national environmental policy act e lessons p ... - energy.gov · questionnaire have repeated these...
TRANSCRIPT
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 1
National Environmental Policy ActNEPA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUARTERLY REPORT
Second Quarter FY 2004June 1, 2004; Issue No. 39
LESSONSLEARNEDLEARNED
LESSONS
The recent scoping meetings for the Yucca Mountain RailAlignment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), usingan “open house” format rather than more formalpresentations, provided valuable information to theDepartment regarding issues of concern to the public.More than 300 persons who participated in the scopingmeetings had the opportunity to engage in one-on-onedialogue with DOE representatives, discussing concernsand receiving answers to their questions. Individualswere also able to provide oral comments to a courtreporter for the record.
“An open and collaborative planning process is essentialto developing a safe, secure, and environmentally soundsystem for transporting the nation’s spent nuclear fueland high-level waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain,”observed Gary Lanthrum, Director of NationalTransportation, Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement. With this principle in mind, Robin Sweeney,Document Manager for the Repository Rail AlignmentEIS, led a DOE team in conducting five “open houses”during May in Amargosa Valley, Goldfield, Caliente, Reno,and Las Vegas, Nevada.
This approach was well received by many members of thepublic. However, some participants, including the State ofNevada, were concerned that they were unable to hearthe comments of others. The State asked that allcomments received by DOE during the scoping processbe transcribed and made available to the public. DOE willaddress this concern by making transcripts of the oralcomments publicly available on the Internet.
“Open House” Format for Scoping MeetingsProvides DOE Valuable Input for Yucca Rail EIS
Two-Way Communication Benefits DOE
The “open house” format enabled members of the publicto talk with DOE program officials and technical expertsand receive answers to their questions. In turn, DOEobtained specific information about the concerns ofpeople potentially affected by the proposed approximately319-mile rail line from Caliente to Yucca Mountain. (Theactual length may differ depending on route variationsbeing considered.) DOE needs public comments to help itevaluate alternative alignments and explore ways tomitigate potential impacts, such as by making adjustmentsto avoid or minimize land use conflicts or sensitiveresources.
DOE NEPA Community Meeting Set for July 20-21 (page 2)
In the open meeting format, people could speakone-on-one with DOE technical experts to expressviews and get answers to their questions.
(continued on page 3)
By: Eric Cohen, Unit Leader, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Lessons Lear ned NEPA2 June 2004
Inside LESSONS LEARNEDWelcome to the 39th quarterly report on lessons learned in theNEPA process. In this issue we are continuing a multi-partexamination of lessons learned from Lessons Learned. Weinvite your suggestions on how to improve the LessonsLearned program. Thank you for your continuing support.
Lesson Learned from Lessons Learned ................................. 4Apply Common Sense: Reduce Unfamilar Abbreviations ..... 5Carbon Sequestration Programmatic EIS ............................... 6The Libyan Connection: Emergency Action Needed ............ 8NEPA Strategy Adjusts to Changing Circumstances ............. 9Card Game Highlights Diversity at NEPA Clinic .................... 10About the Yucca Rail Alignment EIS .................................... 12Repository Program and NEPA Process .............................. 13Improvements to the DOE NEPA Stakeholder Directory ...... 14NAEP Environmental Excellence Awards ............................ 14EH Celebrates Earth Day ...................................................... 15EH Hosts Pollution Prevention Teleconference ...................... 15Litigation Updates ................................................................... 16DOE-wide NEPA Contacts Update ....................................... 17DOE Submits Cooperating Agency Report .......................... 18Transitions ............................................................................. 18Training Opportunities ............................................................ 19EAs and EISs Completed This Quarter ................................... 20Cost and Time Facts .............................................................. 20Recent EIS Milestones ............................................................ 21Second Quarter FY2004 Questionnaire Results ................... 23
DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Be Part of Lessons LearnedWe Welcome Your Contributions
We welcome suggestions, comments, and contributed draftsfor the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report. We especiallyseek case studies illustrating successful NEPA practices.Draft articles for the next issue are requested byAugust 2, 2004. Contact Yardena Mansoor [email protected] or 202-586-9326.
Quarterly Questionnaires Due August 2, 2004Lessons Learned Questionnaires for NEPA documentscompleted during the third quarter of fiscal year 2004(April 1 through June 30, 2004) should be submitted byAugust 2, but preferably as soon as possible after documentcompletion. The Questionnaire is available interactively onthe DOE NEPA Web site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ underLessons Learned Quarterly Reports. For Questionnaireissues, contact Vivian Bowie at [email protected] or202-586-1771.
LLQR OnlineCurrent and past issues of the Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report are available on the DOE NEPAWeb site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/. Also on the Web site isa cumulative index of the Lessons Learned QuarterlyReport. The index is printed in the September issue eachyear.
Printed on recycled paper
July NEPA Community Meeting:Getting Better and Better
LL
The Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance will host aDOE NEPA Community Meeting on July 20 and 21 inWashington, DC, and telecast it to 19 DOE Field locations.The theme for the meeting – Getting Better and Better –focuses on noteworthy activity in the Department’s NEPAprogram as we aim to make it more efficient andsupportive of good decisionmaking.
To help us explore how to improve the DOE NEPAprogram, Robert Middleton, Director of the White HouseTask Force on Energy Project Streamlining, will give us hisperspective on “What Can We Do Better?” Horst Greczmiel,Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Associate Directorfor NEPA Oversight, will address “What’s New/What’sNext at CEQ.”
The agenda also features three new draft DOE NEPAguidance documents – an updated and augmented“Green Book” (Recommendations for the Preparationof Environmental Assessments and Environmental ImpactStatements) (LLQR, March 2004, page 1), and guidance onsupplement analyses and on responding to comments on adraft EIS. Other topics will be case studies of recent DOE
NEPA reviews, and presentations from the Bureau of LandManagement and National Park Service on experiences inapplying e-government approaches to the NEPA process.
Attendance at the Forrestal Auditorium will allowparticipants the best opportunity for discussion withguest speakers, the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliancestaff, and other NEPA colleagues. But recognizing that notall participants will be able to travel, this will be thesecond DOE NEPA meeting to offer the option ofparticipating through videoconferencing. Toaccommodate four time zones, a six-hour session isplanned for each day. NEPA Compliance Officers willcoordinate participation planning for their Office’s staffand contractors. Registration procedures forHeadquarters attendance and Field videoconference siteswill be announced in early June.
The NEPA Office welcomes suggestions for additionalmeeting topics and nominations for case studypresentations. To provide suggestions or for additionalinformation, contact Jim Sanderson [email protected] or 202-586-1402.
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 3
(continued on page 11)
Yucca Mountain Rail Alignment EIS Scoping(continued from page 1)
“DOE hopes the public will help the Department answerseveral key EIS questions, such as how the rail line shouldbe routed, whether the line should be fenced, and whetherthe line should be dedicated solely for DOE’s use ratherthan shared commercial use,” Ms. Sweeney said.“I’m delighted that the scoping meetings have been soproductive in providing DOE with specific comments thatwill help us answer these questions,” she added.
How the “Open House” Format Worked
DOE invited the public to attend the meetings at theirconvenience any time during the meeting hours(4 to 8 p.m.), to engage in one-on-one discussions withDOE representatives, and to provide comments in writingor to a court reporter. There were no formal DOEpresentations.
At the meeting room entrance people were asked to signin and indicate their preferences for receiving EIS-relatedinformation (e.g., paper copy or CD ROM format). Atelevision monitor near the entrance played continuous-loop taped information about the rail line proposal and theimportance of the public’s comments in helping to definethe scope of the Rail Alignment EIS. Inside the meetingroom, DOE provided displays of maps, flow charts of theEIS process, colorful posters showing what is required tobuild a railroad, and another video providing informationabout areas along the route.
One of the more popular displays was a laptop-drivenvideo projection of detailed maps of the proposed railroute. At this display people could zoom in on areas ofinterest, such as where the rail line might cross roads usedto access their property or other land interest, or publiclands that ranchers use for cattle grazing.
DOE representatives at the displays and throughout themeeting room engaged members of the public proactively,speaking with people one-on-one, answering questions,
People in the local communities know these
areas better than we do and are providing us a
wealth of information we would not have
otherwise found. I look forward to further
collaborative communications throughout the
EIS process.
– Robin Sweeney, Document Manager,Repository Rail Alignment EIS
Maps, charts, posters, videos, and other displaysstimulated discussion and provided different waysfor people to get information.
Some people are more comfortable expressingtheir comments to a court reporter, as shown above,rather than to the entire group.
Robin Sweeney (left), Document Manager, asks aclarifying question to understand a person’scomments.
Lessons Lear ned NEPA4 June 2004
Effective public participation in the NEPA process isachieved by following the basic tenets of starting early,reaching out to all concerned, and being responsive tocomments received. Effective public participation benefitsthe NEPA process, which in turn benefits DOE and theenvironment. Respondents to DOE’s Lessons LearnedQuestionnaire have repeated these essential messagesfrequently over the past decade.
Good Communication Is Key
Questionnaire respondents identified many factors thatcontribute to successful public participation in the NEPAprocess. A common theme through many of the responseswas that good communication with the public allows theNEPA process to progress in a smooth and efficientmanner. The single most important factor identified is tocommunicate early and continually, often in an informalmanner, such as through open houses and on-sitemeetings. Face-to-face meetings with external agencies,tribes, and members of the public often enhance the NEPAprocess. Closely working with states and othercooperating agencies (especially when conductingparallel reviews under NEPA and state law) to coordinatepublic meetings also is an effective way to engage thepublic and obtain meaningful input.
Notifying the public of proposed actions and holdingpublic meetings are simply the first steps for effectivepublic participation, respondents said. Communicationmust continue in order to sustain participation.Additionally, failure to address comments raised by localcommunities can create just as many problems as notinvolving the public in the first place. It is very importantto understand the significance of a proposed action to thepublic.
Respondents reported varying degrees of success withmeeting formats, citing a desire among the public for moreinteraction and less rigidness while also noting theimportance of accurately capturing public comments.“Effective Public Participation under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, Second Edition” providesguidance on the implementation of public participation asa fundamental component of the NEPA process. Thisdocument is available on DOE’s NEPA Web site(www.eh.doe.gov/nepa) under Guidance.
Public Participation, Usefulness,and Environmental Protection
Fostering Better, Informed Decisions
Respondents provided examples of how the NEPAprocess has been useful to DOE, including enhancingawareness of environmental aspects of proposed projects,improving siting decisions, and identifying and helpingsolve discrete problems (e.g., waste management needsassociated with a decontamination and decommissioningproject). Overall, respondents indicated that the NEPAprocess regularly leads to better, informeddecisionmaking.
In some instances, however, respondents indicated thatthe NEPA process was not effective. The most commonreason identified was a perception that a decision hadbeen predetermined. This was sometimes attributed tocompeting drivers, such as environmental remediationdecisionmaking or programmatic requirements. In othercases, respondents reported that a decision was madebased on political pressure or technical considerations,following which, as one respondent described it, the“NEPA paperwork” was completed. Other factorsadversely affecting the usefulness of the NEPA processinclude inadequate funding for NEPA documentpreparation, difficulty coordinating closely-related NEPAdocuments, and failure to adequately define alternatives.
This article is the third of a series examining nearly1,000 excerpts from responses to DOE’s NEPALessons Learned Questionnaire published inLLQR since December 1994. The excerpts arepublished on the concluding pages of each issueof LLQR under the heading: What Worked andDidn’t Work in the NEPA Process. (See page 23.)The Lessons Learned Questionnaire is availableon DOE’s NEPA Web site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepaunder Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports.
The first two articles discussed scoping and datacollection and analysis (LLQR, December 2003,page 1) and schedule and teamwork (LLQR,March 2004, page 6). This article summarizesresponses regarding the NEPA participationprocess, usefulness, and enhancement/protectionof the environment. The series will conclude in theSeptember 2004 issue of LLQR with thoughts onhow to improve the NEPA lessons learned programand DOE’s implementation of NEPA.
(continued on next page )
Lessons Learned from Lessons Learned Part 3:
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 5
NEPA Process Protects the Environment
Questionnaire respondents identified many examples ofthe NEPA process helping protect the environment.Respondents stated that habitat for endangered species,wetlands, and other natural resources were betterprotected through siting decisions and mitigation, andthat cultural and historic resources identified through theNEPA process also were protected. Pollution preventionand waste reduction plans assessed through the NEPAprocess ultimately allowed improvements in theenvironmental performance of projects, said respondents.Also cited by respondents was an indirect benefitresulting from enhanced awareness of environmentalissues associated with DOE activities.
“NEPA implementation often leads to better decisions,”said Eric Cohen, Unit Leader, NEPA Office. “This is whatNEPA was meant to do. The NEPA Community has
We want to hear from you!
How would you improve the Lessons LearnedQuestionnaire? Would you like us to add questionsor remove some? How can we better share lessonslearned throughout DOE, particularly to people newto the NEPA program? Send your suggestions toVivian Bowie at [email protected] 202-586-1771.
(continued from previous page)
An embarrassing moment occurred recently in a DOEmanager’s presentation to a Citizens Advisory Board:according to a news article, the speaker was unable toexplain the meaning of the five abbreviations in apresentation slide. In reaction, the Board proposed tocharge speakers a 25-cent fine for each use of anabbreviation.
On the other hand, another speaker acknowledged, “I’dfeel like I was being punished if I had to say‘Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act’ every time instead of CERCLA.” “Someof the spell-outs are worse than the acronyms,” said aBoard member, “but we’re going to try, especially for thenew people.”
Apply Common Sense:Reduce Unfamiliar Abbreviations,Retain Helpful Ones
LL
The same principles apply to the NEPA process. Obscureabbreviations, which may be found in many NEPAdocuments, can undermine effective communication.NEPA document preparers should address abbreviationuse with common sense and sensitivity, especially to thefirst-time reader. A list of abbreviations and theirexplanations in EAs and EISs would help. Additionalrecommendations are provided in “Use QCPTEEA toReduce Abbreviations” (LLQR, December 2000, page 8).
By the way, an acronym is an abbreviation that ispronounced as a word – so NEPA is an acronym but DOEis a mere abbreviation.
Lessons Learned from Lessons Learned
reported time and again how effective NEPAimplementation enhances our relations with externalagencies and the public, leads to better, informeddecisionmaking, and yields demonstrable results in termsof projects that have lower environmental impacts andmore effectively meet DOE’s needs.”
LL
Lessons Lear ned NEPA6 June 2004
Carbon Sequestration Programmatic EISSupports Global Climate Change InitiativeDOE has begun a Programmatic EIS (PEIS) to assess thepotential environmental impacts from its CarbonSequestration Program, which is administered by theOffice of Fossil Energy’s (FE’s) National EnergyTechnology Laboratory (NETL). The CarbonSequestration Program implements the Global ClimateChange Initiative announced by President Bush onFebruary 14, 2002 (text box, next page), as well as severalNational Energy Policy goals targeting the developmentof new technologies, market mechanisms, andinternational collaboration to reduce greenhouse gasintensity and greenhouse gas emissions.
NETL expects that its strategy of preparing aProgrammatic EIS will efficiently support the GlobalClimate Change Initiative in several ways. For example,findings from the PEIS will inform the Department’sselection of technologies to study for futuredemonstration and deployment, and provide a frameworkfor technology assessment. The PEIS will help identifykeys issues and impacts for detailed analysis in futuresite-specific or project-specific NEPA reviews that couldtier from the PEIS, streamlining their preparation. Also, aprogrammatic document is better suited than project-
specific documents for evaluating issues and impacts ofnationwide and global scope, and considering regionalapproaches to sequestration.
Program Targets 2012 and Beyond
Through the Carbon Sequestration Program, FE aims to“demonstrate a series of safe and cost-effectivetechnologies at a commercial scale by 2012 and toestablish the potential for deployment leading tosubstantial market acceptance beyond 2012,” as stated inthe notice of intent (NOI) (69 FR 21514; April 21, 2004)for the PEIS.
Over 80 research and development projects currently arebeing carried out throughout the U.S. in carbon capture,sequestration, storage, non-CO2 greenhouse gasmitigation, measurement, monitoring, verification, andbreakthrough concepts – revolutionary technologies thatcould make drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Thegoal is to “develop a portfolio of technology options thathave significant potential” for reducing carbon intensityand meeting other program goals, according to the NOI.
(continued on next page)
Source: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/images/slide2.jpg
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 7
Carbon Sequestration PEIS
What is the Global Climate ChangeInitiative?
The Global Climate Change Initiative relies on thepower of the markets and technological innovationto achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.One goal of the initiative is an 18 percent reductionin the carbon intensity (the ratio of carbon dioxide(CO2) gas emissions to economic output) of the U.S.economy by 2012, while maintaining economicgrowth for investment in new and clean energytechnologies. More information on this Initiative isavailable on the Web at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html.
What is Carbon Sequestration?
Carbon sequestration refers to the removal ofcarbon dioxide from large point sources (such aspower plants, oil refineries, and industrialprocesses) or from the air itself and then storing itin geologic formations, such as depleted oil and gasreservoirs, deep coal seems, or saline formations.Carbon sequestration also refers to increasing thenatural carbon dioxide uptake of plants, trees, andsoil to increase their carbon dioxide storage.
These efforts are needed, the NOI explains, becausecarbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere haveincreased rapidly, in correlation with the rate of worldindustrialization. Annual greenhouse gas emissions in theU.S., for example, are 12 percent higher now than in 1992.
“What constitutes an acceptable level of greenhousegases in the atmosphere remains open to debate,”according to NETL, “but even modest stabilizationscenarios would eventually require a reduction inworldwide greenhouse gas emissions of 50 to 90 percentbelow current levels.” (See www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/pubs/04co_seq_portfolio.pdf.)
The Carbon Sequestration Program includes sevenRegional Partnerships, involving more than 150organizations across 40 states, two Canadian provinces,and three Indian nations. DOE and its partners seek todetermine the most suitable technologies, regulations, andinfrastructure needs for carbon capture, sequestration,and storage in various geographic areas.
For example, the Department of Agriculture’s NaturalResources Conservation Service and Forest Service,along with electric utilities, are collaborating with DOE onterrestrial sequestration, and the U.S Geological Surveyand the oil industry are partners with DOE on geologicsequestration. DOE’s Office of Science, the academicresearch community, the National Science Foundation,and the National Academy of Sciences are focusing onthe identification of priority research areas andbreakthrough concepts.
Nationwide Scoping Process
DOE initiated the PEIS because issues related tosequestration decisions are nationwide in scope andbecause research and development activities for carbonsequestration “are demonstrating the potential readinessof technologies for field-testing,” according to the NOI.The PEIS “will not directly evaluate specific fielddemonstration projects,” though these might beaddressed in future tiered NEPA documents. Instead, the“PEIS will evaluate the issues and impacts associated withthe demonstration and deployment of technologies toimplement the key elements of the [Carbon Sequestration]Program,” including “impacts of carbon sequestrationtechnologies and future demonstration activitiesprogrammatically.”
NETL has taken several steps to foster publicparticipation, with varying degrees of success. Forexample, in view of the nationwide scope and to enhancepublic participation, NETL decided to conduct eightpublic scoping meetings across the country. The meeting
(continued from previous page)
LL
locations were selected to enable the participation of theCarbon Sequestration Program’s seven regional partners.Although attendance at the five meetings conducted sofar has been light to moderate, NETL is receiving valuablescoping comments, helping it to identify key issues(e.g., sequestered carbon stability, safety issues, costissues, and a need to better inform the public about theprogram).
To enhance public participation, NETL scheduled the firstpublic scoping meeting on May 6, 2004, to coincide with anational conference on carbon sequestration that NETLconducted in Arlington, Virginia. This approach wassuccessful in attracting about 45 people, many of themfrom the conference; however, no one provided commentsduring the formal portion of the meeting.
The last public meeting will be held on June 10 and thepublic scoping period ends June 25. The draft PEIS isplanned to be available in late 2005 and the final PEIS in2006. Further information about the Carbon SequestrationProgram and the PEIS is available on the Web atwww.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration and bycontacting Dr. Heino Beckert, Document Manager,at [email protected] or 304-285-4132.
Lessons Lear ned NEPA8 June 2004
Emergency Identified
DOE occasionally must decide to take quick actionsinvolving a classified subject without time to prepare anEIS or EA. This was the case when Henry Garson,Associate General Counsel for DOE’s National NuclearSecurity Administration (NNSA), was invited onJanuary 13, 2004, to a classified meeting the next day withrepresentatives from the Departments of State andDefense. DOE/NNSA learned that the Libyan governmenthad agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program and allother weapons of mass destruction, and that thegovernments of the United States and the UnitedKingdom had agreed to remove the nuclear materials.
Apparently, the only catch was that an unknown amountof nuclear material at an unspecified enrichment level hadto be removed quickly. In fact, as these agency officialswere being briefed on the situation, a DOE team from OakRidge had already been assembled and was planning themission to fly to Libya, package the nuclear material, someclassified documents, and gas centrifuge parts, andtransport it all back to the United States. The DOE teamwas expected to package the nuclear material for shipmenton January 27, 2004, just 13 days from the meeting.Because there is no categorical exclusion to cover thisaction – and no time to prepare an EA, much less an EIS –DOE had to find an alternative approach to meeting itsobligations for environmental review.
Alternate Approach Adopted
Under the DOE NEPA implementing regulations(10 CFR 1021.343(a)), in emergency situations that demandimmediate action, DOE may take an action withoutobserving all provisions of its NEPA regulations or theCouncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Todo so, however, DOE must consult with CEQ as soon aspossible regarding alternative arrangements foremergency actions having significant environmentalimpacts. During the week following the January 14thmeeting, therefore, DOE/NNSA and Office of NEPA Policyand Compliance staff began consultation with CEQ.
The Libyan Connection: Emergency Action Needed
DOE’s approach was to show CEQ that similar actions hadreceived appropriate NEPA review and that theirenvironmental impacts had been analyzed. Office of NEPAPolicy and Compliance staff was aware of an existing EIScovering transportation of similar nuclear material,including a classified analysis of potential environmentalimpacts from possible accidents. CEQ was briefed on thisanalysis and agreed that the impacts would be of a similarnature. On January 26, 2004, CEQ found that NNSA’srequest for alternative arrangements was appropriatelylimited to the actions necessary to address the immediateimpacts and risks associated with the emergency. Basedon the briefing that DOE personnel provided, and NNSA’scommitment to consult with the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and others, CEQ concluded thatNNSA’s assessment of the environmental impacts,including incorporation of an existing classified analysisof a similar scenario, provided sufficient alternativearrangements for NEPA compliance.
Nuclear Package Arrives
On January 27, 2004, the DOE Oak Ridge team, with thehelp of the U.S. Air Force, removed 55,000 lbs of nuclearmaterial, including four containers of uraniumhexafluoride, from Libya and transported it to McGheeTyson Airport in Knoxville, Tennessee. From there thematerial was transported without incident to the Y-12National Security Complex at Oak Ridge. Immediately afterthe shipment arrived safely at Y-12, the Presidentannounced it – effectively “unclassifying” the mission.The material was then transported to DOE’s Portsmouthfacility in Ohio for disposition. Following the successfulcompletion of the mission, NNSA again briefed CEQ andissued a notice of emergency action (69 FR 10440;March 5, 2004), successfully complying with theprovisions of 10 CFR 1021.343, Variances. LL
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 9
Sometimes external events significantly alter NEPA plans.Such was the case when an August 2002 supplementalappropriations bill (Public Law 107-206) was passedrequiring DOE to award a contract, within 30 days ofenactment, to design, construct and operate depleteduranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facilities at bothits Portsmouth (Ohio) and Paducah (Kentucky) sites. Thelaw also directed that the contract require construction tostart no later than July 31, 2004. These requirementscaused DOE to adjust its ongoing NEPA process for theDUF6 conversion projects.
The proposed facilities are needed to convert DUF6 to amore stable chemical form suitable for beneficial use ordisposal. Besides construction and operation of theconversion facilities, DOE’s proposal includestransportation of the conversion products and wastematerials from Portsmouth and Paducah to a disposalfacility, transportation and sale of the hydrogen fluorideproduced as a conversion co-product, and neutralizationof hydrogen fluoride to calcium fluoride and its sale ordisposal. DOE would also transport the DUF6 cylindersstored at the East Tennessee Technological Park, nearOak Ridge, Tennessee, to Portsmouth for conversion.
At the time the law was passed, DOE was preparing asingle EIS to evaluate potential environmental impacts ofconstructing and operating one large or two smaller DUF6facilities at the DOE sites, or using existing conversioncapacity at commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facilities.DOE had conducted scoping in the fall of 2001.
When Congress directed that both plants be built, DOEdecided to cancel the single EIS and prepare two separateEISs: one for a facility at Paducah and one for a facility atPortsmouth. The Portsmouth and Paducah sites were nolonger alternatives to each other. DOE also changed thefocus of the NEPA review (i.e., the range of reasonablealternatives to be analyzed) to specific locations at each
DOE site. DOE’s decision to prepare two EISs helpedensure that any delay related to one site would not delaythe project at the other site.
Although the EISs are separate, they were managed inparallel to maximize efficiency and consistency. DOEissued a Notice of Revised Approach in April 2003 andconsidered comments received on it and in scoping forthe previous EIS in preparing the new EISs. DOE mailedthe two Draft EISs to stakeholders in November 2003 andheld public hearings in January 2004. Because of thesimilarities in the proposed actions and the generalapplicability of numerous comments to both site-specificEISs, DOE prepared a single comment-response documentfor inclusion in both EISs. This effort saved time andmoney, required less work to organize and edit, andprovided the public with all comments received on bothDraft EISs and all DOE responses.
According to Gary Hartman, the EIS Document Manager,“it just made good sense to pool our resources into oneset of comment-responses to be included in both EISs.That way, similar issues could be handled the same, andthe folks in Ohio and Tennessee could read the commentsfrom Kentucky (and vice versa) and DOE responses. Moreimportantly, saving time became a priority after the DraftEISs were issued late last year. It was essential that theFinal EISs be completed “on time” to allow records ofdecision to be issued and construction to begin byJuly 31, 2004.” Without the flexibility of preparing a singleset of comment-responses for two EISs, the risk of aschedule slip would have been much greater.
DOE approved the EISs in late May and will issue them inearly June. For more information, contact Gary Hartman,NEPA Document Manager, at [email protected] 865-576-0273.
NEPA Strategy Adjusts to Changing Circumstances
LL
DUF6 Conversion Facilities EISs
Timeline of EISs for Portsmouth and Paducah DUF6 Conversion Facilities
September 2001. NOI issued for single EIS.
September 2001-January 2002. Scoping for single EIS.
August 2, 2002.P.L. 107-206 enacted.
August 28, 2002. Contract awarded to build two conversion facilities.
April 2003. Notice of Revised Approach issued to prepare two EISs.
November 2003. Two draft EISs issued.
January 2004. Hearings on two draft EISs conducted.
May 27, 2004. Two final EISs approved with commoncomment - response document.
May 2001. Advance NOI issued for single EIS.
October 2002. Environmental Critique prepared per 10 CFR 1021.216
September 2001. NOI issued for single EIS.
September 2001-January 2002. Scoping for single EIS.
August 2, 2002.P.L. 107-206 enacted.
August 28, 2002. Contract awarded to build two conversion facilities.
April 2003. Notice of Revised Approach issued to prepare two EISs.
November 2003. Two draft EISs issued.
January 2004. Hearings on two draft EISs conducted.
May 27, 2004. Two final EISs approved with commoncomment - response document.
May 2001. Advance NOI issued for single EIS.
October 2002. Environmental Critique prepared per 10 CFR 1021.216
Lessons Lear ned NEPA10 June 2004
NEPA/TEPA Work Group
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)announced in February 2004 that it was establishing anInter-Agency NEPA/TEPA (National EnvironmentalPolicy Act/Tribal Environmental Policy Acts) WorkGroup, in collaboration with the Department of theInterior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Forest Service,the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, theDepartment of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers,and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
With its announcement, CEQ invited Federal agencies tonominate representatives to a March 2004 regional tribalworkshop, developed by the Tulalip Tribes with an EPAgrant and based on the October 2000 comprehensiveguide to the NEPA process published by the TulalipTribes. One goal of the Inter-Agency Work Group is tosupport such ongoing efforts to develop collaborativetribal-Federal NEPA training and workshops.
In response to CEQ’s request that Federal participantsbe from the Pacific Northwest region, understand NEPAand tribal coordination, and be in positions to buildeffective working relationships and enhance effectivetribal participation in the NEPA process, DOE nominatedKatherine Pierce from the Bonneville PowerAdministration. She joined about 20 other Federalparticipants and 40 tribal representatives from thePacific Northwest in the 3-day Tribal EnvironmentReview Clinic, as she discusses in the accompanyingarticle. This regional tribal workshop was organized inconjunction with a Tribal National Advisory Board toensure that it could serve as a model for future sessionsin other regions.
For further information on the Inter-Agency NEPA/TEPA Work Group contact Cheryl Wasserman,Associate Director for Policy Analysis, Office of FederalActivities, EPA, who coordinated the March 2004Workshop with the Tulalip Tribes([email protected] 202-564-7129).
The Tulalip Tribes Handbook – “Participating in theNational Environmental Policy Act/Developing a TribalEnvironmental Policy Act: A Comprehensive Guide forAmerican Indian and Alaska Native Communities” – isavailable on its Web site, www.tulalip.nsn.us, under“Tribal Environmental Review Clinic.”
It’s Day 2 of the Tribal Environmental Review Clinic inSeattle, Washington. Four teams are huddled in thecorners of the conference room, shuffling through decksof cards. The blue cards specify steps in the NEPAenvironmental review process and the green cardsidentify opportunities for tribal and public involvement.The objective of the group exercise is to create a timelineof events, identifying critical junctures for Federalcommunication and/or consultation with tribes duringNEPA analyses and processes. There is quite a diversityof opinions and outcomes! Perhaps this can best beexplained by the diversity within the room.
The 3-day workshop brought together representativesfrom 22 tribes, 17 Federal agencies from 8 Departments(that’s 8 different sets of NEPA implementing regulations),the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council onEnvironmental Quality. (See text box.) Each team in thegroup exercise included both tribal and Federalparticipants. As each team attempted to arrange all of theblue NEPA cards across a timeline, it quickly became clearthat this would not be a simple assignment. There were somany different opinions based on so many differentexperiences. A quick peek at the arrays of blue cards onthe walls confirmed these divergences.
Then, once the blue NEPA cards were arranged across thewall, it was time to overlay the green tribal involvementcards. Again, what a variety of opinions! Green cardswere put up and taken down. Even the blue cards wererearranged. In the end, there were four quite differenttimelines created. But the real goal of the group exercisehad been met: through sharing information andcollaborating on a process, we had strengthened ourrelationships.
In 2000, staff from the Tulalip Tribes, in conjunction withtribal experts from across the country, published ahandbook as a comprehensive guide for American Indianand Alaska Native communities. Part I of this tribalhandbook on environmental review focused onparticipating in NEPA and Part II focused on developingtribal environmental policy acts (TEPAs). Bothprocesses – NEPA and TEPA – create opportunities formore informed decisionmaking. Both processes alsoensure opportunities for expressing issues and concerns.
By providing tribe-to-tribe training, the Tulalip Tribe’sTribal Environmental Review Clinic is the next step insupporting tribal participation and leadership in
By: Katherine S. Pierce, Senior Environmental Specialist for Policy and Power,Bonneville Power Administration
Card Game Highlights Diversityat Federal-Tribal NEPA Clinic
(continued on next page)
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 11
and explaining how to provide detailed, specificcomments that would help the Department address theirconcerns. Representatives of the Surface TransportationBoard, the U.S. Air Force, and the Bureau of LandManagement also were available for the public to consultwith at the meetings. These agencies will participate ascooperating agencies in preparing the EIS.
People could provide comments in several ways, such asby completing written forms and placing them in a“suggestion” box. In addition, people could provide oralcomments to either of two court reporters. A DOE officiallistened to the comments provided to the reporters,occasionally asking questions to clarify a comment.Two reporters appeared adequate for the meetings,at which attendance ranged from about 40 to 115.
Lessons Learned on Meeting Format
• The “open house” format fostered dialogue andsolicitation of comments. Further, the meeting formatbeneficially fostered a “community meeting”atmosphere, particularly at small towns along thepotential route (Amargosa Valley, Goldfield,and Caliente).
• At the first meeting, several people arrived and beganasking questions while the scoping team was stillsetting up displays and before the arrival of the courtreporters, in effect starting the meeting early. Themeeting format may have fostered this. While this didnot pose a serious problem, the team learned to arriveand set up even earlier for subsequent meetings.
(continued from page 3)
• Several people said they are more comfortableproviding comments to a court reporter and a DOErepresentative, rather than to an entire group as in someother formats. A few people, however, stated that theypreferred to address the entire group.
• A few people said that they would have preferred to beable to hear other people’s comments. Under themeeting format, neither agency representatives norother meeting participants could hear everyone’scomments. Making transcripts of oral commentspublicly available may help address this concern.
• DOE did not place any time limits on oral commenters,and a few people spoke to a reporter for up to20 minutes. While no complaints were received, meetingplanners should consider the need for limits in othersettings.
• A few people did not appear to understand how themeeting was intended to work. For example, somepeople looked for any available chair and, until DOEengaged them, appeared to be waiting for a formalpresentation.
• One commenter who had not listened to the taped videopresentations said that, although DOE too often makesunwelcome lengthy formal presentations at publicmeetings, a short (10 to 15 minute) DOE update on theEIS and the repository program would have beenhelpful in this case.
For further information, contact Robin Sweeney,Document Manager, at [email protected] 702-794-1417.
Yucca Mountain Rail Alignment EIS Scoping
See two related articles, pages 12 and 13.
Federal-Tribal NEPA Clinic(continued from previous page)
environmental review processes. The purpose of theClinic is to help tribes protect their natural and culturalresources through informed and leveraged participationin the NEPA process. The Clinic is also intended to assisttribes in the development of internal environmentalreview practices that meet their organizational andcultural needs.
The Seattle workshop was the first Tribal EnvironmentalReview Clinic. Day 1 was devoted to providing the tribalparticipants with an understanding of the requirements,responsibilities and opportunities associated with Federalagency NEPA procedures, and Day 3 concentrated on
LL
assisting tribes in developing TEPAs. On Day 2, Federalagency representatives were invited to share in theexperience. The agenda was filled with group exercises,presentations, case studies, lessons learned, clinics, andgroup discussions. However, the collaborative groupexercise described above on defining opportunities fortribal-Federal consultation and involvement during theNEPA process was definitely the highlight of the day.
For further information on the Workshop, contactKatherine Pierce at [email protected] or 503-230-3962.
LL
Lessons Lear ned NEPA12 June 2004
An Interview with One of DOE’s VIP’s
In its April 8, 2004, Record of Decision (ROD) for the“Final Environmental Impact Statement for a GeologicRepository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel andHigh-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, NyeCounty, Nevada” (DOE/EIS-0250F) (Repository EIS), DOEdecided to use rail for most of the shipments to therepository. Because there is no existing rail access toYucca Mountain, implementing this decision will requirethe construction of a rail line to connect the repositorysite to an existing rail line in the State of Nevada. The railline would be used to transport up to 70,000 metric tons ofspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from72 commercial and 5 DOE sites to the repository. About3,000 to 3,300 total rail shipments – about one train everytwo days with three casks per train – would be requiredduring a 24-year period. (About 1,000 additional truckshipments from sites without rail capability would also berequired.)
In the ROD, DOE also selected the Caliente corridor fromamong five alternative Nevada rail corridors in which tostudy possible alignments for the rail line. DOE defined arail corridor as a 0.25 mile wide strip of land thatencompasses one of several possible alignments, orspecific locations, within which DOE could build a railline. A rail alignment was defined as a strip of land100 feet on either side of the track centerline.
The Caliente corridor originates at an existing siding tothe mainline railroad near Caliente, Nevada, extendswesterly to the northwest corner of the Nevada Test andTraining Range, before turning south-southeast to therepository at Yucca Mountain (map, below). In the
Repository EIS, DOE analyzed eight alternative routes(variations) along the Caliente corridor that may minimizeor avoid environmental impacts and constructioncomplexities. The Repository EIS did not identifyalternatives for about 55 percent of the corridor length,referred to as “common segments.”
As explained in the Notice of Intent (NOI) (68 FR 18566;April 8, 2004) for the Rail Alignment EIS, the proposedaction is to determine a rail alignment within the Calientecorridor, and to construct and operate the rail line. Indetermining the alignment, DOE will explore alternativealignments within the common segments and eightalternative routes. The final alignment is expected to beless than 200 feet wide, although the EIS will explore amuch wider area. The NOI also requested comments onadditional routing alternatives outside of the definedCaliente corridor that might avoid or minimizeenvironmental impacts, such as by avoiding wildernessstudy areas, Native American Trust Lands, encroachmenton the Nevada Test and Training Range, or sensitiveresources. DOE must also consider rail designrequirements (e.g., grade) and construction complexities ina variety of terrains in optimizing the alignment.Construction could take up to four years and cost up toan estimated $880 million.
The repository program plans to select an EIS contractor,complete the scoping process, conduct detailed fieldsurveys, and issue a draft EIS in early 2005. For moreinformation about the EIS see www.ocrwm.doe.gov/wat/mode_decision.shtml.
About the Yucca Rail Alignment EIS
LL
Location of the Caliente corridor in Nevada.
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 13
After responding to more than 13,000 comments on therepository Draft EIS and Supplement to the Draft EIS,DOE completed the approximately 5000-page FinalRepository EIS. In February 2002, the Repository EISaccompanied the Secretary of Energy’s recommendationto the President, in accordance with the Nuclear WastePolicy Act. At that time DOE made the Repository EISavailable to the public on the Internet and in readingrooms.
On July 23, 2002, the President signed into law(Pub. L. 107-200) a joint resolution of the U.S. Houseof Representatives and the U.S. Senate designating theYucca Mountain site for development as a geologicrepository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel andhigh-level waste. DOE subsequently completeddistribution of the Repository EIS in paper and CD ROMformat and the Environmental Protection Agencypublished a Notice of Availability on October 25, 2002(67 FR 65564). (See related article, Innovative, EfficientEIS Distribution Saves Yucca Mountain Project$200,000 in LLQR, March 2003, page 9.)
The Repository EIS provides the environmental impactinformation necessary to make certain broadtransportation-related decisions, such as a choice oftransportation mode (e.g., mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck) nationally and in the State of Nevada, andthe choice among alternative rail corridors in Nevada. TheFinal EIS identified mostly-rail as DOE’s preferred
Repository Program and NEPA Process Updatealternative transportation mode, both nationally and inthe State of Nevada; however, the EIS did not identify apreference among the five alternative rail corridors inNevada.
On December 29, 2003, DOE published in the FederalRegister a Notice of Preferred Nevada Rail Corridor(68 FR 74951), announcing the Caliente corridor as itspreferred corridor in which to consider a rail alignment for theconstruction of a rail line in Nevada, and the Carlin corridoras a secondary preference. Also on December 29, 2003, theBureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice ofProposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting(68 FR 74965), announcing DOE’s application to withdrawland for evaluation for the potential construction of a railline. BLM’s notice segregated land within a one-milecorridor from surface entry and mining for two years whilestudies are done to support a final decision on DOE’swithdrawal application.
In March 2004, DOE issued a Supplement Analysis(DOE/EIS-0250-SA1) and concluded that a supplement tothe Repository EIS was not required for a transportationscenario not explicitly analyzed in the EIS (i.e., shippingspent nuclear fuel in legal-weight truck casks on rail carsto a rail-to-truck transfer station in Nevada, thence to therepository).
In its Record of Decision (ROD) (69 FR 18557;April 4, 2004) DOE selected: (1) the mostly-rail scenario asthe shipment mode nationally and in the State of Nevada,and (2) the Caliente corridor in which to examine potentialalignments for construction of a rail line to the repository.(The ROD stated that DOE would use truck transportwhere necessary, depending on certain factors such astiming of completion of the rail line proposed to beconstructed in Nevada. This could include building anintermodal capability at a rail line in Nevada to take legal-weight truck casks from rail cars and transport them to therepository via highway, should the rail system beunavailable at the time the repository opens.)
DOE also published on April 4, 2004, its Notice of Intentfor the Rail Alignment EIS. DOE issued a later notice inresponse to a request from the State of Nevada, extendingthe public scoping period until June 1, 2004, andannouncing the meetings in Reno and Las Vegas.
The repository program is now preparing an applicationto the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seekingauthorization to construct the repository, and intends tosubmit the application in 2004. For more information aboutthe repository program see www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml.LL
Allen Benson, Yucca Mountain Project PublicAffairs specialist, greeted members of the publicat the scoping meeting in Goldfield for the ongoingRail Alignment EIS.
Lessons Lear ned NEPA14 June 2004
The National Association ofEnvironmental Professionals (NAEP), atits April 2004 conference in Portland,Oregon, presented eight EnvironmentalExcellence Awards, including a NEPAaward, to recognize significantachievements in environmental practice.
NAEP is a nonprofit association of about 5,000 members,who represent a broad range of professionalenvironmental interests and backgrounds. TheAssociation’s annual national conference provides aforum for state-of-the-art information on environmentalplanning, research, and management – with more than100 presenters of professional papers and paneldiscussions, including a NEPA symposium.
The NEPA Excellence Award was conferred on The LouisBerger Group, Inc., of Cary, North Carolina, for Guidancefor Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ofTransportation Projects in North Carolina, which itprepared for the North Carolina Department ofTransportation. The highest NAEP honor, the President’sAward, was conferred in the category of ConservationPrograms, to the San Antonio Water System ConservationProgram nominated by the San Antonio Texas WaterSystem Public Utility and endorsed by the Governor of
2004 Environmental Excellence AwardsPresented at NAEP Conference
Texas. Additional awards were conferred for outstandingprojects in Educational Excellence, EnvironmentalManagement, Planning Integration, Public Involvement/Partnership, Environmental Stewardship, and BestAvailable Environmental Technology.
April 2005 Conference in DC Area
NAEP’s 2005 conference – with an announced theme ofInspiring Global Environmental Standards and Ethics –will be held April 16-19, 2005, in Alexandria, Virginia, closeto Washington, DC. A NEPA Symposium will be on theagenda. See the conference Web site, at www.naep.org/CONFERENCE05/Alexandria.html, for details –including instructions on submitting an abstract for apaper or poster session or a nomination for anEnvironmental Excellence Award. For additionalinformation, contact Gary Kelman, Chair, NAEPConference Committee, at [email protected] or410-537-3630, or Jim Melton, Chair, NAEP EnvironmentalExcellence Awards Committee at [email protected] 406-443-5210.
Beginning with the July 2004 edition the Directory ofPotential Stakeholders for DOE Actions under NEPA, theOffice of NEPA Policy and Compliance is institutingchanges to make the annual Directory easier to use andmore efficient to produce. In addition to the past practicesof posting the Directory on the DOE NEPA Web site anddistributing copies as requested, the NEPA Office willdistribute the Directory on compact disk, which will allowusers to copy and paste directory listings into otherapplications, such as spreadsheets and word processing.This should make it easier for NEPA Document Managersto prepare their EIS and EA distribution lists, letters,and labels for the categories of stakeholders included in
New Stakeholder Directory Compact DiskWill Faciliate Document Distribution
the Directory: Federal agencies, state NEPA contacts(including state and local government associations), andregional and national nongovernmental organizations.
The NEPA Office intends to distribute the StakeholderDirectory on compact disk in early July, and welcomesuser feedback at the July 20-21 DOE NEPA CommunityMeeting. The most recent Directory is available on theDOE NEPA Web site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/StakeholdersDirectory.pdf. For additional information,contact Yardena Mansoor at [email protected] 202-586-9326.
LL
LL
Abstracts are due August 31, 2004.
Award nominations are due February 26, 2005.
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 15
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH)contribution to DOE’s Earth Day 2004 celebration was anexhibit, Getting to Green through EnvironmentalManagement Systems (EMS), displayed in theHeadquarters Forrestal Building for two weeks in April. Theexhibit highlighted DOE’s progress in implementing EMSs –a goal to be reached at all DOE sites by December 31, 2005 –by identifying DOE Site and Program Offices that havefully implemented an EMS and those that are still strivingto meet the deadline.
DOE’s EMS Web site, maintained by the Office ofEnvironmental Policy and Assistance at www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/ems, includes up-to-date information to assistOffices in EMS implementation.
For more information on DOE’s EMS activities, contactLarry Stirling at [email protected] or 202-586-2417.DOE’s EMS commitments and the EnvironmentalProtection Program Order were the subjects of an articlein LLQR, March 2003, page 1.
EH Celebrates Earth Day 2004
LL
Deputy Assistant Secretary for EnvironmentAndy Lawrence (left) and Jim Sanderson, the NEPAOffice’s EMS contact, consider Site and Programprogress in EMS implementation.
The DOE Office of Pollution Prevention and ResourceConservation (EH-43) hosted a May teleconference amongHeadquarters and Field sites to discuss lessons learned,promote innovation, and address ways to meet DOE’s newpollution prevention (P2) goals by December 2005. P2 goalscan be addressed through environmental managementsystems that include targets for reduced waste streamgeneration, reduced releases to environmental media, andincreased purchase of environmentally preferableproducts and services. Speakers emphasized continuousimprovement in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, andencouraged organizations to report waste generationreduction activities and purchases of environmentallypreferred products using the existing P2 databases(www.eh.doe.gov/p2/) so that progress can be measured.
The P2 conference agenda and speakers’ presentationmaterials are available at www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/p2/. TheDOE Environmental Stewardship Clearinghouse Web siteat http://epic.er.doe.gov/epic/ provides information on P2activities and resources for DOE, the Department ofDefense, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Formore information on DOE’s P2 program, contactJane Powers, Office of Pollution Prevention and ResourceConservation, at [email protected] 202-586-7301.
EH Hosts Pollution Prevention Teleconference
Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Director, White HouseOffice of Science and Technology Policy,emphasizes “Green Chemistry” as a P2 tool forsource reduction. Green Chemistry is the designof chemical products and processes that reduceor eliminate the use and generation of hazardoussubstances. (See www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.)
LL
Lessons Lear ned NEPA16 June 2004
DOE NEPA-Related Litigation In Brief
Litigation Updates
Border Power Plant Working Group v. Abraham, et al.(S.D. Calif.): The court granted DOE’s request to extend theperiod of time – from July 1, 2004, to December 15, 2004 – forcompleting an EIS for two electric transmission lines thatcross the U.S.-Mexico border. (See LLQR, December 2003,page 7, and September 2003, page 22.)[Case No.: 02-CV-513-IEG (POR)]
Columbia Riverkeeper and State of Washington, et al.,v. Abraham, et al. (E.D. Wash.): These consolidated legalactions seek to prohibit DOE from shipping transuranicand transuranic mixed waste to the Hanford site fortreatment and storage pending DOE’s preparation ofadditional NEPA documentation. In response to briefsfiled on March 15, 2004, the court granted theGovernment’s motion for a limited stay concerning NEPAissues pending issuance of a record of decision relyingon the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive andHazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0286), whichDOE issued in February 2004. A status conference isscheduled for June 1, 2004.[Case Nos: 03-CT-5018 and 03-CT-5044]
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Abraham,et al. (9th Cir.): This is an appeal of the Idaho DistrictCourt's ruling that found invalid certain provisions ofDOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Theseprovisions would enable the Department to determinethat some waste associated with reprocessing spent fuelis "waste incidental to reprocessing" and not subject tothe management requirements for high-level waste. (SeeLLQR, September 2003, page 23.) The parties have fullybriefed the issues in the appeals court and are awaitingthe court's scheduling of oral argument. Meanwhile,Congress is considering legislation that would affectimplementation of the Idaho District Court's decision.[Case No.: 03-35711]
State of Nevada, et al., v. U.S. Department of Energy, et al.(D.C. Cir.): The court may issue its rulings in these casesthis summer. [Case Nos. 01-1516, 02-1036, 02-1077,02-1179, and 02-1196]
Tri-Valley Communities Against a RadioactiveEnvironment, et al., v. U.S. Department of Energy, et al.(N.D. Cal.): This action alleges that the EAs for proposedBiosafety Level 3 ("BSL-3") facilities at Los AlamosNational Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory (LLNL) are deficient. (See LLQR,September 2003, page 23.) Based on DOE's decision towithdraw the FONSI for the LANL facility and prepare anew EA, the parties agreed in January 2004 to narrow thefocus of this litigation to the adequacy of the LLNL EAand the need for a programmatic EIS on the Chemical andBiological National Security Program. (See LLQR, March2004, pages 2 and 16.) The case has been fully briefed. Nooral argument has been scheduled.[Case No.: CV-03-3926-SBA]
Other Agency NEPA CasesU.S. Department of Transportation, et al., v. PublicCitizen, et al. (Supreme Court): The Supreme Court heardoral arguments on April 21, 2004, on an appeal of adecision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuitover DOT’s NEPA review for Mexican trucking safety andinspection rules. (See LLQR, March 2004, page 17, andJune 2003, page 22.) The question before the Court iswhether a presidential “foreign-affairs action” (i.e.,allowing certain foreign trucks to enter the United Statespursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement),that is otherwise exempt from environmental reviewrequirements under NEPA, can become subject to thoserequirements as a “reasonably foreseeable” consequenceof agency action reviewed under the Council onEnvironmental Quality NEPA regulations and guidance. Adecision is expected before the Court’s term ends in June2004. [Case No.: 03-358]
Norton, et al., v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,et al. (Supreme Court): The Supreme Court heard oralarguments on March 29, 2004, in this case involving thescope of actions subject to review under theAdministrative Procedure Act. (See LLQR, March 2004,page 17.) One issue before the Court is whether
(continued on next page)
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 17
management by the Bureau of Land Management ofwilderness study areas (public lands that might bedesignated by Congress as wilderness areas) andadjacent lands in Utah requires supplementalenvironmental review under NEPA. A decision is expectedbefore the Court’s term ends in June 2004.[Case No.: 03-101]
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, et al., v. U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, et al. (9th Cir.): In a caseconcerning whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionhas an obligation under NEPA to consider the potential
LL
(continued from previous page)Litigation Updates
environmental impacts of terrorist acts in its licensingdecisions, the petitioners filed a brief(www.mothersforpeace.org/data/2004-03-159thCircuitBrief.pdf) on March 15, 2004, and the statesof California, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington filedan amici curiae (friends of the court) brief (http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2004/04-038.pdf) in supportof the petitioners on March 19, 2004. (See LLQR, March2004, page 17, and March 2003,page 10.) [Case No.: 03-74628]
The following task has been awarded recently under the DOE-wide NEPA contracts. For questions, includinginformation on earlier tasks awarded under DOE-wide NEPA contracts, contact David Gallegos at [email protected] 505-845-5849. Information and resources for potential users of these contracts are available on the DOE NEPAWeb site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa under DOE-wide NEPA Contracting.
DOE-wide NEPA Contracts Update
noitpircseDksaT tcatnoCEOD dedrawAetaD maeTtcartnoC
tnemelppuSraeY-5SIEediW-etiSLNALsisylanA
srehtiWhtebazilEvog.laeod@srehtiwe
0968-766-5054002/72/50 CIAS
LL
NEPA Community Meeting + DC in July =NEPA Community Meeting + DC in July =NEPA Community Meeting + DC in July =NEPA Community Meeting + DC in July =NEPA Community Meeting + DC in July =It Just Can’t Get Any BetterIt Just Can’t Get Any BetterIt Just Can’t Get Any BetterIt Just Can’t Get Any BetterIt Just Can’t Get Any Better
Lessons Lear ned NEPA18 June 2004
Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safetyand Health since February 2002, resigned from DOEeffective April 16, 2004, and accepted a position at the JetPropulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is managed by theCalifornia Institute of Technology. To date, an actingassistant secretary has not been named. “Moving toPasadena puts me closer to my family,” Ms. Cookexplained, “and I will arrive at JPL at one of the mostexciting moments.” In July, after nearly seven years ofinterplanetary space travel, National Aeronautics andSpace Administration’s (NASA’s) Cassini spacecraft willarrive at Saturn. “I will be there when the first pictures anddata are received,” she said.
Ms. Cook is well versed in the Cassini project. In 1997,DOE provided the plutonium power sources (theradioisotope thermal generators) for the spacecraft andwas a cooperating agency with NASA in preparing theEIS for the Cassini project. Ms. Cook, then with theOffice of Nuclear Energy, acted as the DOE spokespersonin explaining the risks associated with this project, and incontroversies centered on the consequences of possibleplutonium contamination from an accident during launchor earth orbit.
At a final staff meeting, she described a unique aspect ofthe JPL’s work: that inflexible deadlines are oftendetermined by astronomical opportunities. “Some thingscan only be done when the planets line up. It’s amazingwhat can get done when no one can mess around with theend date,” she said.
She expressed her appreciation for her DOE environmentalstaff, and noted that our stature has grown. Praising theNEPA staff, she said, “In the last couple of years, youhave converted some of your biggest critics. Some whothought that you were just an obstacle to DOE gettingthings done now appreciate that you are the ones whokeep DOE out of trouble.”
Managers and staff of Environment, Safety and Health,along with DOE’s NEPA Community, will missBeverly Cook, who was so fluent in DOE’s projects and astrong supporter of good decisionmaking. We wish herwell in her future endeavors.
Beverly Cook Launches a New Career
Using the online Cooperating Agency Reporting System,DOE responded in late April to the Council onEnvironmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) request for Federalagencies to report biannually on cooperating agencyactivities in NEPA reviews. This fourth report covers DOEEISs and EAs initiated between September 1, 2003, andFebruary 29, 2004. In that period, DOE started 3 EISs,including 1 with a cooperating agency, and 12 EAs,including 2 with a total of 3 cooperating agencies. Thereport also updates project milestones and changes incooperating agency status of EISs and EAs covered in theprevious three biannual reports.
DOE Submits Fourth Cooperating Agency Report
Richard Schassburger was designated as NEPACompliance Officer (NCO) for the Rocky Flats ProjectOffice on the retirement of Joseph Rau in December.Mr. Schassburger has been with DOE since 1979 and withthe Rocky Flats Project Office since 1988. His NEPAexperience dates back to the early 1990s when he servedas the first NCO for Rocky Flats. In addition to NEPA,Mr. Schassburger is responsible for regulatory compliancefor the closure of the Rocky Flats EnvironmentalTechnology Site. He can be reached [email protected] or 303-966-4888.
New NCO for Rocky Flats:Richard Schassburger
Transitions
CEQ has encouraged Federal agencies to considerpotential Federal, state, and local cooperating agencies foreach NEPA review. CEQ’s initiatives to promotecooperating agency relationships and the benefits ofcooperating agency participation in the NEPA process aredescribed in LLQR, March 2002, page 1, and in the CEQmemoranda referenced therein (http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/cooperating/cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html). DOE NEPAdocument preparation teams should consult with theirNEPA Compliance Officers if questions arise on thissubject. For information on cooperating agency reporting,contact Yardena Mansoor at [email protected] 202-586-9326.LL
LL
LL
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 19
Training OpportunitiesNEPA-related courses are listed in the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report for information only, without endorsement.
• Clear Writing for NEPA SpecialistsWashington, DC: June 8-10North Bend, OR: August 17-19Fee: $795
Executive Overview and Teambuildingfor NEPA SpecialistsJackson Hole, WY: July 20-22Fee: $795
How to Manage the NEPA Processand Write Effective NEPA DocumentsReno, NV: August 24-27Fee: $995
The Shipley Group888-270-2157 or [email protected]
• NEPA Certificate ProgramConducted through Utah State University.Requires successful completion of four core andthree elective courses offered by The ShipleyGroup. Courses completed in 2000 or later maybe applied toward the certificate. Also requirescompletion of course exams and a final project.
Fee: $4,995 (includes tuition, course fees, and allmaterials)
Natural Resources andEnvironmental Policy ProgramUtah State [email protected]/policy/nepa.html
• Preparing and DocumentingEnvironmental Impact AnalysisDurham, NC: June 21-24Fee: $1090
The Law of NEPADurham, NC: July 21-23Fee: $695/$775 (by/after June 28)
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy ActDurham, NC: October 18-22Fee: $1050/$1150 (by/after September 20)
Current and Emerging Issues in NEPADurham, NC: November 17-19Fee: $695/$775 (by/after October 25)
Nicholas School of the Environmentand Earth SciencesDuke [email protected]/del/shortcourses/ courses/upcoming.html
NEPA Certificate ProgramRequires successful completion of one core andthree elective Duke University NEPA shortcourses. A written paper also is required.Previously completed courses may be appliedtoward the certificate.
Fee: Included in registration for constituentcourses.
[email protected]/del/certificates/ certificates.html
Lessons Lear ned NEPA20 June 2004
EA Costs and Completion Times
• For this quarter, the median cost of four EAscompleted was $39,100; the average was $76,500.
• Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedMarch 31, 2004, the median cost for the preparationof 22 EAs for which cost data were applicable was$43,000; the average was $81,300.
• For this quarter, the median completion timeof four EAs was 10 months; the average was9 months.
• Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedMarch 31, 2004, the median completion time for22 EAs was 10 months; the average was 9 months.
EIS Costs and Completion Times
• For this quarter, the median and average cost oftwo EISs was $5,060,000.
• Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedMarch 31, 2004, the median cost for the preparationof seven EISs for which cost data were availableand applicable was $2,075,000; the average was$1,119,000.
• For this quarter, the median and average completiontime of two EISs was 52 months.
• Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedMarch 31, 2004, the median completion time forseven EISs was 27 months; the average was33 months.
NEPA Document Cost and Time Facts
EAs and EISs CompletedJanuary 1 to March 31, 2004
EISsEnvironmental Management/Ohio Field OfficeDOE/EIS-0337 (69 FR 2583; 1/16/04)(EPA Rating: LO)West Valley Demonstration Project WasteManagement, New YorkCost: $1,119,000Time: 27 months
Environmental Management/Richland Operations OfficeDOE/EIS-0286 (69 FR 7215; 2/13/04)(EPA Rating: EC-2)Hanford Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) WasteProgram, WashingtonCost: $9,000,000Time: 76 months
EAsBonneville Power AdministrationDOE/EA-1467 (2/6/04)Bonneville-Alcoa Access Road Project, WashingtonCost: $35,000Time: 13 months
DOE/EA-1486 (3/15/04)Methow Valley Irrigation District RehabilitationProject, WashingtonCost: $43,000Time: 5 months
Chicago Operations OfficeDOE/EA-1483 (3/3/04)Decontamination and Decommissioning of theJuggernaut Reactor in Building 335 at ArgonneNational Laboratory-East, IllinoisCost: $35,000Time: 6 months
National Nuclear Security AdministrationDOE/EA-1471 (1/15/04)Transportation of HEU from Russian Federationto Y-12 National Security Complex, TennesseeCost: $193,000Time: 13 months
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)RATING DEFINITIONS
Environmental Impact of the ActionLO – Lack of ObjectionsEC – Environmental ConcernsEO – Environmental ObjectionsEU – Environmentally UnsatisfactoryAdequacy of the EISCategory 1 – AdequateCategory 2 – Insufficient InformationCategory 3 – Inadequate(For a full explanation of these definitions, see the EPA Web site at:www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/comments/ratings.html.)
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 21
Notices of IntentCivilian Radioactive Waste ManagementDOE/EIS-0369Environmental Impact Statement for the Alignment,Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to aGeologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,NevadaApril 2004 (69 FR 18565, 4/8/04)
Fossil Energy/National Energy Technology LaboratoryDOE/EIS-0366Implementation of the Office of Fossil Energy'sCarbon Sequestration ProgramApril 2004 (69 FR 21517, 4/21/04)
Draft EISs
Fossil Energy/National Energy Technology LaboratoryDOE/EIS-0284Low Emission Boiler System Project, Elkhart, IllinoisMarch 2004 (69 FR 10422, 3/5/04)
Fossil EnergyDOE/EIS-0365Imperial-Mexicali 230 kV Transmission Lines,Imperial County, CaliforniaMay 2004 (69 FR 26817, 5/14/04)
Record of Decision
Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementDOE/EIS-0250Record of Decision on Mode of Transportation andNevada Rail Corridor for the Disposal of SpentNuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste atYucca Mountain, Nye County, NevadaApril 2004 (69 FR 18557, 4/8/04)
Recent EIS-Related Milestones(March 1 to May 31, 2004)
(continued on next page)
Supplement Analyses
Bonneville Power Administration
Vegetation Management ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement(DOE/EIS-0285)
DOE/EIS-0285-SA-193Vegetation Management for the Big Eddy-MidwayNo. 1 500 kV and the McNary-Ross No. 1345 kV Transmission Lines, Klickitat County,Washington(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0285-SA-194Vegetation Management on the Paul Allston 230 kVand 500 kV Transmission Line Corridor, Lewis andCowlitz Counties, Washington(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0285-SA-195Vegetation Management for the Midway-BentonTransmission Line Corridor from Tower 11/7 toTower 25/1, Benton County, Washington(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0285-SA-196Vegetation Management for the Lancaster-Noxon230 kV Transmission Lines Corridor, Sanders County,Montana(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0285-SA-197Vegetation Management for the Lower Monumental-Hanford/Ashe-Hanford/Scooteney Tap TransmissionLine, Benton County, Washington(Decision: No further NEPA review required)April 2004
Lessons Lear ned NEPA22 June 2004
Watershed Management Program(DOE/EIS-0265)
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-135Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects – MuddySprings/Pahsimeroi Fence, Custer County, Idaho(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-136Eliminate a Diversion along Morgan Creek, ProvideFish Screen, Remove Fish Barrier, Improve IrrigationSystem and Improve Water Quality, Custer County,Idaho(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-137Duck Valley Habitat Enhancement and Protection,Owyhee County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-138Duck Valley Reservoirs Fisheries and Operationand Maintenance, Elko County, Nevada(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-139Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects – East ForkRiparian Enhancement, Garman Fence, CusterCounty, Idaho(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-140Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project –WaterControl Structure and Culvert Replacement,Multnomah County, Oregon(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
DOE/EIS-0265-SA-141Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects – SalmonRiver Enhancement, Sell Fence, Lemhi County, Idaho(Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
Recent EIS-Related Milestones(March 1 to May 31, 2004)(Supplement Analyses, continued from previous page)
LL
Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement
Geologic Repository for the Disposalof Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-LevelRadioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,Nye County, Nevada(DOE/EIS-0250)
DOE/EIS-0250-SA-1Supplement Analysis for a Geologic Repository forthe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-LevelRadioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,Nevada [regarding intermodal transportation](Decision: No further NEPA review required)March 2004
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 23
ScopingWhat Worked
• Internal scoping meetings. An internal scoping meetinginvolving the participation of pertinent projectpersonnel was held to provide essential information forthe EA.
• Establishing timeline early. A realistic NEPA processtimeline was established as early as possible andin-house strategy meetings among team players wereorganized.
• Using past documents as an example. The team reliedlargely on past documents that addressed similarproposals to move spent nuclear fuel from locations inother countries where it was poorly controlled.
Data Collection/AnalysisWhat Worked
• Referencing related documents. The preparation of theEA had no complications and was streamlined byreferencing a relevant NEPA document.
• Bounding analyses. Many bounding analyses wereused in the EIS with the expectation that the detailedplanning and implementation would stay within thosebounds.
What Didn’t Work
• Inexperienced contractor. The EA team was workingwith a new DOE contractor. It took the contractor awhile to get up to speed and to provide the team withsome analysis of data.
What Worked and Didn't Work in the NEPA ProcessTo foster continuing improvement in the Department’sNEPA Compliance Program, DOE Order 451.1Brequires the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance tosolicit comments on lessons learned in the process ofcompleting NEPA documents and distribute quarterlyreports. This Quarterly Report covers documentscompleted between January 1 and March 31, 2004.
The material presented here reflects the personalviews of individual questionnaire respondents,which (appropriately) may be inconsistent. Unlessindicated otherwise, views reported herein shouldnot be interpreted as recommendations from theOffice of Environment, Safety and Health.
(continued on next page)
Second Quarter FY 2004 Questionnaire Results
Schedule
Factors that Facilitated Timely Completionof Documents
• Stakeholder interest. Increasing interest by participatingstakeholders and citizens kept us focused on prioritzingefforts and helped keep the document on schedule.
• Attentive management. The document manager played acentral coordination role in relaying informationrequests between the EA writers and project personnel.He also ensured the draft EA review cycles werecompleted on time.
• Keeping contact among team members. A close workingrelationship between the managers and the EA writerprevented the schedule from slipping too much.
• Continuous scheduling. The EIS schedule was revisedas appropriate to reflect changes in the programdirection.
• Teamwork. Having a dedicated and experienced NEPA/Project team (composed of headquarters, site, andcontractor folks) to prepare and review the document atvarious stages, perform the technical analyses, andshepherd the EIS through the process facilitated timelycompletion of the EIS.
• Beginning with a realistic schedule. A schedule wascreated that included realistic expectations for thereview and concurrence periods.
Factors that Inhibited Timely Completionof Documents
• Responding to comments. The response to internal draftcomments sometimes generated additional comments,thus making the review cycles longer than expected.
Lessons Lear ned NEPA24 June 2004
What Worked and Didn't Work
Second Quarter FY 2004 Questionnaire Results
(continued from previous page)
• Review and concurrence time. The review andconcurrence time at the headquarters level took up amajor chunk of time even when the document movedthrough the process easily. There should be an effort tofacilitate a more timely and coherent approval process atheadquarters or a delegation of project specific EISs tothe field level.
• Difficulty obtaining data. Due to difficulty in gettingexpected data from the contractor, the worker impactanalysis was delayed.
• Wide-ranging concurrence process. Due to the cross-cutting interest in the subject, numerous organizationswere involved in the concurrence process. Theconcurrence process was not well understood, so attimes it was conducted inefficiently.
TeamworkFactors that Facilitated Effective Teamwork
• Maintaining open lines of communication. The teamused e-mail and frequent meetings to stay connectedwhile focusing on the NEPA process strategy.
• Keeping contractors in the loop. Contractors were keptapprised of the NEPA progress, which enabled them tocoordinate timing and other details with planning forproject staging and construction.
• Close working locations. The physical proximity of theNCO, Document Manager, and legal support facilitatedeffective teamwork.
• Informing contractors. Contractor staff were involved inmany meetings as technical support to the program,thereby, maintaining knowledge of program changes.
• Cooperation. An excellent start was achieved by havinga kickoff meeting with the Document Manager and otherDOE staff in EH and GC. The project’s NEPA liaisonmaintained good communications among the EAcontractor, EH, and GC.
• Establishing a clear schedule. Establishing a clearschedule and expectations during the scoping processenhanced the effectiveness of teamwork between DOEand the NEPA contractor.
• Experience. Having a team of experienced personnelgreatly enhanced the EIS process. Having a focusedprogram person to serve as “EIS shepherd” alsoenhanced the ability of the team to be successful.
• Face-to-face meetings. The contractor was within easyaccess to the site office so that meetings could beaccomplished face-to-face. When holding meetings tohash through problems and reach important decisions itwas more efficient for meetings to be held in person.
• Dialogue. The proposed action’s complexity, forecastdata inconsistencies, and work scope changes created anumber of ongoing EIS challenges. Of criticalimportance in successfully addressing these were theDOE team’s maintenance throughout the NEPA processof contacts and communications with both theregulators and the public.
Factors that Inhibited Effective Teamwork
• Distance. The distance between the DOE field officesinvolved in the EA inhibited effective teamwork at times.
ProcessSuccessful Aspects of the Public ParticipationProcess
• A comprehensive mailing list. A comprehensive mailinglist was established in an effort to inform as manyinterested people as possible. The draft EA was offeredeither through hard copy in the mail or electronicmailing. Also, several points of contact were offered tothe public to facilitate input to the NEPA process.
• State coordination. A NEPA liaison in the state’sgoverment office was consulted for comments on thedraft EA.
• Early announcements. The early announcement of theEA during a Citizen Advisory Group monthly meetingproved to be a successful aspect of the publicparticipation process.
(continued on next page)
NEPA Lessons Learned June 2004 25
Unsuccessful Aspects of the Public ParticipationProcess
• Unhappy public. Public meetings of whatever format,arrangement, type, place, and so forth, are usuallyviewed as opportunities for the public to vent abouttheir feelings regarding faults and failures with DOE andthe subject project rather than the NEPA impactanalyses and ways in which DOE could correct anyidentified deficiencies.
UsefulnessAgency Planning and Decisionmaking:What Worked
• Fully using the NEPA process. DOE undertook theNEPA process to accommodate the need for an objectiveassessment, to assist in the decisionmaking, towithstand any possible legal challenges, and to satisfythe NEPA compliance and implementing procedures.
Enhancement/Protectionof the Environment• The NEPA process for this project ensured that
environmental permit compliance and the “as low asreasonably achievable” principle were followed.
Other Issues• One respondent noted that DOE should not engage into
NEPA unless appropriate data and information toformulate decisions are first gathered; parameters aboutthe project are well defined; commitments and resourcesare available to complete preparation of an objective,fact-finding document; and preparation of the NEPAdocument is first well planned out.
Second Quarter FY 2004 Questionnaire Results
What Worked and Didn't Work(continued from previous page)
Guidance Needs
• One respondent noted that the guidance on publicparticipation seems to reflect a more liberal applicationof the requirements than currently practiced in theDepartment. This created some confusion and need forinterpretation/direction from the NEPA liaison and GC.
• One respondent noted that it would be useful to haveguidance on how to develop an Addendum to apreviously approved EA.
• One respondent noted that it would be a good idea toprovide guidance to people about how to internally getthrough the NEPA process for EISs. Because there havebeen many retirements and will be more in the next tenyears, it would be nice if future document preparerscould be left with guidance about what they will needto do.
Effectiveness of the NEPAProcessFor the purposes of this section, “effective” means thatthe NEPA process was rated 3, 4, or 5 on a scale from0 to 5, with 0 meaning “not effective at all” and 5 meaning“highly effective” with respect to its influence ondecisionmaking.
For the past quarter, in which 4 questionnaire responseswere received for EAs and 2 responses were received forEISs, 3 out of 6 respondents rated the NEPA process as“effective.”
• A respondent who rated the process as “5” stated that“the NEPA document was prepared largely to spell outthe project facts and predicted outcomes to assist indecisionmaking and accommodate the agency’srequirements for NEPA decisionmaking.”
• A respondent who rated the process as “4” stated that“the NEPA process helped make critical programdecisions.”
• A respondent who rated the process as “3” stated that“the EA helped clarify what was to be shipped off-sitefor final disposal.”
(continued on next page )
Lessons Lear ned NEPA26 June 2004
• A respondent who rated the process as “3” stated that“as the NEPA process occurred in tandem with theCritical Decision 1 and 2 process in this case, it wassomewhat effective in helping refine some of theplanning process, but politics probably played a biggerrole in the actual decisionmaking.”
• A respondent who rated the process as “2” stated thatthe NEPA process “affects the planning of how workshould be done to meet environmental, safety andhealth requirements.”
• A respondent who rated the process as “1” stated that“the need to eliminate weapons-usable special nuclearmaterials is a key element to our national security. Theproposed action was the result of a working groupcommissioned by presidents of the United States andRussia and was going to happen unless a large problemwas identified.”
Second Quarter FY 2004 Questionnaire Results
What Worked and Didn't Work(continued from previous page)
LL
NEPA Community Meeting: Getting BetterNEPA Community Meeting: Getting BetterNEPA Community Meeting: Getting BetterNEPA Community Meeting: Getting BetterNEPA Community Meeting: Getting Betterand Better and Better and Better and Better...and Better and Better and Better and Better...and Better and Better and Better and Better...and Better and Better and Better and Better...and Better and Better and Better and Better...
Washington DC, July 20 and 21, 2004Washington DC, July 20 and 21, 2004Washington DC, July 20 and 21, 2004Washington DC, July 20 and 21, 2004Washington DC, July 20 and 21, 2004