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

936 Pages·2002·47.8 MB·English

by  United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye Count}', Nevada
^
Volume Impact Analyses
I -
Chapters through 15
1
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management
DOE/EIS-0250D
July 1999
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
To ensure a more reader-friendly document, the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) limited the use of
acronyms and abbreviations in this environmental impact statement. In addition, acronyms and
abbreviations are defined the first time they are used in each chapter or appendix. The acronyms and
abbreviations used in the text ofthis document are listed below. Acronyms and abbreviations used in
tables and figures because ofspace limitations are listed in footnotes to the tables and figures.
BWR
boiling-water reactor
CFR Code ofFederal Regulations
DOE U.S. Department ofEnergy (also called the Department)
EIS environmental impact statement
EPF energy partition factor
FR Federal Register
LCF latent cancer fatality
MTHM
metric tons ofheavy metal
NWPA
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended
OCRWM
Office ofCivilian Radioactive Waste Management
PMio particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM25 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of2.5 micrometers or less
PWR
pressurized-water reactor
UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
use United States Code
UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC NOTATION
DOE has used scientific notation in this EIS to express numbers that are so large or so small that they can
be difficult to read or write. Scientific notation is based on the use ofpositive and negative powers of 10.
The number written in scientific notation is expressed as the product ofa number between I and 10 and a
positive or negative power of 10. Examples include the following:
Positive Powers of 10 Negative Powers of 10
10' =x = 10 10' = 1/10 = 0.1
I
10-= lOx 10= 100 10 -= 1/100 = 0.01
and so on, therefore, and so on. therefore.
10*^= 1.000.000 (or 1 million) 10'' = 0.000001 (or 1 in million)
Probability is expressed as a number between and I (0 to 100 percent likelihood ofthe occurrence ofan
event). The notation 3 x 10'' can be read 0.000003. which means that there are three chances in
1.000,000 that the associated result (for example, a fatal cancer) will occur in the period covered by the
analysis.
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
Volume I - Impact Analyses
Chapters through 15
1
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste IVIanagement
DOE/EIS-0250D
July 1999
From the collection ofthe
m
2
PreTinger
o
V jjibrary
p
San Francisco. California
2008
*
COVER SHEET
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)
TITLE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement fora Geologic Repository forthe Disposal ofSpent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada
CONTACT: For more information on this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), write orcall:
Wendy R. Dixon. EIS Project Manager
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
Office ofCivilian Radioactive Waste Management
U.S. Department ofEnergy
P.O. Box 30307, Mail Stop 010
North Las Vegas, Nevada 89036-0307
Telephone: [phone]
The EIS is also available on the Internet at the Yucca Mountain Project website at http://www.ymp.gov
and on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) website at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.
Forgeneral information on the DOE NEPA process, write or call:
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director
Office ofNEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42)
U.S. Department ofEnergy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Telephone: [phone], orleave a message at [phone]
ABSTRACT: The Proposed Action addressed in this EIS is to construct, operate and monitor, and
eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada for the disposal ofspent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently in storage at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites
across the United States. The EIS evaluates (1) projected impacts on the Yucca Mountain environmentof
the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure ofthe geologic repository; (2) the
potential long-term impacts ofrepository disposal ofspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste:
(3) the potential impacts oftransporting these materials nationally and in the State ofNevada; and (4) the
potential impacts ofnotproceeding with the Proposed Action.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: A 180-day comment period on this Draft EIS begins with the publication of
the Environmental Protection Agency Notice ofAvailability in the FederalRegister. DOE will consider
comments received afterthe end ofthe 180-day period to the extent practicable. DOE will hold public
meetings to receive comments on the Draft EIS at the times and locations to be announced in local media
and a DOE Notice ofAvailability in the Federal Register. Written comments can also be submitted by
U.S. mail to Wendy R. Dixon at the above address, or via the Internet at http://www.ymp.gov.

Foreword
FOREWORD
The purpose ofthis environmental impact statement (EIS) is to provide information on potential
environmental impacts that could result from a Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and
eventually close a geologic repository forthe disposal ofspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste at the Yucca Mountain site. The potential repository would be located in Nye County, Nevada.
The EIS also provides information on the potential environmental impacts from an alternative referred to
as the No-Action Alternative, under which there would be no development ofa geologic repository at
Yucca Mountain.
U.S. Department of Energy Actions
The NuclearWaste Policy Act, enacted by Congress in 1982 and amended in 1987, establishes a process
leading to a decision by the Secretary ofEnergy on whether to recommend that the President approve
Yucca Mountain for development ofa geologic repository. As part ofthis process, the Secretary of
Energy is to:
• Undertake site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain to provide information and data required
to evaluate the site.
• Prepare an EIS.
• Decide whetherto recommend approval ofthe development ofa geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain to the President.
The NuclearWaste Policy Act, as amended (the EIS refers to the amended Act as the NWPA), also
requires the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) to hold hearings to provide the public in the vicinity of
Yucca Mountain with opportunities to comment on the Secretary's possible recommendation ofthe
Yucca Mountain site to the President. The hearings would be separate from the public hearings on the
Draft EIS required under the National Environmental Policy Act. If, after completing the hearings and
site characterization activities, the Secretary decides to recommend that the President approve the site, the
Secretary will notify the Governor and legislature ofthe State ofNevada accordingly. No soonerthan 30
days after the notification, the Secretary may submit the recommendation to the President to approve the
site for development ofa repository.
Ifthe Secretary recommends the Yucca Mountain site to the President, a comprehensive statement ofthe
basis for the recommendation, including the Final EIS, will accompany the recommendation. This Draft
EIS has been prepared now so that DOE can considerthe Final EIS, including the public input on the
Draft EIS, in making a decision on whether to recommend the site to the President.
Presidential Recommendation and Congressional Action
If, after a recommendation by the Secretary, the President considers the site qualified for application to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization, the President will submit a
recommendation ofthe site to Congress. The Governor or legislature ofNevada may object to the site by
submitting a notice ofdisapproval to Congress within 60 days ofthe President's action. Ifneither the
Governor nor the legislature submits a notice within the 60-day period, the site designation would become
effective without further action by the President or Congress. If, however, the Governor or the legislature
did submit such a notice, the site would be disapproved unless, during the first 90 days ofcontinuous
session ofCongress after the notice ofdisapproval. Congress passed ajoint resolution ofrepository siting
approval and the President signed it into law.
Foreword
Actions To Be Taken After Site Designation
Once a site designation became effective, the Secretary ofEnergy would submit to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission a License Application, based on a particular facility design, fora construction
NWPA
authorization within 90 days. The requires the Commission to adopt the Final EIS to the extent
practicable as part ofthe Commission's decisionmaking on the License Application.
Decisions Related to Potential Environmental Impacts
Considered in the EIS
This EIS analyzes a Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic
repository for the disposal ofspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. The
EIS also analyzes a No-Action Alternative, under which DOE would not build a repository at the Yucca
Mountain site, and spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would remain at 72 commercial
and 5 DOE sites across the United States. The No-Action Alternative is included in the EIS to provide a
baseline for comparison with the Proposed Action. DOE has developed the information about the
potential environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action
Alternative to inform the Secretary ofEnergy's determination whether to recommend Yucca Mountain as
the site ofthis Nation's first monitored geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. In making that determination, the Secretary would consider not only the potential
environmental impacts identified in this EIS, but also other factors as provided in the NWPA.
As part ofthe Proposed Action, the EIS analyzes the potential impacts oftransporting spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site from 77 sites across the United States. This
analysis includes information on such matters as the comparative impacts oftruck and rail transportation,
alternative intermodal (rail to truck) transfer station locations, associated heavy-haul truck routes, and
alternative rail transport corridors in Nevada. Although it is uncertain at this time when DOE would
make any transportation-related decisions, DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary
to make decisions regarding the basic approaches (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as
well as the choice among alternative transportation corridors. However, follow-on implementing
decisions, such as selection ofa specific rail alignment within a corridor, or the specific location ofan
intermodal transfer station or the need to upgrade the associated heavy-haul routes, would require
additional field surveys, state and local government consultations, environmental and engineering
analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
vi
1
Table ofContents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME
I
Section Page
1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action 1-1
1.1 Potential Actions and Decisions Regarding the Proposed Repository 1-3
1.2 Radioactive Materials Considered for Disposal in a Monitored Geologic
Repository 1-3
1.2.1 Generation ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 1-4
1.2.2 Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-6
1.2.2.1 Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-6
DOE
1.2.2.2 Spent NuclearFuel 1-6
1.2.3 High-Level Radioactive Waste 1-7
1.2.4 Surplus Weapons-Usable Plutonium 1-7
1.2.5 OtherWaste Types with High Radionuclide Content 1-8
1.3 National Effort To Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste 1-8
1.3.1 Background 1-8
1.3.2 NuclearWaste Policy Act 1-9
1.3.2.1 Requirement To Study and Evaluate the Site : 1-11
1.3.2.2 Elements ofSite Evaluation 1-1
1.3.2.3 Site Qualification and Authorization Process 1-12
1.3.2.4 Environmental Protection and Approval Standards forthe Yucca Mountain
Site 1-13
1.4 Yucca Mountain Site and Proposed Repository 1-13
1.4.1 Yucca Mountain Site 1-14
1.4.2 Proposed Disposal Approach 1-14
1.4.3 DOE Actions To Evaluate the Yucca Mountain Site 1-17
1.4.3.1 Site Characterization Activities 1-17
1.4.3.2 Viability Assessment 1-19
1.4.3.3 Site Recommendation 1-20
1.4.3.4 No-Action Alternative 1-20
1.5 Environmental Impact Analysis Process 1-21
1.5.1 Notice ofIntent and Scoping Meetings 1-21
1.5.1.1 Additional Inventory Studies 1-23
1.5.1.2 Additional NevadaTransportation Analyses 1-24
1.5.2 Conformance with Documentation Requirements 1-24
1.5.3 Relationship to Other Environmental Documents 1-24
2 Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative 2-1
2.1 Proposed Action 2-1
2.1.1 Overview ofImplementing Alternatives and Scenarios 2-6
2.1.1.1 Packaging Scenarios 2-6
2.1.1.2 Thermal Load Scenarios 2-8
2.1.1.3 National Transportation Scenarios 2-9
2.1.1.4 NevadaTransportation Scenarios and Rail and Intermodal Implementing
Alternatives 2-9
2.1.1.5 Continuing Investigation ofDesign Options 2-10
2.1.2 Repository Facilities and Operations 2-10
2.1.2.1 Repository Surface Facilities and Operations 2-16
2.1.2.1.1 North Portal Operations Area 2-16
vii
11
TableofContents
Section Page
2.1.2.1.2 South Portal Operations Area 2-20
2.1.2.1.3 Emplacement Ventilation Shaft Operations Areas 2-21
2.1.2.1.4 Development Ventilation Shaft Operations Areas 2-21
2.1.2.1.5 Support Equipment and Utilities 2-21
2.1.2.2 Repository Subsurface Facilities and Operations (Including Waste
Packages) 2-23
2.1.2.2.1 Subsurface Facility Design and Construction 2-27
2.1.2.2.2 Waste Package Design 2-31
2.1.2.2.3 Waste Package Emplacement Operations 2-32
2.1.2.3 Repository Closure 2-37
2.1.2.4 Performance Confirmation Program 2-37
2.1.3 Transportation Activities 2-38
2.1.3.1 Loading Activities at Commercial and DOE Sites 2-38
2.1.3.2 National Transportation 2-40
2.1.3.2.1 National Transportation Shipping Scenarios 2-40
2.1.3.2.2 Mostly Legal-Weight Truck Shipping Scenario : 2-43
2.1.3.2.3 Mostly Rail Shipping Scenario 2-43
2.1.3.3 Nevada Transportation 2-44
2.1.3.3.1 Nevada Legal-Weight Truck Scenario 2-47
2.1.3.3.2 Nevada Rail Scenario 2-47
2.1.3.3.2.1 Rail Line Construction 2-49
2.1.3.3.2.2 Rail Line Operations 2-50
2.1.3.3.3 Nevada Heavy-Haul Truck Scenario 2-50
2.1.3.3.3.1 Intermodal Transfer Stations 2-51
2.1.3.3.3.2 Highway Routes for Heavy-Haul Shipments 2-53
2.1.3.4 Shipping Cask Manufacturing, Maintenance, and Disposal 2-56
2.1.4 Alternative Design Concepts and Design Features 2-56
2.1.4. Design Features and Alternatives To Limit Release and Transport of
Radionuclides 2-56
2.1.4.2 Design Features and Alternatives To Control the Thermal/Moisture
Environment in the Repository 2-57
2.1.4.3 Design Features and Alternatives To Support Operational and Cost
Considerations 2-58
2.1.5 Estimated Costs Associated with the Proposed Action 2-58
2.2 No-Action Alternative 2-59
2.2.1 Yucca Mountain Site Decommissioning and Reclamation 2-60
2.2.2 Continued Storage ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive
Waste at Commercial and DOE Sites 2-60
2.2.2.1 Storage Packages and Facilities at Commercial and DOE Sites 2-61
2.2.2.2 No-Action Scenario 1 2-65
2.2.2.3 No-Action Scenario 2 2-67
2.2.3 No-Action Alternative Costs 2-67
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-67
2.3.1 Alternatives Addressed Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 2-69
2.3.2 Repository Design Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-70
2.3.3 Nevada Transportation Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-70
2.3.3. Potential Rail Routes Considered but Eliminated from FurtherDetailed
Study 2-70
2.3.3.2 Potential Highway Routes for Heavy-Haul Trucks and Associated
Intermodal Transfer Station Locations Considered but Eliminated from
Further Detailed Study 2-72