1. Introduction and Methodology
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA or "the Act") (and as subsequently amended) established the process for development of geologic repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and established a program of research, development, and demonstration regarding the disposal of such material. In the 1987 amendment to the Act, the Secretary of Energy was directed to cease site characterization activities at other sites and evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the nation's first geologic repository for such wastes. If the Secretary considers recommending the site, the Act requires the Secretary to conduct public hearings in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain site to inform the residents of the area of such consideration and receive their comments regarding his possible recommendation. The Secretary announced consideration of the site on May 7, 2001, and initiated a public comment period that continued through October 19, 2001 (although comments continued to be accepted by the DOE through October 31, 2001). In addition, the Federal Register notice announcing the site consideration specifically requested that the public provide comments on his potential action and indicated his intent to give appropriate consideration to the comments received from the public during the course of any recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. To provide additional information to the public regarding the Yucca Mountain site and the DOE's potential actions, the DOE developed and released a number of comprehensive documents during the comment period. These documents included the S&ER, released May 7, 2001, and the PSSE, released August 21, 2001. The Federal Register notices announcing developments in the site recommendation process also established a number of additional mechanisms to enable members of the public to submit comments. These mechanisms included the submission of comments via U.S. Mail, e-mail, fax, and through public stenographers provided by the DOE for that purpose. This document, the Site Recommendation Comment Summary Document (CSD), was developed by the DOE to consolidate the comments received during the site recommendation comment period and to facilitate consideration of those comments. The CSD also presents the DOE's responses to the issues raised by the public. The CSD includes the following information:1.1 Background
In the NWPA, Congress established the process to be followed by the Secretary of Energy in considering a recommendation to the President regarding the development of a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As indicated above, the NWPA (as amended in 1987) directed the DOE to limit its consideration to a single site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and directed the Secretary of Energy to make a determination regarding the possible recommendation of that site to become the initial geologic repository in the United States for such material. Prior to any decision by the Secretary whether to recommend Yucca Mountain for development as a repository, Section 114(a)(1) of the NWPA, as amended (codified as 42 U.S.C. 10134(a)(1)), requires the following:The Secretary shall hold public hearings in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain site, for the purposes of informing the residents of the area of such consideration and receiving their comments regarding the possible recommendation of such site...In addition, if the Secretary recommends the site to the President, the recommendation must be accompanied by a comprehensive statement of the basis of such recommendation, including the following:
(F) the views and comments of the Governor and legislature of any State, or the governing body of any affected Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary, together with the response of the Secretary to such views...In addition to meeting the above statutory requirement to hold public hearings, the DOE indicated its intent to hold a formal public comment period (noticed in the Federal Register), and to solicit the views and comments of the members of the public, including governors and state legislatures of any state. In a Federal Register notice dated May 7, 2001 (66 FR 23013), the DOE announced "a public comment period on the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada by the Secretary of Energy to the President for development as a spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste geologic repository." Concurrent with the Federal Register notice, the DOE released the S&ER "to facilitate the public review and comment process." The S&ER provided the public with "a summary of the information and data collected to date by the Department in its multi-year study and characterization of the Yucca Mountain site as a potential spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste repository." The Federal Register notice also indicated that "[T]he Department intends for the S&ER, and its supporting documents, to be used by the public as an aid in providing comments on the technical information and data underlying the Department's consideration of a possible recommendation of the site." It further stated "[T]his summer [2001], after the release of additional information, the DOE will announce the dates, locations, and times for public hearings on the possible recommendation and the date for the end of the public comment period." The May 7, 2001, Federal Register notice accompanying the release of the S&ER, established several mechanisms to enable the public to submit comments on the site recommendation process. The notice established a U.S. mail address, e-mail address, and telephone number for the submission of comments by fax. On August 21, 2001, the DOE issued a Federal Register notice (66 FR 43850) that announced the release of the PSSE for public review and established the closure date for the site recommendation comment period as September 20, 2001. Included in that notice was the announcement of public hearings to be held in Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley and Pahrump, Nevada on September 5, September 12, and September 13, 2001, respectively. In an August 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 45845), the DOE announced that "[I]n order to encourage and facilitate public participation in the [comment] process," it had forwarded a letter requesting comments on the overall site recommendation process and the Secretary's decision to "a list of [over 6,000] governmental officials and members of the public whose interest in commenting [on such matters] the Department has anticipated." The Las Vegas hearing was held as scheduled and included teleconferencing connections to three other cities within the state of Nevada: Carson City, Elko, and Reno, and connections to the Congressional studio for comments from the Nevada delegation. However, the events of September 11, 2001, warranted the postponement of the Amargosa Valley and Pahrump hearings. These hearings were rescheduled to and held on October 10 and October 12, 2001, respectively. In response to requests from the Nevada Congressional delegation and others, the DOE extended the comment period by 15 days to October 5, 2001, in a Federal Register notice (66 FR 47644) dated September 13, 2001. Subsequently, the period was extended further to October 19, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the DOE announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 50176) that the DOE's Yucca Mountain Science Centers in Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Beatty, Nevada would be staffed with the DOE representatives and public stenographers to receive comments through the end of the established comment period. On October 3, 2001, the DOE announced "...additional opportunities, in various localities in Nevada and California, for the public to provide comments on the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for development...." These opportunities consisted of 29 hearing sessions that were held in each of Nevada's 17 counties and California's Inyo County during the period extending from October 3 through October 12, 2001. Subsequently, a Federal Register notice (66 FR 51027) dated October 5, 2001, extended the comment period through midnight, October 19, 2001. To ensure that an adequate period of time existed to permit mail that had been posted prior to October 19 to be received by the DOE, comments continued to be accepted through the close of business on October 31, 2001. All comments received by that date are addressed in this document. Any comments received after that date (and through December 14, 2001) are addressed in the Supplemental Site Recommendation Comment Summary Document (SCSD). Copies of all comment documents received from the public during the site recommendation comment period extending through October 31, 2001, were also compiled and made available to support any recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. Subsequent to the closure of the initial comment period, additional documents entitled "Total System Performance Assessment—Analyses For Disposal of Commercial and the DOE Waste Inventories at Yucca Mountain—Input to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Site Suitability Evaluation," "Total System Performance Assessment Sensitivity Analyses for Final Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations," and "Technical Update Impact Letter Report" were posted to the Internet on November 14, 2001, and a Federal Register notice regarding their availability was published (66 FR 57049). The purpose of these documents was to provide the latest technical information and supplemental analyses regarding the expected performance of a repository system at Yucca Mountain in light of provisions contained in the final standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR Part 197 and the final licensing regulations of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 10 CFR Part 63. The notice also indicated that a supplemental comment period was being opened to collect and address comments on project-related information that was not available at the time of the closure of the initial comment period, October 19, 2001. This information includes the DOE's final site suitability guidelines at 10 CFR Part 963. The supplemental comment period was noticed to extend for 30 days, with closure on December 14, 2001. In a Federal Register notice dated November 21, 2001 (66 FR 58460), the DOE announced its intent to hold nine additional public hearings during the first two weeks of December 2001 at multiple sites in the state of Nevada to provide additional opportunities for members of the public to express their opinions regarding the newly released information. All of the comments received after the closure of the initial comment period, including those received at the nine additional public hearings, will be addressed in the SCSD.
1.2 Methodology
The Federal Register notices associated with the initial site recommendation comment period indicated that comments could be submitted through a variety of mechanisms: U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, hearing appearances, and appearances before a public stenographer provided by the DOE for the purpose of receiving comments. A system was established to capture comment documents submitted to the addresses provided in the Federal Register notices, as well as comment documents submitted to other addresses, including those sent to the Secretary, the Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and to the President. As correspondence containing comments was received, each individual document1 was assigned a unique identification number and entered into the electronic CSD project database. An acknowledgement was sent to each member of the public submitting a letter, e-mail or faxed comment document. Each comment document was reviewed to identify specific issues or comments. Individual comments within the document were assigned an identification number and entered into the database. This electronic database was established to ensure that all comments and responses could be tracked effectively, to facilitate identification of identical or similar comments, and to produce a foundational document for the CSD. Views and comments received from governors and state legislatures of any state2 are included in this document in Section 2. An individual response, addressing each of the specific issues raised by each of the governors and state legislatures responding, was developed for each comment received. In addition, comments from elected public representatives (i.e., U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, elected State of Nevada and local officials, including those from Inyo County, California, and individuals representing Native American tribes) received individual responses addressing their specific topics of interest. These comments and responses are in Section 3 of this report. Based on general topics of interest, comments received from other members of the public (i.e., individuals or organizations) were grouped into 11 categories. Comments within categories were then further grouped by specific subject of concern. As many comments were identical or very similar and/or addressed common specific areas of concern, summary comments were developed to address the general topic of interest. More specific subtopics were also delineated in the summary comment. Summary responses were then developed by the DOE to respond to the summary comments. Both the summary comments and summary responses are found in Section 4 of this report. In many instances, the summary responses also provide information on where further information on the subject of interest can be found within project documentation. In general, the DOE responses to public comments that are provided in this document reflect the information that is available through other project documents. Some of the information contained in this document may be more current than the information that was available to the public during the public comment period. This is because it reflects analyses and other information that were not available until after the close of the initial comment period on October 19, 2001. An additional comment period was established and multiple additional public hearings held to accept comments on documents and other information that became available after October 19, 2001. Project documents, including the comments received from the public during the supplemental 30-day comment period, will be available to support any recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. Section 5 of this report contains indices wherein all individuals and organizations submitting comments can determine where within the CSD their subject of interest has been addressed.1.3 Results
During the course of the 165-day comment period from May 7 to October 19, 2001, and including the extension through October 31, 2001, approximately 4,600 comment documents were received and documented in the CSD database. These documents resulted in approximately 14,800 comments. Approximately 35 percent of the comments received were from individuals making appearances at the various public hearings while the remainder were received primarily via U.S. mail and e-mail. All of the comments received during this period are addressed in this CSD.1.4 Organization of the Site Recommendation Comment Summary Document
The CSD is organized into five sections. Section 1 delineates the purpose of the CSD, the history of the site recommendation comment response period, the methodology that was used to develop this document and the overall organization of this document. Section 2 contains the comments submitted by governors and state legislatures of any state. The views and comments of governors are presented first, followed by those of state legislatures. Within each category, the comments are presented in alphabetical order by state.1 A transcription of the words of each comment letter is followed immediately thereafter by the DOE's response to the specific issue(s) raised by the commenter. Section 3 contains the comments of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, elected State of Nevada and local (county, city, town) officials (including those from Inyo County, California), and representatives of Native American tribes. The comments of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives are presented first, followed by state and local officials, and representatives of Native American tribes. Within the U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative category, comments are presented in alphabetical order by state. In the elected State of Nevada and local officials' category, comments are presented in alphabetical order by the last name of the commenter. In the Native American category, comments are presented in alphabetical order in accordance with the name of the individual providing the comment. Each comment in each category is followed immediately thereafter by the DOE's response to the specific issue(s) raised by the commenter. Section 4 addresses the comments received from members of the "General Public." This category includes all individuals and entities not specifically identified in the categories delineated above. This section contains summary comments representing the issues raised by all the individual commenters in this category. These summary comments are the result of the categorization process discussed in Section 1.2 above. Each summary comment is followed directly by a summary response that provides the DOE's response to the issues raised and addressed in the summary comment. Efforts were made to address the general concerns (but not necessarily the specific wording) identified in every comment received from a member of the general public. Section 5 contains indices intended to facilitate access to responses to the comments submitted to the project. These indices are arranged in alphabetical order by the name of the individual or organization submitting the comment document. The indices also provide the location, by specific or summary comment designation number, where responses to the issue(s) of interest to the specific commenter can be found. Note on References—In this report, most reference documentation is provided in footnotes (in Sections 1 and 2) or bracketed in the text itself (in Sections 3 and 4). However, the documentation most frequently cited in response to comments have been identified as follows:| DEIS | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. "Draft 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-0250D. Summary, Volumes I and II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990816.0240. |
| FEIS | DOE 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." DOE/EIS-0250F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. |
| PSSE | DOE 2001. "Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation." DOE/RW-0540. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20011101.0082. |
| S&ER | DOE 2001. "Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report." DOE/RW-0539. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010524.0272. |
| S&ER Rev. 1 | DOE 2002. "Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report." DOE/RW-0539-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. |
| SDEIS | DOE 2001. "Supplement to the Draft 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." DOE/EIS-0250D-S. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010524.0184. |
| SSE | DOE 2002. "Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Evaluation." DOE/RW-0549. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. |
| SSPA (Volume 1) | BSC 2001. "FY01 Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses." TDR-MGR-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010801.0404; MOL.20010712.0062; MOL.20010815.0001. |
| SSPA (Volume 2) | BSC 2001. "FY01 Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 2: Performance Analyses." TDR-MGR-PA-000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010724.0110. |
| TSPA-SR | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 2000. "Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation." TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. |
| YMSD | CRWMS M&O 2000. "Yucca Mountain Site Description." TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001003.0111. |
1.5 Additional Note
DOE recognizes that some mail, containing comments on a possible site recommendation, that was posted to U.S. government addresses in Washington, DC, subsequent to September 11, 2001, may have been lost or significantly delayed. Unfortunately, this matter was beyond the control of the DOE. In the event that any comment letters were sent but not received by the conclusion of the supplemental comment period, DOE regrets the absence of such comments and appropriate responses in the CSD or SCSD.