December 11, 2002
Dr. Margaret Chu
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
1000 Independence Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Re: Review Comments to Final Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Dr. Chu:
Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), White Pine County
has reviewed the Final Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and
offers the following comments thereto. White Pine County is submitting these
comments in response to the Notice of Availability (NOA) published in the
Federal Register (FR) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announcing
the availability of the FEIS and the beginning the 30-day review period of the
document pursuant to NEPA. The County intends for these comments to be used by
DOE in developing and issuing any Record of Decision based upon the FEIS and in
preparing any mitigation plans as required by the Department's own regulations
for implementing NEPA (10 CFR 1021.331).
In general, White Pine County commends DOE for having considered and developed
comprehensive responses to the numerous comments submitted on the Draft Yucca
Mountain EIS. As a consequence, the FEIS represents an improved decision support
document. The County is concerned however, that in many cases revised estimates
of risk have significantly increased, yet the FEIS provides little in the way of
proposals for mitigating said impacts. The possibility of the Yucca Mountain
repository system, including transportation elements, going forward without
mitigation of system risks is simply unacceptable. DOE must consider revised
estimates of risk when developing any subsequent Records of Decision and must
develop and implement related mitigation plans. As the following comments
suggest, certain DOE responses to comments raise new questions and concerns.
Readers Guide and Summary; Errata Sheet, Page 9 of 15, 1st row of
information, Errata
The first paragraph of this section appears to be missing text and is not
understandable.
Readers Guide and Summary, Page S-2, 6th paragraph
In addition to the requirement to issue a Record of Decision noted here, DOE
must make clear its intent, consistent with DOE regulations at 10 CFR 1021.331,
to issue a mitigation plan.
Section 4.1.7.3.1.2; 3rd paragraph
While the number of latent cancer fatalities estimated in the exposed population
has increased ten times from 0.012 to 0.12 no revision or reconsideration of
methods to mitigate such exposure risk is addressed in the FEIS. Any Record of
Decision must consider this greatly increased level of risk and methods to
mitigate said risk must be addressed in a related mitigation plan.
Section 4.1.8; 2nd paragraph
While the dose to a maximally exposed noninvolved worker has increased by 56
percent, no revision or reconsideration of methods to mitigate such exposure
risk is addressed in the FEIS. Any Record of Decision must consider this greatly
increased level of risk, and methods to mitigate said risk must be addressed in
a related mitigation plan.
Section 6.2.4.2.3; 9th and 11th paragraphs
While the lifetime committed dose to the maximum exposed individual from a
legal-weight truck cask sabotage event has been increased 150 percent, and the
risk of a fatal cancer has increased by nearly 28 percent, no revision or
reconsideration of methods to mitigate such exposure risk is addressed in the
FEIS. Any Record of Decision must consider this greatly increased level of risk,
and methods to mitigate said risk must be addressed in a related mitigation
plan.
Appendix J, Section J.1.4.1.2; 6th paragraph
While the involved worker fatality incidence rate has increased approximately
130 percent, no revision or reconsideration of methods to mitigate such exposure
risk is addressed in the FEIS. Any Record of Decision must consider this greatly
increased level of risk, and methods to mitigate said risk must be addressed in
a related mitigation plan.
Appendix J, Section J.1.4.2.3.3; 1st bullet, 2nd paragraph
While the amount of Cesium released in the maximum reasonably foreseeable
accident has been increased by nearly 85 percent, no revision or reconsideration
of methods to mitigate such exposure risk is addressed in the FEIS. Any Record
of Decision must consider this greatly increased level of risk, and methods to
mitigate said risk must be addressed in a related mitigation plan.
Comment Response Document - 3.2 (59)
The response to this comment although helpful, does not provide much needed
temporal perspectives on when DOE intends to undertake transportation related
field studies; State, local and Native American government consultations;
environmental and engineering analyses; and National Environmental Policy Act
reviews. To enable the County to anticipate its requirements for interaction
with and oversight of future DOE transportation planning initiatives, please
provide an anticipated schedule for these activities. Also please indicate
whether additional NEPA reviews would be in the form of environmental
assessments or environmental impact statement(s).
Comment Response Document - 3.2 (69)
Does the analysis of maximum reasonably foreseeable accident as presented by DOE
result in the bounding of impacts? If not, does the FEIS adequately describe the
nature and consequences of accidents that might occur (low probability/high
consequence events)?
Comment Response Document - 3.4 (11031)
Despite this response, it is still unclear to the County whether DOE believes
that it has adequately considered legal weight trucks within the FEIS to enable
use of legal weight trucks to move nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site.
Will additional NEPA analysis be required for DOE to select legal weight trucks
as a transport mode and/or to select routes along which legal weight trucks will
travel through Nevada to the Yucca Mountain site?
Comment Response Document - 3.4 (12759)
The response here states, "the estimated latent cancer fatalities (evaluated in
the DEIS) would likely have been greater than the fatalities reported in the
Supplement". The terms "would likely have been" imply that DOE does not yet know
with certainty if the flexible design evaluated in the Supplemental EIS results
in greater or fewer latent cancer fatalities. A definitive assessment of the
risk-benefit of the flexible design over the design evaluated in the Draft EIS
is needed. Please provide the County with the results of such an assessment.
Comment Response Document - 3.9 (109)
Notwithstanding the assertion here that DOE considered relevant literature
concerning perceived risk, it is noted that the White Pine County Impact
Assessment Report and related supporting documents are not referenced within the
FEIS. Please provide the County with an indication of which, if any, documents
submitted by the County were considered by DOE in preparing the FEIS. In
particular, the County impact report provides a quantification of economic and
fiscal impacts relating to potential perceived risks. As described in the
response, DOE admits to not knowing whether perceived risk related impacts might
occur (i.e. effects on property values), yet makes no attempt to quantify or
recommend relevant mitigation measures for such impacts. As a consequence,
impacts related to perceived risks are likely to fall into the realm of
unanticipated effects for which mitigation has not been planned. The County
encourages DOE to include mitigation of effects of perceived risk in a
comprehensive mitigation plan for the Yucca Mountain Project.
The response here states, "If the repository was to become operational, DOE
would enter into discussions with potentially affected units of local government
and consider appropriate support and mitigation measures." The County is very
concerned that such discussions occur prior to the repository becoming
operational so as to minimize any adverse consequences. Please provide a
commitment for DOE to engage in discussions with affected units of local
government to ensure that required mitigation measures are agreed to and in
place prior to commencement of potential impact inducing activities.
Comment Response Document - 6.1 (146)
Because the Administration has made clear its intent for the share that nuclear
energy plays of the total U.S. generating capability to remain at 20 percent,
the FEIS should have included an estimate of the total amount of spent nuclear
waste requiring disposal during the life of the project, assuming that nuclear
energy remains 20 percent of the load. Please provide the County with an
estimate of the amount of waste requiring disposal, assuming nuclear energy
provides 20 percent of the Nation's needs, during the next 30 years.
Comment Response Document - 9.1 (4279)
DOE's response here admits that neither of the scenarios it chose for evaluation
under the No Action Alternative is likely. NEPA does not allow for consideration
of alternatives that are not likely to occur. Please reconcile DOE's use of No
Action Alternatives not likely to occur with NEPA requirements relating to
viable alternatives.
Comment Response Document - 8.3 (161)
Here the document states, "In addition, DOE has identified mostly rail as its
preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in Nevada." The FEIS is
not conclusive however, as to whether any of the five candidate rail corridors
could ultimately be developed and used. In fact, the FEIS notes that a great
deal of additional corridor specific work would be required. How then can DOE
reach a conclusion that mostly rail is preferred? Please provide the County with
an explanation as to the factors that were considered by DOE in arriving at the
mostly rail conclusion. The County would appreciate being provided the analysis
of various modes which resulted in the mostly rail preference.
Comment Response Document - 8.3 (201)
DOE's commitment to identify routes at least 4 years before shipments begins is
inconsistent with Appendix M in which the text there states the Regional
Servicing Contractor will identify routes at least 1 to 4 years prior to use of
said route. The County would appreciate a definitive clarification and
commitment from DOE regarding 1) who will select routes (i.e. RSC or DOE), and
2) when routes will be identified. This response also indicates that DOE would
make final route selections and provide them to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Please clarify why routing information is to be provided to
NRC and what role DOE envisions NRC playing with respect to routing.
Comment Response Document - 8.3.1 (195)
The response here notes that using routes A or B through the County would pose
risks about 1.5 times greater than using the route along I-15 through Las Vegas.
This is not consistent with the text in Response 8.3.1 (4191) which observes the
risks associated with using the A or B routes are about a factor of 2 larger
than the routes used in the EIS (I-15). Which of these is correct?
Comment Response Document - 8.3.1 (1543)
Table J-46 Cases 5 & 6, states that should the State of Nevada designate Hwy 93
or 318 as alternate preferred routes, Ely and White Pine County could expect to
see a majority of the legal-weight truck shipments from sites in the east,
Midwest, and northwest United States. A vast majority of SNT shipments (~45,919)
over 234 years would be diverted from Mesquite to Wendover.
DOE does transportation analyses of potential SNF and HLRW transportation
routes, including Alternates A & B through White Pine County, but when asked to
analyze cumulative impacts due to current LLW shipments over these same routes
they reply, “Under regulations issued by the U.S. DOT (49 CFR 397.101) truck
shipments of SNF and HLRW could not use a route through White Pine County.
Therefore, an analysis of cumulative impacts is not necessary.” If impacts from
the use of Hwy 318 were analyzed, why did DOE not consider cumulative effects of
transporting SNF and HLW over this route?
Comment Response Document - 8.3.1 (4219)
Here the text states, "The affected routing authorities would consider public
risk and other conditions along other routes, including emergency response
capability, highway design and condition, population density, traffic
conditions, etc. during the process of selecting and designating alternative
preferred routes." It does not appear that DOE considered (at least in any
quantified manner) each of these factors in its assessment of currently legal
routes (ie: existing emergency response capability). Please provide confirmation
that the DOE considered the very factors it assumes would be considered by
affected routing authorities.
White Pine County appreciates DOE's recognition that use of the A and B routes
through the County results in risk impacts that are "about a factor of two
larger that the route used for the EIS analysis" (I-15 through Las Vegas). The
County would appreciate learning what route specific factors considered by DOE
(if any) result in the greater degree of risk of transporting nuclear waste
through the County than through the Las Vegas area. The FEIS is not clear as to
why transporting waste through the County is associated with significantly
greater risk. Such clarity is very important to helping decision makers
understand risks associated with alternative routes.
Comment Response Document - 8.3.1 (4240)
Here the response notes that White Pine County would be eligible for technical
assistance and funds provided by Section 180(c). Previously, the FEIS and
comment responses indicated that states and American Indian Tribes would be
eligible. Please clarify if, and under what circumstances, White Pine County
would be eligible for technical assistance and funds pursuant to Section 180(c).
The County requests that DOE consider promulgating a rulemaking that makes clear
under what circumstances counties such as White Pine would be eligible to
receive Section 180(c) assistance and funds.
Comment Response Document - 8.7 (153)
The text here states, "If the repository was approved, DOE would discuss
transport details with stakeholders, including financial support, before the
start of shipments." The County would appreciate clarification as to what the
term "approved" means. Does it mean passage by Congress of a resolution
approving the President's nomination of the Yucca Mountain site, approval by NRC
of a license to construct the repository, or some other approval?
Comment Response Document - 8.7 (3427)
How does the contractor developed transportation plan referred to here relate to
DOE's commitment to transportation planning described in Comment Response 8.7
(153) that is addressed above? Would the contractor also be required to discuss
transportation plan details (ie: locations of emergency parking areas) with
stakeholders?
Comment Response Document - 8.8.2 (4300)
The County appreciates DOE's commitment to work with local communities and
tribal nations to understand and mitigate potential negative perceptions of DOE
operations. The County cautions, however, that the "development and presentation
of factual information regarding the actual (rather than the perceived)
risks..." would result in a lag between when perceived risk related impacts were
to accrue and when mitigation relating to public education might become
effective. Other forms of mitigation will be required and should be addressed in
a comprehensive mitigation plan for the Yucca Mountain Project.
Comment Response Document - 8.8.3 (3428)
DOE's explanation that snowbirds would be evenly distributed along
transportation routes at all times is not accurate. In fact, snowbirds will be
concentrated along certain routes and at various locations along certain routes.
As a consequence, the FEIS still does not accurately reflect the influence of
snowbirds as a component of the potentially exposed population along
transportation routes.
Comment Response Document 11.1 (97), 11.1 (102)
DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision because the President makes
the decision to approve the site. DOE regulations (10 CFR 1021.331) require
preparation of a Mitigation Action Plan when mitigation measures are identified
in a Record of Decision. At this time DOE has not decided whether or not it
would prepare a Mitigation Action Plan.
The County requests that DOE explain its intent to issue a Mitigation Action
Plan, thereby complying with its own regulations. DOE is requested to ensure
that the Mitigation Action Plan will be prepared separately from any document
prepared for the NRC licensing process. DOE is encouraged, however, to use the
mitigation plan as a basis for conditions to be included in a possible license
from the NRC.
If a ROD is not issued by the President, or any other agency, and/or mitigation
measures are not identified in the ROD, is the DOE still required to prepare a
Mitigation Action Plan? If DOE intends to develop a Mitigation Plan, please
describe how affected units of local government will be participants in the
planning process.
I am hereby requesting a written response to the many questions raised in this
comment letter and look forward to receiving DOE's answers.
Sincerely,
[signed]
David Provost
Chairman
pc: Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Administrator, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Members, Nevada Congressional
Delegation
Governor Kenny Guinn
State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects
AULGs