce Linda Cohn, who is sitting here in 

the middle of the table. She is the hearing officer for tonight’s hearing and she is here to 

officially receive your comments on behalf of the federal government. 

 Tonight's public hearing is one of five that were scheduled over a two-week period in 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-454

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Las Vegas, Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. All of the 

public hearings are being conducted in the same way. If you just arrived, we have an open 

house that’s located around the perimeter of the hearing room, and if we don’t have enough 

people to comment between now and 8, we will recess and you’ll have the opportunity to go 

through the information and displays and talk with the subject matter experts about the 

various subject matters that are addressed in the Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

We advertised that we would be here until 8:00 this evening and we will stay that long. 

 In a few minutes, I'll go over the procedures that we'll follow when we're ready to take 

your comments at this hearing. Before we do that, we have a short video that we’d like to 

show you about the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

[Video shown.] 

MS. LOWE: As explained in the video, your comments at this hearing will be 

considered by the National Nuclear Security Administration as it finalizes the Environmental 

Impact Statement to support decisions about future operations for the Nevada National 

Security Site and the related offsite locations. In particular, you're invited to make 

comments and suggestions about what you want the agency to consider as it prepares the 

final environmental analysis. 

 As the moderator for this meeting, it's my job to make sure that the hearing is 

conducted in a respectful manner and that everyone who is interested in providing comments 

has a fair opportunity to do so. 

 To allow as much time as possible for public comments, Linda Cohn and the other 

federal staff and contractors who are here tonight will not be responding to comments or 

answering questions during the hearing. If you do have questions, then I’d invite you to wait 

‘til we’re not in session and talk to the folks in the open house, the subject matter experts, 

because that’s what they’re here to do is help you understand what the document says. But 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-455

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

please be aware that if you have a conversation with anyone during the open house portion of 

the meeting, it will not be recorded and it will not be in the formal record for this meeting. 

So if you have something important to say, make sure that you sign up at the registration 

table and come forward to make comments. 

 Now I would like to review the procedures that I'll be following for taking oral 

comments. If you want to make oral comments for the record tonight, you’ll need to sign up 

at the registration table in the lobby. And I will be calling on people to speak on a firstcome, first- served basis. We will continue to accept speaker registration cards until 8 p.m. 

as was advertised in the announcement for this hearing. 

 Let’s see. Please be aware that providing oral comments from the podium is only one 

of several ways to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some 

of you may have prepared written comments, others may want to fill out the public comment 

form. And copies of the public comment form are located throughout the open house as well 

as at the registration table. You’re welcome to leave any written comments, whether they’re 

something that you prepared before you came tonight or on the comment form at the 

registration table before you go home tonight. You can also submit comments by mail or 

fax, through telephone calls through a toll-free telephone line, or via the Internet. And the 

various ways that you can submit your comments are on this handout that we have available 

at the registration table so you don’t have to memorize the address or the phone number. 

 All written and oral comments received during the public comment period which will 

end on Thursday, October 27, will be given equal consideration. So it doesn’t matter if you 

provide your comments later, that’s fine. 

 In order to have a fair -- provide a fair opportunity to everyone who is interested in 

providing comments, I will be asking each commenter to conclude his or her remarks within 

five minutes. No one will be allowed to share this time or yield their time to another person. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-456

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrie Stewart, who is sitting in front of the room here, is serving as our timekeeper. And 

she will let you know how you’re doing on your time. If you have important points that you 

want to make sure you get to, make sure you keep your eye on her and she’ll let you know 

the right amount. If you have not concluded your remarks by the end of your time, I will ask 

you to stop and then I will call the next person who is registered to speak. 

 When I do call on you to provide your comments, please come forward to the podium 

and begin by stating and spelling your name. And then if you’re representing an agency or 

organization tonight, we’d like to know that so we can have that in the record. Please speak 

clearly and into the microphone. Jill Jacoby, who is sitting at the end of the table with me is 

a court reporter and it’s her job to provide a complete and accurate transcription of this 

hearing and we want to make sure she captures all of your comments. I have asked her to let 

me know if she has any trouble hearing or understanding you. The transcription for this 

hearing will be included as an appendix of the final Environmental Impact Statement. 

If you’ve signed up for -- on the mailing list, you’ll be notified when that final 

Environmental Impact Statement is available. If you haven't signed up yet for the mailing 

list, you can also do that at the registration table. 

 One final request I'd like to make of you tonight. I know a lot of you have strong 

opinions about this program. Some of you may oppose the program, while others support it. 

The point of a public comment hearing is to give each of you an opportunity to make your 

comments and suggestions to the agency about what you would like for them to consider in 

the final Environmental Impact Statement. Regardless of your position, I would appreciate 

your help in making sure that everyone who speaks tonight is treated respectfully. 

So I have two people registered at this time. And Gary Hollis is first and he will be 

followed by Launce Rake. 

 MR. HOLLIS: This audience looks familiar for some reason. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-457

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 Anyway, my name is Gary Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S, and I'm chairman of the Nye County 

Board of Commissioners. 

 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you as a cooperating agency. We have 

some different views, but you have included those views in the draft. However, presenting 

our views without action to recognize and mitigate past and present impacts is not enough. 

 Like many citizens of Nye County, I worked at the Nevada Test Site and supported 

the United States through the Cold War years. My family and my friends believe the support 

we gave our federal government was worthwhile and we have no regrets. However, it is now 

time for DOE and the rest of the federal government to recognize the impact that they have 

caused and provide mitigation to Nye County. 

Resources have been taken from us and DOE should do everything in its power to 

return those resources to the County. Not allowing Nye County access to water on the 

Nevada National Security Site is a big deal. Our water rights permit request for water on the 

Site have all been denied because of protests by federal agencies, including DOE and DOE's 

refusal to allow access to water. DOE should closely coordinate all groundwater studies 

with our scientists and provide funding for Nye County to conduct our own groundwater 

science studies of the Nevada National Security Site. 

The ongoing impact of denied access to the County is a huge -- it's huge. And no 

compensation has been made for our loss of access to water. This is a desert and access to 

water is a major issue for our residents. We understand some water on the Nevada National 

Security Site is contaminated. However, we believe and DOE has indicated that the vast 

majority of that water is perfectly safe for public use. Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution 

No. 5, dated June 16, 2011, documents our concerns. The joint resolution urges the federal 

government to engage in discussions with Nye County regarding the mitigation and 

containment of water contamination in Nevada which resulted from nuclear testing and 

501-1

501-1	 When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also

implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation

was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right to

use groundwater at the NNSS to support its mission requirements. The means by

which the land was withdrawn did not provide for any form of compensation. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6, DOE/NNSA and other Federal agencies,

such as BLM and NPS, have for various reasons protested applications for water

withdrawals by others. In DOE/NNSA’s case, the protests were based on the need to

protect its Federal reserved water rights where the requested withdrawals could affect

those rights. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may

permit access to the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although

DOE/NNSA would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights

as appropriate; thus, the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its

own water appropriation from the State Engineer.

	 DOE/NNSA involves Nye County (the commentor) in its groundwater

characterization, modeling, and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. For

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board, regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA regarding groundwater studies and other

environmental management activities and has participated in annual groundwaterrelated public meetings.

	 Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA accepts, evaluates, and funds unsolicited proposals

for various activities such as the hydrogeological investigations suggested by the

commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are evaluated pursuant

to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies, as well as in

consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals would assist

DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through

the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of

Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying sites that have potential

historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and

instituting closure actions. DOE/NNSA, under the NSSS Environmental Restoration

Program, will continue to ensure compliance with the FFACO by characterizing
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-458

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

storage activities that were conducted by the federal government at the Nevada National 

Security Site and the reestablishment of any contamination because of those activities. 

 Our bottom line, DOE should take steps to mitigate this specific impact. One 

practical solution would be to provide the County reasonable access to sustainable clean 

water resources that exists at the Nevada National Security Site. 

Stop protesting our water rights requests. We appreciate the work you have done and 

look forward to working with you to resolve our issues. And we'll provide you formal, more 

detailed comments in the future. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Hollis. 

Launce Rake. 

MR. RAKE: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today -- tonight. My 

name is Launce Rake; L-A-U-N-C-E, R-A-K-E. 

Tonight I'm representing a national group called Healing Ourselves, which has only 

had its presence in Nevada and other parts of the country where there have been nuclear 

weapons facilities or work with nuclear weapons development in other ways involving 

nuclear waste, radioactive materials, and so on. 

First of all, I really want to thank the Department of Energy for their hospitality over 

the last four days. Although our policy points are probably not going to be adopted 

wholesale, I hope that they will be considered carefully. And if anybody wants to see our 

policy points, by the way, you can grab a copy of those on the desk to your right as you're 

walking out the front door. 

I wanted to say that we support Commissioner Hollis's point that mitigation and 

containment of contamination at the Test Site, particularly water contamination, needs to be 

501-1

cont’d

502-1

and monitoring locations and resources that have sustained adverse environmental

impacts from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past

nuclear weapons testing. 

502-1	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s preferences related to selection of

the Preferred Alternative, specifically environmental restoration and solar energy

development. As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA

considered comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in

identifying a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described

in Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

	 Additionally, DOE/NNSA intends to prepare a mitigation action plan, consistent

with DOE’s requirements at 10 CFR 1021.331, following the ROD for this SWEIS. 

Within this mitigation action plan, DOE/NNSA will include both project-specific

mitigation measures (tailored to the selected alternative) and broader strategies,

including the use of adaptive management techniques. DOE/NNSA’s intention to

prepare a mitigation action plan is stated in Chapter 7, Section 7.0.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-459

-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

carefully considered and undertaken. We also want to say that we support a reduced level of 

activity particularly as it pertains to weapons development which we have particular 

concerns about because of the danger of contamination, further work issues of contamination 

at the Test Site. 

 The other thing that we want to do is to say that instead of weapons development, we 

do support the idea of renewable energy research and development at the Test Site. 

Wouldn’t it be something if instead of saying that Tonopah and Nye County, wonderful 

places to live and work, but instead of saying these are the gateway to the Test Site where it 

used to develop nuclear weapons, exploded nuclear weapons, instead it’s the gateway to a 

clean alternative energy, a new industry that's picking up America. 

 So that would really, really be great but we want to make sure that if that happens, 

that it's done carefully in a way that prevents the kind of exposure to workers that has 

happened in the past tragically. 

 Years ago as a newspaper reporter, I met some folks who were from Nye County, at 

least one from Tonopah, who had worked at the Test Site, had been exposed and some of 

them were sick. We never want to see that happen again. So as we develop renewable 

energy at the Test Site, let's make sure that that's done in places that are safe and that we 

don't kick up materials that might be dangerous either for the workers or for anybody else 

who might be exposed to the dust. 

 Thank you again. And, again, I appreciate the DOE’s hospitality. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Rake. 

I have no more speaker registration cards. Is anyone on the verge of thinking about 

doing it? 

Okay. We will go into recess, and we will all be here. If you decide that you'd like to 

502-1

cont’d

502-2 502-2	 DOE/NNSA acknowledges the commentor’s support for renewable energy projects

at the NNSS and concern that they be developed in previously developed areas

where radionuclides would not be disturbed. None of the proposed locations for

renewable energy projects are in areas where radionuclides may be disturbed. The

DOE/NNSA NSO’s policy is to place new projects in previously disturbed areas

if the land area meets the project requirements. When there are projects that have

specific requirements that cannot be met by locating them in previously disturbed

areas, the DOE/NNSA NSO tries to minimize the area disturbed and implements

mitigation measures specific to the land area to be disturbed. Information regarding

the types of mitigation measures that may be implemented can be found throughout

Chapter 7, “Mitigation Measures,” in Sections 7.1, Land Use; 7.5, Geology and

Soils; 7.6, Hydrology; 7.7, Biological Resources; and 7.10, Cultural Resources. 

The DOE/NNSA NSO agrees that undamaged land and wildlife habitat should be

protected. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-460

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

provide comments, please do so at the registration table and we'll immediately go back into 

session. We will be here until 8:00 this evening. 

Just as a reminder, if you have a conversation with somebody at the informational 

displays and you think of something you want to make sure gets on the record, you need to 

do it from the podium tonight. 

So thanks for coming. 

[Meeting temporarily adjourned] 

MS. LOWE: I would like to reconvene the public hearing of the Draft Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation of the Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National Security Site, an offsite location 

in the state of Nevada. 

 Today is Tuesday, September 27, 2011, and this hearing has been convened at the 

Convention Center located at 301 Brougher Avenue in Tonopah, Nevada. 

Let the record reflect that it is now 8 p.m. All registered speakers have been called 

upon to speak. We will now adjourn the public comment meeting. Thank you so much for 

coming tonight. 

[Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.] 

-oOo- 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Tonopah, Nevada Public Hearing (September 27, 2011)

2-461

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 30th day of November 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-462

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

CARSON NUGGET 

507 North Carson Street 

Carson City, Nevada 

On 

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 

Beginning at 

 6:30 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-463

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011, 6:30 P.M. 

CARSON NUGGET, CARSON CITY, NEVADA 

MS. LOWE: Good evening. I would like to welcome you to this formal public 

hearing for the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation 

of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National 

Security Site, an offsite location in the state of Nevada. 

Today is Wednesday, September 28, 2011, and this hearing is being convened at the 

Carson Nugget, located at 507 North Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. And it is now 

6:30 p.m. 

My name is a Wendy Lowe, and I’ve been asked by the Nevada Site Office of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to serve as the moderator for tonight’s public 

hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide you, interested members of the 

public, with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact 

Statement. Because this is a formal public hearing, we would like to ask you to silence your 

mobile telephones and we would like your help in keeping the room as quiet as possible so 

that everyone can hear all the comments. 

The restrooms are located down the hall to the lobby area here on this floor of the 

casino. And if we all have to leave the room in an emergency, out of these exit doors down 

to the left to the staircase, down the stairs and then as you go to your left, you’ll see exits out 

of the building. 

 Before we get too far along, I'd like to introduce Linda Cohn, who is to my left. She 

is the hearing officer for tonight’s hearing. And she’s here to officially receive your 

comments on behalf of the federal government. 

 Tonight's public hearing is the fifth in a series of five that were scheduled over a 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-464

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

two-week period in Las Vegas, Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and St. 

George, Utah. All of these public hearings are being conducted in the same way. If you just 

arrived, I’d like to point out there’s an open house in the next room over where Nevada Site 

Office has informational posters, informational handouts, and a number of subject matter 

experts related to the various subject matters that are addressed in the Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement. And the open house will be available until the hearing 

ends this evening. 

 In a few minutes, I'll go over the procedures that we'll be following when we're ready 

to take your comments in this hearing room. Before we do that, we’re going to watch a short 

video about the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 

[Video shown.] 

MS. LOWE: As explained in the video, your comments at this hearing will be 

considered by the National Nuclear Security Administration as it finalizes the Environmental 

Impact Statement to support decisions about future operations at the Nevada National 

Security Site and offsite locations. In particular, you're invited to make comments and 

suggestions about what you want the agency to consider as it prepares the final 

environmental analysis. 

 As the moderator for this hearing, it is my job to make sure that the hearing is 

conducted in a respectful manner and that everyone who is interested in providing comments 

has a fair opportunity to do so. 

 To allow as much time as possible for the public comments, Linda Cohn and the other 

federal staff and contractors who are here tonight will not be responding to comments or 

answering questions during the hearing. If you do have questions, I advise you to go to the 

open house area where subject matter experts are standing by. You do need to be aware that 

any conversations that you have during the open house will not be recorded and will not be 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-465

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

included in the formal record for this meeting. So if you have something important that you 

want to say, make sure that you say it in this room from the podium. 

 Now I’d like to go over the procedures that I'll be following for taking oral comments. 

If you want to make oral comments for the record tonight, please sign up at the registration 

table that is located just outside of the lobby. I’ll be calling the people who have registered 

to speak on a first-come, first- served basis. Linda’s holding up the card. This is the card, if 

you signed up on this card, then you have signed up to speak. So we will -- I will be calling 

people on a first-come, first-served basis and we will continue to accept speaker registration 

cards ‘til 8 p.m. as was advertised in the announcement for this hearing. 

 Please be aware that providing oral comments from the podium is only one of several 

ways that you can provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some 

of you may have prepared written comments and some of you may wish to fill out a public 

comment form. Linda’s holding that up now. Copies of the public comment forms are 

available throughout the open house as well as at the registration table. You’re welcome to 

leave any written comments at the registration table before you go home tonight. You’re 

also welcome to submit comments by mail or fax, through telephone calls through a toll-free 

telephone line, or via the Internet. And there is other information flyers available that has all 

the ways that you can submit comments during the comment period. All written and oral 

comments that are received during the public comment period which will end on Thursday, 

October 27, 2011, will be given equal consideration. 

 In order to allow as many of you as possible to make comments, I will be asking each 

commenter to conclude his or her comments or remarks within five minutes. No one will be 

allowed to yield their time to or share their time with other people. Carrie Stewart, who is 

sitting in the front row, is assisting as our timekeeper tonight. And if you have a lot to say, 

keep your eye on Carrie, she’ll let you know how you’re doing on time. If you do have 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-466

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

important points, make sure you get them covered before I ask you to conclude. If you do 

run out of time, I’ll ask you to stop and then I’ll invite the next person to come up to the 

podium. Again, please know that my goal is to make sure everyone has a fair opportunity to 

speak. 

 When I call on you to provide your comments, please come forward to the podium 

and begin by stating and spelling your name. Please tell us if you’re representing an agency 

or an organization tonight, and please speak clearly into the microphone. Jill Jacoby, who is 

at the end of the table, is serving as our court reporter tonight and it’s her job to make sure 

that we have a complete and accurate transcription of this hearing, so we want to make sure 

that she’s able to capture what you’re telling us. I have asked her to let me know if she is 

having trouble hearing or understanding you. The transcription of this hearing will be 

included as an appendix of the final Environmental Impact Statement. 

If you have signed up for the mailing list, you’ll be notified when the final EIS is 

completed. And if you haven't signed up for the mailing list, you can do that tonight at the 

registration table as well. 

 One final request that I'd like to make of you tonight. I know a lot of you have strong 

opinions about the program. Some of you may oppose the program, while others of you may 

support it. The point of a public comment hearing is to give each of you an opportunity to 

make comments and suggestions to the agency about what you would like for them to 

consider in the final Environmental Impact Statement. Regardless of your position, I would 

appreciate your help in making sure that everyone who speaks tonight is treated respectfully. 

I will call -- I’ll try to remember, anyway, to call three names in advance so you’ll 

know you’re coming up. 

Gary Hollis is up first tonight. He’ll be followed by Marta Adams who will be 

followed by Bob Halstead. 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-467

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 MR. HOLLIS: I’m Gary Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S. 

 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you as a cooperating agency. We have 

some different views, but you included those views in your draft. However, presenting our 

views without action to recognize and mitigate past and present impacts is not enough. 

 Like many citizens of Nye County, I worked at the Nevada Test Site and supported 

the United States through the Cold War years. My family, my friends believe the support 

that we gave the federal government was worthwhile and we have no regrets. However, it is 

now time for DOE and the rest of the federal government to recognize the impact they have 

caused and provide mitigation to Nye County. 

Resources have been taken from us and DOE should do everything in its power to 

return those resources to the County. Not allowing Nye County access to water on the 

Nevada National Security Site is a big deal to us. Our water rights permit request for water 

on the Site have all been denied because of protests by federal agencies, including DOE and 

DOE's refusal to allow access to that water. DOE should work closely -- closely coordinate 

all groundwater studies with our scientists and provide funding for Nye County to conduct 

our own groundwater science studies at the Nevada National Security Site. 

The ongoing impact of denied access to the County is huge. And no compensation 

has been made for our loss of access to that water. This is a desert and access to water is a 

major issue for our residents. We understand some of the water on the Nevada National 

Security Site is contaminated. However, we believe and DOE has indicated the vast majority 

of the water is perfectly safe for public use. Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5, dated 

June 16, 2011, documents our concerns. The joint resolution urges the federal government 

to engage in discussions with Nye County regarding the mitigation and containment of water 

contamination in Nevada which resulted from nuclear testing and storage activities that were 

conducted by the federal government at the Nevada National Security Site and the 

601-1

601-1	 When the United States withdraws public land for uses such as the NNSS, it also

implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the reservation

was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal reserved water right to

use groundwater at the NNSS to support its mission requirements. The means by

which the land was withdrawn did not provide for any form of compensation. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6, DOE/NNSA and other Federal agencies,

such as BLM and NPS, have for various reasons protested applications for water

withdrawals by others. In DOE/NNSA’s case, the protests were based on the need to

protect its Federal reserved water rights where the requested withdrawals could affect

those rights. DOE/NNSA, pursuant to its safeguard and security protocols, may

permit access to the NNSS and the conduct of certain commercial activities, although

DOE/NNSA would continue to retain and exercise its Federal reserved water rights

as appropriate; thus, the commercial entity would be responsible for obtaining its

own water appropriation from the State Engineer.

	 DOE/NNSA involves Nye County (the commentor) in its groundwater

characterization, modeling, and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. For

example, Nye County, through its liaison with the Nevada Site Specific Advisory

Board, regularly interacts with DOE/NSSA regarding groundwater studies and other

environmental management activities and has participated in annual groundwaterrelated public meetings.

	 Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA accepts, evaluates, and funds unsolicited proposals

for various activities such as the hydrogeological investigations suggested by the

commentor. When unsolicited proposals are received, they are evaluated pursuant

to relevant procurement and contracting regulations and policies, as well as in

consideration of other factors such as the extent to which the proposals would assist

DOE/NNSA in achieving its mission objectives and the availability of funding.

	 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, DOE/NNSA environmental restoration

activities at the NNSS, including those associated with groundwater contaminated

by past nuclear weapons testing, are subject to State of Nevada oversight through

the FFACO, which was entered into in 1996 by DOE, DoD, and the State of

Nevada. The FFACO provides a process for identifying sites that have potential

historic (legacy) contamination, implementing state-approved corrective actions, and
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-468

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

reestablishment of any water contaminant because of those activities. 

 Our bottom line, DOE should take steps to mitigate specific impacts. One practical 

solution would be to provide the County reasonable access to sustainable clean water 

resources that exists on the Nevada National Security Site. 

Stop protesting our water rights requests. We appreciate the work you have done and 

look forward to working with you to resolve our issues. We'll provide you with formal, 

more detailed comments in the future. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Hollis. 

 Marta Adams is next. She will be followed by Bob Halstead and then John Hadder. 

 MS. ADAMS: Thank you. My name is Marta Adams, M-A-R-T-A; last name 

Adams; A-D-A-M-S. I am a chief deputy attorney general for the State of Nevada. 

 I appreciate the opportunity to provide the U.S. Department of Energy with comments 

on the Draft Side-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada National Security 

Site. My comments this evening will be brief, however we will be submitting more detailed 

comments in writing. 

We work quite closely with the office of the Nevada -- the Nevada attorney general 

works quite closely with the governor’s office Agency for Nuclear Projects and other 

involved state agencies. And, again, we will be coordinating those for submission before the 

end of the comment period. 

 First, I would like to thank DOE for holding this hearing in Carson City where it’s 

more accessible to us and really the public here in northern Nevada. So thank you very 

much for that. Because the Draft Side-wide EIS is so complex and so important in terms of 

charting future directions both for the Test Site and for the future of state-DOE relationships, 

601-1

cont’d

602-1

instituting closure actions. DOE/NNSA, under the NSSS Environmental Restoration

Program, will continue to ensure compliance with the FFACO by characterizing

and monitoring locations and resources that have sustained adverse environmental

impacts from past DOE activities, including groundwater contaminated by past

nuclear weapons testing. 

602-1	 This SWEIS addresses issues that are of importance to stakeholders throughout

Nevada, and DOE/NNSA sought to make both the document and the public hearings

accessible to stakeholders in northern Nevada. In response to numerous requests

from the public and other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA extended the public comment

period on this SWEIS from 90 to 126 days.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-469

-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

we ask that the deadline for submitting comments be extended. And we do understand that 

they are in fact going to be, so thank you for that as well. 

 It seems to us that given the importance of the issues addressed in the Draft EIS and 

the breadth and range of activities and issues covered by the various alternatives allows 

sufficient time for public comments is certainly in the interests of both DOE and the citizens 

of Nevada. 

 Second, a cursory review of the draft EIS indicates that critically important 

information may be missing from the analyses. Specifically, the discussion of groundwater 

contamination from past NTS/NNSS activities does not appear to be sufficient to assess the 

cumulative loss of this resource as a result of those activities Nor does the information 

provide an adequate basis for evaluating the value of the groundwater resource which is and 

will be lost to present and future generations as a result of past, present, and future 

contamination. 

 Notably, the 2011 Nevada legislature passed a resolution tasking the attorney 

general’s office, the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the 

governor’s office Agency for Nuclear Projects to prepare a report for the 2013 legislature 

addressing whether Nevada could potentially receive monetary compensation from the 

federal government for contamination of the environment in Nevada with radioactive and 

other hazardous contaminants as a result of military exercises, nuclear weapons testing, and 

other activities conducted by the federal government of Nevada. Contamination from these 

activities will of necessity be a major focus of this investigation, and the information 

contained in the final EIS must be such that it provides a full and complete picture of the 

groundwater resource that has been removed from the public domain, the level and 

distribution of contamination of that resource, and potential, if any, for future uses of the 

resource. 

602-1

cont’d

602-2

602-3

602-2	 This NNSS SWEIS provides a description of groundwater at the NNSS in Chapter 4,

Section 4.1.6.2, including current knowledge of the extent of radiological

contamination. As discussed in Section 5.1.6.2, groundwater quality would not

be impacted by any of the activities proposed under any of the alternatives in this

NNSS SWEIS. Because it is not a proposed activity in this SWEIS, DOE/NNSA

analyzes the impact of past nuclear weapons testing on groundwater as a cumulative

impact in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2. That analysis provides a sufficient basis for

purposes of differentiating among the alternatives considered for continued operation

of the NNSS. As defined by CEQ, cumulative impacts result from the “incremental

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions...” (40 CFR 1508.7).

	 DOE/NNSA believes the analysis in this SWEIS is sufficient for purposes of

differentiating among the alternatives considered for continued operation of the

NNSS Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, provides DOE/NNSA’s estimation of potential

cumulative environmental impacts on groundwater resources resulting from past

nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS.

	 Although DOE/NNSA believes the groundwater analyses in the Draft NNSS SWEIS

were sufficient for purposes of differentiating among alternatives, in response

to a number of requests this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to enable the

public to better understand the extent of groundwater contaminated by historic

nuclear weapons testing on the NNSS. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, and Chapter 6,

Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based on information developed for the FFACO

and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of the extent

of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified to describe

the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20 and 4–21 have

been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively contaminated

groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations of tritium

detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around the NNSS,

respectively.

	 Because of the new information provided in Section 4.1.6.2, DOE/NNSA has

also revised the discussion of potential cumulative impacts from radiologically

contaminated groundwater at the NNSS (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-470

	 DOE/NNSA, in consultation with NDEP, developed UGTA Corrective Action

Strategy to address the contamination created by the testing of nuclear devices in

shafts and tunnels at the NNSS. The UGTA Corrective Action Strategy is discussed

in detail in Section 4.1.6.2 of this NNSS SWEIS. 

602-3	 Groundwater resources at the NNSS, including groundwater use, depth to

groundwater, recharge and discharge, water supply systems, and groundwater

monitoring and quality are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, of the SWEIS. 

Chapter 5, Section 5.1.6.2, provides estimates of the amount of groundwater

(expressed as perennial yield in terms of acre-feet per year) underlying the NNSS,

as well as historic and projected future demands on this groundwater to support

ongoing and proposed projects and activities under each alternative. Chapter 6,

Section 6.3.6.2, analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of past nuclear weapons

testing on groundwater. When the United States withdraws public land for uses such

as the NNSS, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for

which the reservation was created. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA maintains a Federal

reserved water right at the NNSS to support its mission requirements, one of which

includes ensuring compliance with the FFACO by characterizing and monitoring

locations that have sustained adverse environmental impacts from past DOE

activities, including groundwater contaminated by past nuclear weapons testing.

	 As noted in the response to comment 602-2 above, in response to comments,

Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2 and Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, have been revised, based

on information developed under the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to

further describe current knowledge of the extent of groundwater contamination at the

NNSS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-471

-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 I would once again ask that the deadline for comments be extended to assure a full 

airing of the information contained in the draft EIS and adequate opportunity for state and 

public review and comment. 

 Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments at this hearing tonight. The 

attorney general’s office will be providing more detailed written comments prior to the end 

of the comment period. 

 Thank you. 

 MS. LOWE: Thank you very much. 

MS. ADAMS: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Okay. Bob Halstead. And he will be followed by John Hadder and 

Erik Emblem. And I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. 

 MR. HALSTEAD: Thank you. My name is Robert Halstead, H-A-L-S-T-E-A-D. 

I’m the executive director for the state of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. 

And I do appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Side-wide EIS 

tonight. And I’d like to thank DOE for scheduling this hearing in Carson City to afford the 

residents of northern Nevada and the state agencies the opportunity to make preliminary 

comments on this very important draft document. 

My comments this evening are going to focus on one key issue that is of significant 

concern to the state. My agency, in conjunction with the attorney general’s office, will be 

submitting detailed written comments prior to the close of the comment period and I 

certainly urge that any other residents of Nevada who perhaps weren’t ready to make 

statements, they take advantage of this important opportunity to provide comments. 

 The state of Nevada is very concerned that the draft EIS appears to be setting the 

stage for abandonment by DOE of a long-standing agreement between the state and DOE 

whereby low-level radioactive waste and mixed hazardous and low-level radioactive waste 

603-1

603-1	 In Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1, of the Draft NNSS SWEIS (and this Final 

NNSS SWEIS), DOE/NNSA analyzed shipments of LLW/MLLW for two cases:

a Constrained Case that retained current restrictions to avoid routes in greater

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, and an Unconstrained Case that considered routes

within greater metropolitan Las Vegas. The routes considered are within the bounds

of existing regulatory parameters and legal constraints and reflect major changes

and upgrades to the Las Vegas Valley highway infrastructure that have occurred over

the past 15 years. By including these analyses, DOE/NNSA sought to understand

the differences in potential environmental effects between different routing

options (which incorporated changes to local transportation infrastructure since

the 1996 NTS EIS [DOE EIS-0243, August 1996] was completed), communicate

those differences to the public, and seek stakeholder comments on the range of

transportation routes. DOE/NNSA also stated that it did not intend to make any

decisions regarding specific waste transportation routes via this NEPA process. Any

changes to existing routing would be made through revisions to the NNSS WAC. 

Revisions to the WAC are undertaken in coordination with NDEP, pursuant to the

Agreement in Principle between the State of Nevada and the DOE/NNSA NSO

(State of Nevada 2011). 

While DOE/NNSA’s environmental analyses showed no meaningful differences in

potential environmental effects between the Constrained and Unconstrained Cases,

the preponderance of stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain

highway routing restrictions to avoid shipments of LLW/MLLW through greater

metropolitan Las Vegas (Constrained Case). In consideration of the environmental

analyses and stakeholder comments, and after consultation with NDEP as part of

the WAC revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway

routing restrictions for shipments of LLW/MLLW; therefore, there would be no need

to revise the WAC in this regard (DOE 2012).
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-472

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

are required to be transported to the Site using highway routes that avoid the heavily 

populated Las Vegas metropolitan area. The original agreement between then Governor 

Kenny Guinn and then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson also banned waste shipments 

over Hoover Dam. However, that has since become moot due to security restrictions put in 

place following 9/11 that banned such shipments from traversing the Dam. 

Now under the Unconstrained Routing Scenario evaluated in this draft EIS, DOE is 

proposing to abandon this agreement and begin shipping low level waste and mixed waste 

directly through the Las Vegas Valley using I-15, the I-15/US 95 interchange known as the 

Spaghetti Bowl, and also the Las Vegas Beltway. In addition, the Unconstrained Routing 

Scenario would allow waste to be shipped over the new Hoover Dam bypass bridge and 

funnel waste into the Las Vegas metro area from the south. 

 At this time I’d like to read a portion of a letter that was sent shortly ago by Governor 

Brian Sandoval to Energy Secretary Steven Chu that addresses this issue. I’ve submitted the 

letter with the record of my statement, which summarizes the first part on page 1. But On 

page 2, let me make what we think are the most significant points here. 

 For over 12 years, the existing arrangement has worked to the mutual benefit of DOE 

and the State of Nevada. Now it appears that DOE through the vehicle of the site-wide EIS, 

is considering abandoning its long-standing agreement. The draft of the EIS that was 

released for public comment on July 29th contains an unconstrained transportation scenario 

that assumes renewed shipments of waste along through the Las Vegas metro area. 

The rationale for this proposed action appears to be financial. The draft EIS 

postulates the use of intermodal shipments of waste to the Site with the material being 

transported from DOE’s generator sites by rail, then offloaded onto trucks at various 

locations proximate to Interstate 15 for the last leg of the trip to the Site. The draft EIS 

asserts that using I-15 and the Las Vegas beltway through metro Las Vegas is now 

603-1

cont’d
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-473

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

acceptable because of improvements to the area’s highway system that were not in place 

when the original agreement was made. This is emphatically not the case. Since 1999, the 

population of the Las Vegas metro area has increased exponentially. While I-15 and the 

beltway have undergone almost constant reconstruction over the past decade in an effort to 

mitigate the ever increasing traffic, congestion and gridlock continue to be major problems. 

As the governor said, I am deeply concerned that DOE/NNSS appears to be setting 

the stage for abandoning the extremely successful agreement that has served the interests of 

both DOE and the State of Nevada exceedingly well for over 12 years. 

And the governor asks the Secretary of Energy to reaffirm DOE’s commitment to the 

routing arrangements that were originally agreed to by Governor Guinn and Secretary 

Richardson in 1999. 

 If I could conclude my statement by saying that Nevada believes it’s essential that the 

agreements remain in place. And that additionally, we propose that similar routing 

restrictions apply to any shipments destined for the Site that might be going through the 

Reno-Sparks-Carson metro area for the same reasons that the waste shipments are restricted 

from Las Vegas. An accident or an incident involving such shipments in a major metro area 

of the state could have significant public health and economic consequences. The use of 

existing alternative routes for these shipments has worked exceedingly well and there really 

is no reason at all for DOE to change them. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to make this comment. We will be submitting detailed 

comments on the entire draft EIS by the end of the comment period. And, again, I really 

urge any of you residents of Nevada concerned about the future of the Test Site, please take 

advantage of this important opportunity, put yourself on the record. 

 Thank you. 

 MS. COHN: Thank you. 

603-1

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-474

-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Halstead. John Hadder who will be followed by Erik 

Emblem, and then followed by William Brooks. 

 MR. HADDER: My name is John Hadder, that’s H-A-D-D-E-R. And I’m a board 

member in an organization called HOME, Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth. We have 

some literature out there. In fact, there’s a set of topic points I’ll submit those for tonight, if 

someone hasn’t already done that yet. I’m from Reno, Nevada also speaking for myself as 

well. 

Just going to raise a couple, a few general points. One, we also request that the 

comment period be extended. The document itself is enormous, there’s a lot of information 

in there, but there’s a lot of information we feel is missing and it takes quite a bit of time to 

track down some of the details. And as was mentioned earlier, with the contamination level 

get to go to several outside cited documents to find it. In fact, some of those documents are 

not available online either. And in fact, the 1996 EIS is not readily available for most people 

either, which is one of the main reference documents. So it’s important for people to have an 

opportunity to get ahold of that background information. So we’d also request an extension, 

it would be in the best interest of not only the NNSA but the public in general to have more 

time, a lot more time for this big, big decision that we’re asking for at this point. 

We also -- we do appreciate the Native American perspective that were inserted in the 

document. We generally think that’s an improvement over previous incarnations of the EIS 

that have come out of the government. So please continue that process. 

In general, we feel that the contamination picture is not clear with the EIS. I spent 

quite a bit of time with the water and the soils issues as well. And in looking at the 

document, the general public does not get a complete sense of where the contamination is, 

especially in a visual way. Talk about people that aren’t used to digging through technical 

documents so better representation of what’s out there, where it’s located, and some basic 

604-1

604-2

604-1	 The commentor’s recognition of the inclusion of the American Indian perspectives

is appreciated. This model started with the 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243,

August 1996) and continues to be used by the DOE/NNSA NSO, as well as other

Federal agencies in the region. In response to numerous requests from the public and

other stakeholders, DOE/NNSA extended the public comment period on the draft

SWEIS from 90 to 126 days. DOE/NNSA has also made the 1996 NTS EIS available

to the public by posting it on the NNSS NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov/library/

publications/historical.aspx). 

In addition, in response to a number of comments on the Draft NNSS SWEIS, DOE/

NNSA has revised this Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand

the extent of surface and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons

testing on the NNSS and TTR. Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 (NNSS) and 4.4.5.4.1

(TTR), have been revised to include additional information regarding the location

and extent of both radiological and chemical surface soil contamination. Figures

depicting areas of soil contamination also have been added to these sections.

	 Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6.2, has been revised, based on information developed under

the FFACO and in coordination with NDEP, to further describe current knowledge of

the extent of groundwater contamination at the NNSS. The text has been modified

to describe the distribution of that groundwater in these areas, and Figures 4–20

and 4–21 have been added to illustrate the modeled distribution of radioactively

contaminated groundwater in Frenchman Flat in 1,000 years and the concentrations

of tritium detected in hydrogeologic investigation wells and springs on and around

the NNSS, respectively. Chapter 6, Section 6.3.6.2, has been revised to incorporate

the additional information from Section 4.1.6.2 into the analysis of cumulative

impacts on groundwater.

604-2	 As noted in the response to comment 604-1 above, DOE/NNSA has revised this

Final NNSS SWEIS to enable the public to better understand the extent of surface

soils and groundwater contaminated by historic nuclear weapons testing on the

NNSS and TTR. 

Contaminated soil sites and facilities at the NNSS, TTR, and Nevada Test and

Training Range are grouped together in CAUs. Each CAU is composed of a number

of CASs that exhibit geographical, contamination, and other similarities. CAUs

and CASs are managed under the FFACO, in consultation with NDEP. CASs are

characterized following specific protocols developed under the FFACO process. 

CASs and CAUs are closed under the FFACO when conditions specific to each site
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-475

-13- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

definitions would be useful. One definition, for example, with the soil cleanup site indicates 

where the site’s closed. It indicates a number of sites are closed, but there’s no discussion of 

what that means. I didn’t -- at least I didn’t see it anyway. What does it mean to have a 

closed site? What kind of -- what’s the radioactive contamination levels or industrial levels? 

So those kinds of pictures are not clear from the EIS. And it’s also true, we also agree with 

the state with the picture of underground water, again, it’s not clear and that needs to be a 

real clear picture. Especially it’s a public document. The main public document people have 

of the site. So better representation or complete representation at least in a summary form 

will be useful. People can go to other sources for more detail. And those sources should be 

available online in some way. 

The other -- the other point that we think is important that’s lacking in the document 

is an analysis of resource allocation at the Site. How much is the -- how much of the budget 

of the Site is going towards environmental management, how much is going towards 

weapons programs of various sorts. The public does not really have that kind of information 

to evaluate priorities. The statements in the EIS are kind of general well, this is important, 

this is important. But how much is important? Well, it’s you know how important it is, it’s 

how much dollars are spending on it. So I think there should be a budget table of some sort 

indicating these are projections and that way the public can weigh in on yes, we agree with 

this priority; no, we don’t agree with this priority in a quantitative way and not just a hand 

waving way. So we think that’s really important that that analysis be in there especially with 

the -- with the Site which is -- which is as complicated as this one. 

And finally, we notice that the idea of returning southern Nevada Test Site and the 

lands to public use was not discussed at all in the documents, not even on the table. We 

think that should be on the table, in fact. Again, a clear picture of the contamination would 

help for people to understand if there are any portions that could be returned to public use. 

604-2

cont’d

604-4

604-3

are met. In general, closure of a CAS/CAU may range from “closure in place” to

“clean closure.” Sites where contamination is fairly stable and cleanup activities

would be too costly or could unnecessarily spread contamination may be closed in

place. If a site is in a location where the public, workers, or the environment may

be harmed, clean closure may be prescribed. The level of cleanup is based, in part,

on existing and anticipated future uses of the site and its environs. For this reason,

although many CASs/CAUs have been closed under the FFACO, these areas are not

necessarily suitable for public access or use.

	 As stated in DOE/NNSA’s Notice of Availability for this NNSS SWEIS (76 FR 204),

electronic copies of all but a few (i.e., those for which copying would violate

copyright laws) of the references used for the Draft NNSS SWEIS were made

available in DOE reading rooms and public libraries in 18 cities in Nevada, as well

as one each in Utah and Arizona, and were also available via the Internet at the

DOE/NNSA NEPA website (www.nv.doe.gov). Electronic copies of additional

references used for preparing this Final NNSS SWEIS are also available at the

same sites.

604-3 DOE/NNSA believes that cost and budget data are not necessary or useful in

understanding and evaluating the environmental impacts of actions addressed in

this SWEIS. Future budgets for the NNSS and its various programs are uncertain,

and the costs of some future activities have not been defined yet. Therefore, budget

and cost data do not provide a meaningful method for defining and distinguishing

between alternatives in this SWEIS. DOE/NNSA has presented a detailed

description of the activities included under each alternative as well as the potential

environmental consequences associated with implementing those activities. 

604-4	 To provide the public with a better understanding of areas of contamination at the

NNSS, DOE/NNSA has revised Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.5.4.1 and 4.1.6.2, of this

Final NNSS SWEIS to include additional information on the current knowledge of

the extent of soil and groundwater contamination resulting from nuclear weapons

testing activities. 

Returning part or all of the lands withdrawn for the NNSS to BLM for other use is

inconsistent with the original and ongoing purpose for which the land was withdrawn

for use by DOE/NNSA. The original area withdrawn, which was part of the USAF

Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, was selected, in part, due to its remote

location, low nearby population, and minimal public use in the vicinity. As activities

on the site evolved through the years, additional land was withdrawn (i.e., the

original and three additional withdrawals constitute current site boundaries) to ensure
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-476

-14- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Are there opportunities there that we’re missing? It’s clear that some of the missions are 

decreasing and that maybe some of these areas could be thought of in terms of public use 

once again. So that -- we think that should be back on the table as a discussion. And again, 

having a clear picture of the contamination, we really need that in the discussion process. 

Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to comment and we will be 

submitting more detailed comments before the comment period closes. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Hadder. Erik Emblem will be followed by William 

Brooks, who will be followed by John Christiansen. 

MR EMBLEM: Good evening. My name is Erik Emblem, that’s E-R-I-K. And the 

last name’s Emblem, E-M-B-L-E-M. And I’m here tonight speaking for the Western State’s 

Council of Sheet Metal Workers representing the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, and 

Hawaii. And I also speak to you here tonight as somebody who is very familiar with the 

mission, Department of Energy. 

My home state is New Mexico. I grew up and was raised in Santa Fe and I worked at 

Los Alamos. So I’m very familiar with the programs and I left there many years ago. But 

I’ve had the opportunity to review the EIS, and I want to comment on DOE and the work 

that was done. Even though, you know, work’s done and it’s very expensive, and maybe 

there is some holes, but you know what, compared to where we were 30, 40 years ago, we’re 

miles and leaps and bounds ahead. 

I’m here tonight to recommend that DOE consider Expanded Operations Alternative. 

You look at the Expanded Operations Alternative as outlined in the book, it was very 

articulate with the subject matter experts in the next room. This is something that we need as 

a nation. What goes on within this Site is not only good for Nevada, but it’s good for our 

nation. 

604-4

cont’d

605-1

605-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.

sufficient land was reserved for national security activities and to maintain adequate

buffers between publicly accessible locations off site and high-hazard and otherwise

sensitive testing, experimental, and training activities on site. Returning NNSS land

to BLM for other use would reduce lands available for national security needs, as

well as buffer areas that are important for protection of the public. Consequently,

there is no land area within the NNSS that does not serve one of these two primary

uses.

	 In its 1996 NTS EIS (DOE EIS-0243, August 1996), DOE considered ceasing

all operations at the NNSS and placing all facilities into a cold standby status

(Discontinue Operations Alternative). In the 1996 NTS EIS, DOE also considered

discontinuing all defense-related and most Work for Others Program activities at the

NNSS (Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative). In its December 9, 1996,

NTS EIS ROD (61 FR 65551), DOE decided that it would implement the Expanded

Use Alternative for all activities (except LLW/MLLW management, which was to

continue under the Continue Current Operations Alternative), as well as the public

education activities under the Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands Alternative. 

DOE later decided to implement the Expanded Use Alternative for LLW/MLLW

management at the NNSS (65 FR 10061). Because discontinuing operations at the

NNSS was previously considered and DOE decided in 1996 to continue to operate

the NNSS at an expanded level, in addition to the continuing need for the NNSS

for National Security/Defense Mission programs, both closing the NNSS and

discontinuing National Security/Defense Mission programs, projects, and activities

are considered unreasonable alternatives at this time.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-477

-15- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

When we look at the downside, which everything has an upside and a downside. I 

grew up in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which was -- in my -- I grew up in a ranch south of town 

which was downwind from White Rock, New Mexico, the original dumpsite for Los 

Alamos. And having worked there, I understand how it worked, in having worked at the site. 

But since leaving the site, I was involved in a lot of the decommissioning efforts that 

happened in the ‘90s and the early 2000s. With those efforts, I toured sites not only Los 

Alamos, but in Hanford, Renault, Savannah River and some sites I did not do. And when 

you look at the monumental tasks we have to decommissioning the contaminated waste 

that’s out there, it’s just absolutely astonishing that we’ve come as far as we have and we’ve 

identified the resources at many of these sites to take care of the issue. 

This site here with the Expanded Operations looking at alternative energy, it’s cheap. 

I worked in California in energy environmental policy working a lot with the implementation 

of the Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions Act in the State of California. I see that the work 

being done here on site also follows that. And I thank you for that. 

So tonight, I think in the interest in Nevada, the interest of the United States and it 

would be in our interest to expand those operations, continue the work. I compliment you on 

the work on the EIS. 

Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Emblem. 

William Brooks will be next and he’ll be followed by John Christiansen. 

MR. BROOKS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, William Brooks, business 

representative, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 88, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Our comments are 

going to be very brief tonight. 

As a former employee of Reynolds Electric, REECo, years ago, I worked on the 

Nevada Test Site. Firsthand, I can tell you that my experience has always been safety is 

605-1 

cont’d

606-1 606-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-478

-16- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

number one for all employees at the Nevada Test Site and the citizens in the various 

surrounding areas. 

I’m here to speak on behalf of my members, the 17 members that I currently represent 

who are employees of the Nevada Test Site, combined with the wives and children, 

approximately 85 people altogether. Those jobs are critical for my members, for the Las 

Vegas Valley, for Pahrump, and Beatty. Those individuals contribute to the tax base in those 

cities. But they don’t have a job, the individuals that work at the Nevada Test Site, or the 

new name or whatever you want to call it these days, some of them have been employed for 

over 20 years. It’s a career. It’s not a job, it’s a career. 

The expansion and utilization of the Nevada Test Site is what, I think, the state of 

Nevada needs. We can no longer afford to rely on two employers to subsidize the tax base 

of the state of Nevada, which would be MGM and Harrah’s. Therefore, I would strongly 

encourage the Department of Energy to also negotiate extensive agreements with the 

Department of Defense to utilize every aspect of the Test Site or whatever means necessary 

to promote and secure the safety of the United States of America and the citizens of this 

great country. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. John Christiansen will be next. 

Mr. Christiansen, Mr. Brooks did not spell his name, I think we figured it out, but 

would you help us with Christiansen? 

MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, Christiansen. It’s spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-S-E-N. 

First name John, J-O-H-N. 

I’m a business manager of the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 88 in Las Vegas, Nevada, 

representing 2000 members and their families. We’re affiliates with Southern Nevada 

606-1 

cont’d

607-1 607-1	 The commentor’s preference for the Expanded Operations Alternative is noted. 

As stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, of this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered

comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS as part of its evaluation in identifying

a preferred alternative. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is described in

Section 3.4 of this Final NNSS SWEIS.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-479

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-17- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Building and Construction Trades Council which represents 22,000 members and their 

families. I’m also a husband and a father. Native Nevadan raised my family in Las Vegas. 

Seen a lot of changes in Nevada in my lifetime. 

I’m here to support DOE and the draft EIS. I encourage both parties or all parties 

involved with it to reach an agreement. 

Nevada needs this expansion and activities at the Nevada National Security Site. I 

have to look down because it’s always been the Test Site to me. Nevada National Security 

Site employs a lot of people, not only construction workers, management, culinary. And 

again these are careers. These aren’t jobs that we work for a year or a short time, we make a 

career out of it. With pensions and with healthcare benefits, things that are severely needed 

to have a decent living and provide for your family. So I encourage DOE and any parties 

that have issues with the draft EIS to work through them and get resolutions so that we could 

put people to work. 

As mentioned by the speaker before me, Mr. Brooks, we have 17 members at the Test 

Site right now. We had as many as almost 80, so you can see that the work is down. He also 

mentioned that Nevada has become very dependent on just a couple of industries, gaming 

being one of them, mining being the other. And we found out in that the last couple of years 

what happens when tourism goes down, our economy goes in the tank. We’ve got to find 

ways to create jobs and put people to work. And I believe that this is a very good shot in the 

arm to the economy of Nevada, not just southern Nevada all of Nevada would benefit from 

this and I truly believe that. 

So with that, Local 88 and its affiliates recommend that the draft EIS be negotiated to 

resolution so that expanded activities can go on at the Nevada National Security Site. 

Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you. 

607-1 

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-480

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-18- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Christiansen, did I say that right? 

MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That’s correct. 

MS. LOWE: It’s better than the first time? Thank you. 

That is all the speaker registration cards I have. Anybody in the back there aware of 

any that I don’t know about? No? Okay. 

We will now take a recess, but we have advertised the availability of this meeting 

until 8:00 tonight so we will remain on the premises until 8:00. If anyone else comes and 

wants to speak, we will reconvene this hearing. 

Thank you. 

[Meeting temporarily adjourned] 

MS. LOWE: I would like to reconvene the public hearing for the Draft Site-wide 

Environmental Statement for the continued operations of the Department of Energy National 

Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National Security Site and offsite locations in the 

state of Nevada. 

Today is Wednesday, September 28, 2011, and this hearing has been convened at the 

Carson Nugget, located at 507 North Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. Let the record 

reflect that it is now 8:00. All registered speakers have been called upon to speak. We will 

now adjourn this public hearing. 

Thank you so much for coming tonight. 

 [Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.] 

-oOo- 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Carson City, Nevada Public Hearing (September 28, 2011)

2-481

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-19- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 30th day of November 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-482

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONSTITUTES 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 

SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SWEIS) 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Held at the 

 

SANTA FE STATION 

4949 N. Rancho Drive 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 

On 

Thursday, October 6, 2011 

Beginning at 

 3:52 p.m. 

 

Reported by: JILL JACOBY 

 Scopeproof 
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-483

-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011, 3:52 P.M. 

SANTA FE STATION, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

MS. COHN: Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to this formal public 

hearing for the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the continued operation 

of the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National 

Security Site and offsite locations in the state of Nevada. 

Today is Thursday, October 6, 2011. This hearing is being convened at the Santa Fe 

Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is now 3:52 p.m. 

I believe that you're going to be presenting your comments as a group; is that correct? 

MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 

MS. COHN: I'm going to go ahead and give you the microphone. 

 This is Jill Jacoby, she’s the stenographer, she will be taking down your comments. 

MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon, my name is Richard Arnold, A-R-N-O-L-D, 

spokesperson for the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. 

We must emphasize recommendations made by the CGTO do not imply we support 

the proposed actions or the alternatives. Submission of our comments is merely our attempt 

to restore harmony and balance to restore resources impacted or potentially impacted by 

DOE activities using the National Environmental Policy Act process. 

One of our first comments is that we want to let -- DOE needs to know that it needs to 

systematically consider the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations comments 

found on the Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement to fully understand and properly 

address the complexity related to the Nevada National Security Site and offsite locations 

prior to the selection of the alternatives. 

The CGTO should participate in the development of the Mitigation Action Plan. The 

701-1

701-2

701-1	 The DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates the considerable efforts of CGTO in

participating in the development of text for inclusion in this SWEIS. As

an integral part of the SWEIS, the DOE/NNSA NSO agreed to incorporate

CGTO recommendations without changes into separate text boxes for easier

identification and evaluation in the document. It is understood that the CGTO

recommendations do not imply support of proposed DOE/NNSA NSO actions or

alternatives. DOE/NNSA has carefully reviewed the CGTO recommendations

in the process of selecting its Preferred Alternative (described in Chapter 3,

Section 3.4).

701-2	 As part of the American Indian Consultation Program, the DOE/NNSA NSO

has committed to holding annual meetings with CGTO as a method of providing

program updates and information about future activities planned for the NNSS. 

DOE/NNSA appreciates CGTO’s interest in participating in the development of

the mitigation action plan and will be sharing identified mitigation strategies at

the next regular annual meeting with CGTO. The DOE/NNSA NSO understands

and supports CGTO’s interest in visiting selected sites on the NNSS. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-484

-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CGTO should be notified of proposed land disturbing activities prior to implementation. 

Need to continue to hold annual meetings to provide tribal updates. This would be through 

the support of the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration. 

We further need to arrange special trips to Gold Meadows and other areas to evaluate 

issues as intended in the spirit of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Executive Order 13007 asked 

us to say these things. 

Under the socioeconomics, DOE should enhance their administrative action efforts to 

hire more American Indians and Indian-owned businesses to mitigate socioeconomic impacts 

to our people. 

Under geology and soils, DOE needs to adopt culturally appropriate stabilization 

efforts to revegetation techniques based on traditional ecological knowledge to respond to 

severe disturbance in the geology, soil, and minerals that are in large portions of the NNSS 

due to previous activities. 

Hydrology. CGTO must be involved in mitigating impacts through hydrological 

resources. Indian people must be permitted to minimize the efforts impacted by cleaning 

natural springs, seeps, tanks, and pohs, P-O-H-S, which are natural cavern places, to restore 

balance in the area. 

Biological resources. Notification of incidental taking of culturally important plants 

and animals, i.e., desert tortoise, requires notification to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Current notification must be provided to the CGTO due to the cultural significance of this 

particular animal. 

Number 2, in the past, DOE has supported various initiatives to restore animal 

habitats such as the big horn sheep with minimal success without participation of the CGTO. 

In order for these activities to become successful, it is essential to have tribal representatives 

701-2

cont’d

701-3

701-4

701-5

701-6

701-3	 The DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates the comments related to the socioeconomics

impacts. The DOE/NNSA NSO is committed to enhancing efforts to identify

qualified American Indians and American Indian-owned businesses to support

NNSS activities to the extent practicable. 

701-4	 DOE/NNSA will consult with CGTO, to the extent practicable, to develop an

appropriate role in soil stabilization efforts at the NNSS and to incorporate

traditional ecological knowledge as part of its response to disturbances to the

geology, soils, and minerals at the NNSS.

701-5	 DOE/NNSA understands CGTO’s unique cultural perspectives and is committed

to working with CGTO to minimize impacts on hydrological resources on

the NNSS. As part of the American Indian Consultation Program, CGTO is

encouraged to identify activities designed to restore balance and health to the

springs, seeps, tanks and pohs on the NNSS, as suggested in this comment.

701-6	 Under the terms of the NNSS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009), DOE/NNSA

submits an annual compliance report to the USFWS. That report is included in a

larger annual Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Report. DOE/NNSA will

ensure that CGTO receives a copy of that report each year.

	 As noted by the commentor, DOE/NNSA has and will continue to support the

efforts of the Nevada Division of Wildlife to establish and maintain viable

populations of desert bighorn sheep in the area around the NNSS; however,

no efforts have been made to establish a resident population of desert bighorn

sheep on the NNSS. DOE/NNSA encourages CGTO to contact the Nevada

Division of Wildlife to arrange participation in future efforts to establish desert

bighorn populations in southern Nevada. There is an established population

of desert bighorn sheep on the Specter Range, south of the NNSS, as well as

other populations west and north of the NNSS. Although there have been few

observations of desert bighorns reported on the NNSS (only eight between

1963 and 2009), in recent years motion-activated cameras on the NNSS have

photographed the species 85 times in 2009 and 42 times during 2010. It is

unknown whether these bighorns are from the Specter Range or other populations

or whether there is animal movement between these distant populations. The

NNSS may provide a suitable corridor between these populations or may provide

suitable habitat for resident bighorn sheep. Recently, evidence has been found

that desert bighorn sheep may be lambing in certain areas of the NNSS, as

described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.7.2, of this Final NNSS SWEIS. DOE/NNSA
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-485

-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

involved around this process. 

Number 3, DOE has not included the CGTO revegetation efforts which leads to 

culturally appropriate environmental restoration techniques. Revegetation and reclamation 

efforts require tribal participation. 

Visual resources. DOE proposes to mitigate visual resources impact by painting 

structures to reduce visibilities. CGTO recommends landscape modifications including 

those associated with environmental restoration activities be done in conjunction with tribal 

representatives. DOE should make provisions for Indian people participating in the annual 

monitoring of land disturbing activities. 

Three, DOE should include CGTO in the land restoration and concealing 

infrastructure using traditional Indian revegetation methods. 

Number 4 is DOE should make provisions for Indian people to conduct ceremonies, 

prayers, and songs in an effort to rebalance the adversely impacted resources. 

Cultural resources. The CGTO must be an integral part of the mitigation measures so 

impacts of varying cultural resources can be minimalized for earth. 

Number 2, CGTO must assess and determine culturally appropriate measures to 

protect geological formations important to the cultural landscape. Implement culturally 

appropriate environmental restoration techniques that require minimal ground disturbance. 

Restore impacted plant and animal species essential to the spiritual and cultural landscape. 

Provide access to CGTO designated areas so that we can conduct purification and balancing 

ceremonies in an attempt to restore the natural and spiritual harmony of the NNSS landscape. 

Complete traditional and cultural property nomination process previously recommended by 

the CGTO in 2009 for the Shoshone Mountain and Water Bottle Canyon. Complete the 

Indian History Project Report prepared collaboratively with the DOE, with DOD, and the 

CGTO in 2009. Develop and implement systematic American Indian graphic studies to 

701-6

cont’d

701-7

701-8

701-9

701-10

will continue to monitor the species as it occurs on the NNSS and include updated

information in annual Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Reports.

	 Chapter 7, Section 7.7, of this Final NNSS SWEIS has been revised to indicate

that the DOE/NNSA NSO will consult with CGTO to establish an appropriate

role in revegetation efforts at the NNSS and will incorporate culturally

appropriate environmental restoration techniques, as practicable.

701-7	 DOE/NNSA supports CGTO’s interest in providing guidance and

recommendations related to visual resources mitigation, landscape modifications,

and environmental restoration that is important to the tribes. DOE/NNSA

understands CGTO’s unique cultural perspectives and is committed to working

with CGTO to minimize impacts on the NNSS. DOE/NNSA supports CGTO’s

interest in providing guidance and recommendations related to mitigation. DOE/

NNSA will be sharing identified mitigation strategies at regular annual meetings

with CGTO. 

701-8	 The DOE/NNSA NSO works closely with 16 culturally affiliated tribes

that participate with the CGTO to maintain effective interactions. As such,

arrangements are made to address tribal requests for accessing sacred, cultural,

and resource sites in accordance with Federal mandates to the extent practicable. 

The DOE/NNSA NSO encourages CGTO to further define their desire to conduct

ceremonies, prayers, and songs at the NNSS in future activities planning within

the American Indian Consultation Program.

701-9	 DOE/NNSA supports CGTO’s interest in providing guidance and

recommendations related to mitigation. DOE/NNSA will be sharing identified

mitigation strategies at the next regular annual meeting with CGTO. 

701-10	 The DOE/NNSA NSO appreciates the comments of CGTO and their participation

in the DOE/NNSA NSO American Indian Consultation Program. Through

CGTO’s efforts, various innovative cultural approaches have been recommended

and further supported by the DOE/NNSA NSO to understand the cultural

importance of areas and resources found on the NNSS. An important aspect

of the DOE/NNSAAmerican Indian Consultation Program is to address tribal

requests for accessing sacred and cultural resource sites in accordance with

Federal mandates to the extent practicable. The DOE/NNSA NSO is committed

to supporting American Indian Consultation Program activities related to the

NNSS as funding permits. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-486

-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

better understand the interconnectedness of the cultural landscape and the culturally 

appropriate methods to protect the landscape and sustain spiritual and cultural balance. 

Complete revegetation efforts of Clean Slates and projects started in 1996. 

Waste Management. CGTO opposes the transportation, storage, and disposal of 

radioactive waste at the NNSS. DOE EM, or Environmental Management, should make 

efforts to allocate funds and resources to the CGTO to conduct systematic ethnographic 

studies to document cultural perspectives relating to waste management programs. 

If DOE selects the Expanded Use Alternative, CGTO must conduct a cultural 

assessment of the Area 3 radioactive waste management site prior to new use for mitigating 

potential impacts. 

The CGTO supports DOE’s intention to minimize waste within the NNSS area. DOE 

should partner with the CGTO to develop and participate in DOE’s waste minimization and 

pollution prevention programs. Waste minimization efforts described in the SWEIS 

regarding land commitments must include members of the CGTO to ensure that cultural 

implications of these decisions are considered prior to the implementation. 

The CGTO struggles with the ethics of relocating radioactive waste from other 

American Indian lands so those people can live without fear of radioactivity. We are greatly 

concerned about the adverse spiritual, environmental, and health impacts associated with 

relocating these angry rocks from their current locations to our Holy Land. We believe 

transporting these elements to our land perpetuates animosity and discord of our tribal 

governments and disproportionally impacts natural balance of the area. 

The CGTO recommends DOE host a break out session for culturally associated -- I’m 

sorry, let me start over here. The CGTO recommends DOE host a break out session for 

culturally affiliated tribes associated with the NNSS and multistate waste generator facilities 

701-10

cont’d

701-11

701-12

701-11	 DOE acknowledges CGTO’s unique cultural perspectives and their opposition

to transporting, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste at the NNSS. In

1997, DOE funded a Native American Transportation Study through the DOE/

NNSAAmerican Indian Consultation Program to evaluate culturally perceived

risks associated with the transportation of LLW to the NNSS. Currently, NEPA

does not contain provisions to evaluate perceived risks and no such analysis

was conducted for the SWEIS. Requests for additional systematic ethnographic

or perceived risk studies that fall outside of the scope of the SWEIS require

consideration by the DOE/NNSAAmerican Indian Consultation Program and

the evaluation of required resources to implement such a request. Should the

Expanded Alternative be selected, DOE believes CGTO’s perspectives identified

in a cultural assessment of the NNSS RWMS could be useful in mitigating

potential impacts associated with NNSS activities.

701-12	 The DOE/NNSA NSO acknowledges CGTO’s comment to host a breakout

session for culturally affiliated tribes at DOE’s Office of Environmental

Management/NSO Annual Waste Generator Workshop. Unfortunately, this

comment is outside the scope of the SWEIS, but was forwarded to the Office

of Environmental Management Waste Management Program for future

consideration.
Section 2

Public Comments and NNSA Responses

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-487

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

during the DOE’s Annual Waste Generator Conference. These efforts will facilitate further 

discussion, understanding, and develop culturally appropriate measures. 

 The CGTO and the tribal members will formally submit additional comments 

including but not limited to the transportation and human health impacts prior to the 

conclusion of the public comment period. 

We’ve also advised tribal representatives here that they submit supplemental 

comments as well as individuals prior to the close of the DOE comment period. 

And that concludes our remarks. 

 Thank you. 

MS. COHN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold and CGTO. 

 Is there anybody else who would wish to speak on the record at this time? 

Okay. As I see no takers for additional commenting, let the record reflect it is now 

4:02 p.m., all speakers have been called to speak that wish to do so. We’ll now adjourn this 

public comment hearing and thank you for participating. 

-oOo701-12

cont’d
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

Comments from the Las Vegas, Nevada Public Hearing (October 6, 2011)

2-488

Response side of this page intentionally left blank.

-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

 ) ss 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

 

 I, JILL JACOBY, do hereby attest that I took down in shorthand all of the 

proceedings had in the before-entitled matter at the time and place indicated; and 

thereafter said shorthand notes were transcribed into computer-aided transcription; and 

that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings 

had to the best of my skill and ability. 

 Executed this 30th day of November 2011, at Las Vegas, Nevada. 

 

 _____________________ 

 Jill Jacoby 

 Scopeproof 

 
SECTION 3 

REFERENCES

 3-1

3.0 REFERENCES 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2010, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Amargosa 

Farm Road Solar Energy Project, (NVN-084359), BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793, DOI No. FES 10-53, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Pahrump Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, October. 

Bobb, B. E., 2007a, A Soil Contamination Survey of Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Lands within Close Proximity 

to the Nevada Test Site, Tupippuh Project, Austin, Nevada. 

Bobb, B. E., 2007b, Radionuclide and Radioactivity Monitoring on Yomba Shoshone Tribal Land, 

Agricultural and Ranching Settlements, and Traditional Use Areas in Nevada, Austin, Nevada. 

Bowen, S. M., D. L. Finnegan, J. L. Thompson, C. M. Miller, P. L. Baca, L. F. Olivas, C. G. Geoffrion, 

D. K. Smith, W. Goishi, B. K. Esser, J. W. Meadows, N. Namboodiri, and J. F. Wild, 2001, Nevada Test Site 

Radionuclide Inventory, 1951–1992, LA-13859-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

New Mexico, September. 

BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future), 2012, Disposal Subcommittee Report to the 

Full Commission, Updated Report, Washington, DC, January. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, January. 

Citizen Alert (Citizen Alert of Nevada), 2004, Analysis of the Nevada Test Site Early Warning System for 

Groundwater Contamination Potentially Migrating from Pahute Mesa to Oasis Valley, Nevada, March. 

D’Agostino, T., 2011, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 

Re: disposal of radioactive waste at the Nevada National Security Site, June 30. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for 

Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Washington, DC, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and 

Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

August. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, 

DOE/EIS-0200F, Washington, DC, May. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999a, Life-Cycle Cost and Risk Analysis of Alternative Configurations for 

Shipping Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999b, Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive 

Waste to the Nevada Test Site. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002, A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment, 

DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Office of Environmental Management, National Transportation Program, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico (available at http://www.ntp.doe.gov/readnews21.shtml), July. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

3-2 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2003, West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0337F, West Valley Area Office, West Valley, New York, 

December. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004, Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials Spill 

Center, Nevada Test Site (DOE/EA-0864) (DOE 2002) and Final Environmental Assessment for Activities 

Using Biological Simulants and Releases of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site, DOE/EA-1494. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, 

Nevada, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009, Memorandum from Dae Y. Chung, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Environmental Management, “Guidance Regarding Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste 

Disposal Decisions,” Washington, DC, August 21. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2012, Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office, Nevada, February. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 2003, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Calendar Year 2002, DOE/NV/11718-806, Las Vegas, Nevada, June. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 2006, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Calendar Year 2005, DOE/NV/11718-1135, Las Vegas, Nevada, June. 

Eaton, G. F., V. Genetti, Q. (Max) Hu, G. B. Hudson, R. E. Lindvall, J. E. Moran, E. C. Ramon, T. P. Rose, 

R. W. Williams, M. Zavarin, and P. Zhao, 2007, FY 2005 Hot Well Data, Hydrologic Resources Management 

Program and Underground Test Area Project FY2005 Progress Report, UCRL-TR-229708, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, March. 

FFACO (Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order), 2011, Appendix VI, Corrective Action Strategy, 

Revision No: 4, May. 

Gorelow, A., Stachelski, C., 2012, Climate of Las Vegas, Nevada, August.

HOME (Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth), 2006, The Yucca Mountain Legacy Project, Phase I: 

Groundwater Contaminant Baseline Data for the Yucca Mountain Region, May.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA. 

Kersting, A. B., D. W. Elfurd, D. L. Finnegan, D. J. Rokop, D. K. Smith, and J. L. Thompson, 1998, 

Migration of Plutonium in Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site in Hydrologic Resources Management 

Program and Underground Test Area Operable Unit FY 1997 Progress Report, UCRL-ID-130792, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, 1998. 

Kidman, R.L., 2012, Navarro-Intera, LLC, Personal communication (email) to R. Boehlecki, Environmental 

Restoration Program, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office, Re: Soils Source Term, 

January 26. 
Section 3 – References 

 3-3

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 2009, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of 

the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland.

NDWR (Nevada Division of Water Resources), 2006, Hydrographic Boundaries – State of Nevada, Nevada. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1977, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170, Washington, DC, 

December. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1987, Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and 

Railway Accident Conditions, NUREG/CR-4829 (UCID-20733), Washington, DC (accessed at 

http://ttd.sandia.gov/nrc/docs.htm), February. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2000, Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipping Risk Estimates, 

NUREG/CR-6672 (SAND2000-0234) (accessed at http://ttd.sandia.gov/nrc/docs.htm), Washington, DC, 

March. 

Rose, T. R., B. C. Benedict, Jr., J. M. Thomas, W. S. Sicke, R. L. Hershey, J. B. Paces, I. M. Farnham, and 

Z. E. Peterman, 2002, Geochemical Data Analysis and Interpretation of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley 

Groundwater Flow System, Nye County, Nevada, August 2002, UCRL-TR-224559), Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, Livermore, California, September. 

Russ, A., P. George, R. Goble, S. Crema, C. Liu, and D. Sanchez, 2005, Native American Exposure to 

Iodine-131 from Nuclear Weapons Testing in Nevada, George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, 

Worcestershire, Massachusetts, October 23. 

Shott, G., V. Yucel, and L. Desotell, 2008, Special Analysis of Transuranic Waste in Trench T04C at the 

Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Revision 1, 

DOE/NV/25946—470, National Security Technologies, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, May. 

Smith, D. K., R. W. Williams, and D. R. Loewen, 2003, Distribution, Concentration, and Isotope Ratios of 

Uranium and Plutonium in a Nuclear Test Cavity and Collapse Chimney, Hydrologic Resource Management 

Program and Underground Test Area Project FY 2001-2002 Progress Report, UCRL-ID-154357, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, August. 

State of Nevada, 2011, Agreement In Principle Between the National Nuclear Security Administration and the 

State of Nevada, 2011–2016, Office of the Governor, Carson City, Nevada, May. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009, Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Implementation 

of Actions Proposed on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, (File Nos. 84320-2008-F-0416 and 

84320-2008-B-00 15), U.S. Department of the Interior, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

February 12. 

Wills, C. A., and K. W. Ostler, 2001, Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography, Bechtel 

Nevada Ecological Services, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

3-4 

Code of Federal Regulations 

10 CFR Part 1021, U.S. Department of Energy, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures.” 

40 CFR Part 61, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants,” Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from 

Department of Energy Facilities.” 

40 CFR Part 191, Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for 

Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.” 

40 CFR Part 1500–1508, Council on Environmental Quality, “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.” 

49 CFR Part 173, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, “Shippers – General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.” 

Federal Register Notices 

51 FR 15618 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

NEPA Regulations.” Federal Register, Vol. 51, U.S. Government Printing Office, National Archives and 

Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Washington, DC, April 25, 1986. 

61 FR 65551, U.S. Department of Energy, 1996, “Record of Decision: Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” December 13. 

65 FR 10061, U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, “Record of Decision for the Department of Energy’s Waste 

Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; 

Amendment of the Record of Decision for the Nevada Test Site,” February 25. 

76 FR 10574, U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, “Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like 

Waste, and Notice of Public Hearings,” February 25. 

76 FR 45548, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 2011, “Notice of 

Availability and Public Hearings Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued 

Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security 

Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” July 29. 

76 FR 65508, U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, “Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft SiteWide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” 

October 21. 

77 FR 44267, U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior, 2012, “Notice of Availability of 

the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern 

States,” July 27. 
Section 3 – References 

 3-5

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” 

Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species.” 

Executive Order 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects.” 

Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.” 

United States Code 

15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 

U.S. Department of Energy Orders, Standards, and Manuals 

DOE Orders 

DOE Order 144.1, Department of Energy American Indian Tribal Government Interactions and Policy, 

June 16, 2011. 

DOE Order 151.1C, Comprehensive Emergency Management System, November 2, 2005. 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, Change 1, August 28, 2001. 

DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, February 2011. 

DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program, June 29, 1990. 

DOE Order G-420.1-2, Guide for the Mitigation of Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities 

and NonNuclear Facilities, March 28, 2000. 

DOE Standards 

DOE Standard 1020-2002, “Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of 

Energy Facilities,” DOE-STD-1020-2002 (accessed December 2, 2009, http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ 

DOE/TECHSTDS/std1020.pdf), January. 

DOE Standard 1023-95, “Natural Phenomena Hazards Assessment Criteria,” DOE-STD-1023-95, 

March 1995, Change 1; January 1996; Reaffirmed with Errata; April 2002, (available at 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/std1023/std102395_reaf.pdf). 

DOE Manuals 

DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Change 1, June 19, 2001. 

DOE Manual 460.2-1A, Radioactive Material Transportation Practices Manual for Use with DOE O 460.2A, 

June 4, 2008.