national environmental policy act n lessons e a p learned · the updated nepa compliance guide,...

NEPA Lessons Learned SEPTEMBER 1998 1

LESSONSLEARNEDLEARNED

LESSONSNational Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUARTERLY REPORT

DOE NEPA Community to Meet in October

For Third Quarter FY 1998September 1, 1998, Issue No. 16

On October 14 and 15, 1998, the DOE NEPA Communitywill meet in North Las Vegas, hosted by the NevadaOperations Office at its new Support Facility. The Officeof NEPA Policy and Assistance is sponsoring this meetingto improve DOE NEPA performance through sharing oflessons learned and discussion of current issues.

Managing the NEPA ProcessManaging the NEPA ProcessManaging the NEPA ProcessManaging the NEPA ProcessManaging the NEPA ProcessThe meeting will focus on issues that NEPA DocumentManagers face daily: What tools and techniques can helpmanage a NEPA review process? How can NEPACompliance Officers, project managers, contractingofficers, and others be engaged to maximize success ofa NEPA review?

Meeting participants, all of whom play key roles in theDOE NEPA process, will be encouraged to recountsuccessful experiences and give advice on these matters.Several guidance documents being developed will bespotlighted in a plenary session and then discussed inbreakout sessions. (See related article on page 3.)

Improving Performance and Getting ResultsImproving Performance and Getting ResultsImproving Performance and Getting ResultsImproving Performance and Getting ResultsImproving Performance and Getting ResultsRichard A. Minard, Jr., Associate Director of the Centerfor the Economy and the Environment, National Academyof Public Administration, will highlight the Academy�srecent review of the DOE NEPA Compliance Program(related article, page 4) and challenge the DOE NEPA

Community to further successes under the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993. Follow-onspeakers will help meeting participants exploreperformance-based NEPA contracting, NEPA litigationlessons learned, and the role of NEPA in planning landuse and divestiture.

Site Tours OfferedSite Tours OfferedSite Tours OfferedSite Tours OfferedSite Tours OfferedThe Nevada Operations Office is offering optional sitetours before and after the meeting. The tour of the YuccaMountain facility (related article in Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report, March 1998, page 1) will include avisit to the exploratory study facility (tunnel) at the northportal, the south tunnel boring machine, other studyfacilities at the base of the mountain, and a trip to themountain crest. The tour of the Nevada Test Site willinclude former nuclear weapons testing facilities and sites.

Thanks to Mike Skougard, NEPA Compliance Officer forthe Nevada Operations Office, for volunteering to hostthe meeting and assisting in meeting planning. For moreinformation concerning the DOE NEPA CommunityMeeting, including tour registration, contactJim Sanderson at [email protected], phone(202) 586-1402, or fax (202) 586-7013. LL

(Photograph shows the mountains aboveMercury Base Camp, Nevada Test Site.)

Lessons Learned NEPA2 SEPTEMBER 1998

Inside LESSONS LEARNED

DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Assistance

Be Part ofLessons LearnedWe Welcome ContributionsWe welcome your contributions to theLessons Learned Quarterly Report.Please contact Yardena Mansoor [email protected] orphone (202) 586-9326.Draft articles for the next issueare requested by October 30, 1998.

Fourth Quarter QuestionnairesDue October 30Lessons Learned Questionnaires for NEPAdocuments completed during the fourth quarterfiscal year 1998 (July 1 to September 30) shouldbe submitted as soon as possible after documentcompletion, but no later than October 30, 1998.The Lessons Learned Questionnaire is availableinteractively on the DOE NEPA Web athttp://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ under DOE NEPAProcess Information.

For Lessons Learned Questionnaire issues,contact Hitesh Nigam at [email protected], phone (202) 586-0750,or fax (202) 586-7031.

Feedback on LLQRDo you have a comment or a suggestion?Please submit feedback on theLessons Learned Quarterly Report toHitesh Nigam at [email protected],phone (202) 586-0750, or fax (202) 586-7031.

LLQR OnlineCurrent and past issues of the Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report are available on the DOE NEPAWeb at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ underDOE NEPA Process Information.

LLQR IndexA cumulative index of the LLQR is provided inthe September issue each year.

� Guidance Underway to Assist NEPA Process ............ 3

� National Academy of Public Administration Examines

the DOE NEPA Process .............................................. 4

� NEPA Practitioner�s Bookshelf .................................... 5

� Publishing a Draft EIS on the Web ............................. 6

� DOE-Wide NEPA Contracts Showing Benefits ........... 7

� National Association of Environmental Professionals

Conference in San Diego ............................................ 9

� Litigation Updates ..................................................... 10

� Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language ......... 12

� Third Quarter FY 1998 Questionnaire Results .......... 13

� NEPA Document Cost and Time Facts ..................... 15

� NEPA Documents Completed ................................... 15

� EIS-related Documents ............................................. 16

� Recent Milestones .................................................... 16

� Cumulative Index ...................................................... 17

Welcome to the third quarter FY 1998 Quarterly Report onlessons learned in the NEPA process. Articles in this issueinclude:

NEPA StakeholdersDirectory IssuedThe Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance issued the10th edition of the DOE NEPA StakeholdersDirectory on July 31, 1998. The directory providescontact information on potential stakeholders for theDepartment�s actions under NEPA. This editionreplaces the 9th edition, which should be recycled.

For further information, contact Stephen Simpson,Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance,at [email protected] orphone (202) 586-0125. LL


NEPA Compliance Guide IssuedThe updated NEPA Compliance Guide, prepared bythe Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, has beencompleted and will be distributed to the DOE NEPAcommunity in October. Volume I of the Guide,General NEPA References, includes the NEPA statuteand related regulations and guidance from theCouncil on Environmental Quality, Department ofState, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Volume II of the Guide (Department of EnergyRegulations and Guidance) provides the DOE NEPAregulations and related guidance. All documentsincluded in the Guide also will be available on theDOE NEPA Web (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/).For further information, contact Barbara Grimm-Crawford at [email protected] phone (202) 586-3964.

A major focus of the October DOE NEPA CommunityMeeting will be guidance now in preparation by theOffice of NEPA Policy and Assistance to promoteefficient and effective NEPA document preparation:

NEPA Document Manager. The NEPA DocumentManager guidance will spotlight the importance of theNEPA Document Manager in the Department�s NEPAprocess. The guidance will provide information on whathas worked in the past and suggest ways to avoidmistakes.

NEPA Glossary. The NEPA Glossary will define termsthat are frequently used in DOE NEPA documents. Thisresource should reduce the need to research or reinventdefinitions and improve efficiency and consistencyamong the Department�s NEPA documents.

EIS Summary. This guidance will help EIS preparerswrite an adequate and accurate summary that sharplydefines the environmental consequences of choosingamong alternatives. For many readers, the summary formstheir first and lasting impression of the EIS. This guidancewill review regulatory requirements, providerecommendations on good writing, and discuss how to usethe summary to increase efficiency.

Environmental Justice. This guidance will assist inincorporating environmental justice considerations intoDOE�s NEPA process, by describing techniques forenhancing public participation and approaches forenvironmental justice analysis at every level of NEPA

review. The DOE guidance will be consistent with DOE�sEnvironmental Justice Strategy and will build on theCouncil on Environmental Quality�s (CEQ�s) December1997 general environmental justice NEPA guidance.DOE�s guidance will also be consistent, to the extentapplicable, with the April 1998 guidance onenvironmental justice issued by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency�s Office of Federal Activities.

Accident Analysis. Although the CEQ regulations do notuse the term �accident,� analyses of potential accidentsare an important part of many DOE NEPA documents.Proposed actions involving potentially dangerousprocesses merit close attention to �off-normal� operations,whether due to natural phenomena or human error. Thisguidance is the starting point for additional guidancedealing with issues and concerns about accident analyses.

EH-42 Guidance ContactsFor more information regarding the guidance topicsmentioned in this article, consult the followingpoints-of-contact at the Office of NEPA Policy andAssistance (EH-42). Internet addresses for all [email protected]. The fax number inall cases is (202) 586-7031.

NEPA Document ManagerShane Collins (202) 586-1979

NEPA GlossaryDenise Freeman (202) 586-7879

EIS SummaryYardena Mansoor (202) 586-9326

Environmental JusticeStephen Simpson (202) 586-0125

Accident AnalysisWarren (Ted) Hinds (202) 586-7855Eric Cohen (202) 586-7684

NEPA Process in the Privatization ContextStan Lichtman (202) 586-4610

Clean Air Act ConformityMary Greene (202) 586-9924

NEPA Web UpdatesLee Jessee (202) 586-7600

continued on page 8

Guidance Underway to Assist in DOE�sNEPA Process and Document Preparation

LL


The National Academy of Public AdministrationExamines DOE�s Management of the NEPA ProcessDOE has made �substantial progress� over the past tenyears in making its implementation of NEPA moreefficient, according to a report, �Managing NEPA at theDepartment of Energy,� published by the NationalAcademy of Public Administration in July 1998. Thereport concludes that the Department is also preparing itsNEPA documents in �substantially less time than it usedto,� and NEPA process costs appear to be decreasing, atleast for EAs.

PerspectiveThe Academy�s study was commissioned by the DOEOffice of NEPA Policy and Assistance and conducted bythe Academy�s Center for the Economy and theEnvironment. The report tells the history of DOE�sprogressive adoption of administrative reforms in theDepartment�s NEPA compliance program, particularly thechanges carried out in the 1990s during the tenures ofAdmiral James Watkins and Hazel O�Leary as Secretariesof Energy.

Under the leadership of Academy Fellow anddistinguished NEPA expert Lynton Caldwell, the studyteam reviewed data and documents at DOE Headquarters,conducted interviews of persons within and outside theDOE NEPA community, and convened a roundtablediscussion on a draft of the report.

Effectiveness of the Secretarial NEPAPolicy StatementThe Academy mainly studied whether the reforms of theSecretarial NEPA Policy Statement have made DOE�sNEPA process more efficient. The report concludes thatthe Department is making �steady and incrementalimprovements in its management of the NEPA process.�It notes that the 1994 Secretarial Policy Statement helpedset goals for performance and initiate procedural changesthat have streamlined the NEPA process, without reducingopportunities for public involvement. It also credits DOEfor developing performance measures to track progresstoward NEPA reform goals.

These procedural changes �have likely resulted in somecost savings,� according to the report; however, thesesavings �cannot be readily quantified.� The report statesthat: �From the current data on actual NEPA processcosts, it appears that EA costs have decreased in the lastfew years, but it is not possible to draw any firmconclusions regarding the costs of EISs as a whole.�The report also notes that the Department�s �historic

under-investment in effective environmental management,planning, and record-keeping has forced the Departmentto gather basic site information as part of NEPA analyses,thus raising the apparent cost of the analysis.�

The report suggests that the Department needs to improveits NEPA support contracting, specifically in the areas ofcontract incentives and contractor evaluations. �It is notclear that Department managers have implementedeffective ways to evaluate and improve contractorperformance.� According to the report, the DOE-wideNEPA contracts are �very promising but still unproved�(related article, page 8).

The report also suggests that the Department �needs to domore to make its NEPA reviews its �own.�� TheDepartment could save more money and do an even betterjob if DOE employees � rather than contractors �played a greater role in preparing NEPA documents.Specifically, the report suggests that DOE staff take directcharge of scoping each analysis, preparing the statementof purpose and need, and defining the proposed actionand alternatives.

As the report acknowledges, the study did not addresswhether there has been any improvement in the quality ofthe Department�s NEPA documents or whether the NEPAprocess effectively informed DOE decision making. Thereport urged the Department to develop performancemeasures that would enable the Department to trackprogress on these critical issues.

The National Academy of Public Administration is anindependent, nonpartisan organization founded in 1967and chartered by Congress to provide assistance toFederal, state, and local governments in improving theireffectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. The Centerfor the Economy and the Environment is one of theAcademy�s eight focus areas. The report is available onthe DOE NEPA Web (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/) underDOE NEPA Process Information and on the Academy�sweb site (http://www.napawash.org/). LL


Of likely interest to readers of Lessons Learned are three recently published NEPA-related books, described brieflybelow. The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance from time to time makes this type of information available toDOE NEPA practitioners, including the �Suggestions for the NEPA Practitioner�s Bookshelf� (August 1996),available in the DOE NEPA Compliance Guide and upon request from the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance.

Environmental Policy and NEPA:Past, Present, and Future

Ray Clark and Larry Canter, editors; June 1997CRC Press LLC/St. Lucie Press2000 Corporate Blvd., NWBoca Raton, Florida 33431

Phone (800) 374-3401Internet http://www.crcpress.com

CRC Press publication number SL0721360 pages, $65.00

Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, andFuture presents the work of 28 contributing authors whoaddress the historical background of NEPA, current trendsand issues associated with the environmental impactassessment process, and future opportunities forincreasing the effectiveness of NEPA.

Edited by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)Associate Director Ray Clark and University of OklahomaProfessor Larry W. Canter, the book reflects and expandsupon the background and ideology of the 1997 CEQeffectiveness study (Lessons Learned Quarterly Report,March 1997, page 1). It also includes a chapter by oneof NEPA�s �founding fathers,� Lynton Caldwell, on�Implementing NEPA � A Non-Technical Political Task.�

Among the wide-ranging topics in this book are: NEPA asthe rational approach to change, the basic purposes andpolicies of NEPA regulations, the effect of NEPA abroad,the concept of continuous monitoring and adaptivemanagement, highlights of NEPA in the courts, publicinvolvement under NEPA, alternative dispute resolution,and sustainable development.

NEPA Effectiveness �Managing the Process

Frederic March; June 1998Government Institutes, Inc.4 Research Place, Suite 200Rockville, Maryland 20850

Phone (301) 921-2300; fax (301) 921-0264

Government Institutes product code 608200 pages, $79.00

This book grew out of Mr. March�s participation, as amember of the National Association of EnvironmentalProfessionals, in CEQ workshops on its effectivenessstudy. NEPA Effectiveness � Managing the Process isorganized around ten themes of NEPA practice.For each theme, Mr. March provides related insights,guidance, and tools.

In this book, Mr. March, a senior environmental scientistat Sandia National Laboratory and one of the authors ofNEPA Compliance Manual (Government Institutes,1994), shows how the keys to NEPA effectiveness arewithin the regulations but often are not recognized. Healso discusses CEQ�s NEPA reinvention initiative(Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports, June 1997, page 3;September 1997, page 8; and December 1997, page 9),addresses CEQ�s recent guidance on cumulative impacts(see Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, March 1997,page 3), and provides a step-by-step approach todetermining significance in the NEPA context. The bookcites DOE�s use of categorical exclusions as anoutstanding example of good NEPA practice. An index ofNEPA-related topics and lists of NEPA-related referencesand web sites are also provided.

�NEPA Bookshelf� continues on page 8

NEPA Practitioner�s Bookshelf


Publishing a Draft EIS on the DOE NEPA WebBy: Lee Jessee, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

Three draft EISs were recently published on the DOENEPA Web to coincide with the beginning of their publiccomment periods:

� Continued Operation of Los Alamos NationalLaboratory (DOE/EIS-0238),

� Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site(DOE/EIS-0271), and

� Idaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project(DOE/EIS-0290).

Plan for Timely Publication of DraftEach of the three draft EISs was created with electronicpublishing in mind. They were prepared using softwarethat automatically converts the electronic file to Webpublishing format � either hypertext markup language(html) or portable document format (pdf). Each wasready to be accessible on the DOE NEPA Web withinthree working days of receipt by the Office of NEPAPolicy and Assistance (EH-42) because the files werecomplete and Web publishable. For user convenience, theDOE NEPA Web availability announcement for each draftEIS was hyperlinked to both the full-text draft EIS and tothe full-text notice of availability.

Benefits of Web PublicationWeb publication increases the range of publicinvolvement opportunities at low cost. Publishing on theWeb makes a draft EIS immediately accessible toindividuals, who may browse through the document and

transfer or print portions of interest. Efficiency isenhanced to the extent that public access through the Webreplaces requests for the entire document, reducingdistribution costs.

Web Services Available from EHStaff from two DOE Environment, Safety and Healthoffices, EH-42 and Information Management (EH-72),collaborate to support Web publication of NEPAdocuments. Technical assistance is available to help inplanning, using Web-compatible software, and schedulingelectronic publication.

The NEPA Compliance Officer or Document Managermay request a summary report of electronic access to thedraft EIS. The summary report can profile users bycountry, region, city, state, province, and most activeorganizations.

The table below shows, for the three draft EISs cited above,how long the document had been available on the Webwhen the data were generated, the number of visits or�hits� to the document, the number of users of eachdocument, and how many kilobytes (a measure ofelectronic information) the users transferred(downloaded).

Keys to Success� Web Standards: To allow preparation of the draft EIS

for Web publication during the brief period betweenEIS approval and publication of the notice ofavailability, the electronic version should be submitted

continued on page 8

Data on Web Users Examination of 3 DOE Draft EISs

Days on WebDays on WebDays on WebDays on WebDays on Web NumberNumberNumberNumberNumber Kilobytes ofKilobytes ofKilobytes ofKilobytes ofKilobytes ofEIS NumberEIS NumberEIS NumberEIS NumberEIS Number When Data GeneratedWhen Data GeneratedWhen Data GeneratedWhen Data GeneratedWhen Data Generated �Hits��Hits��Hits��Hits��Hits� of Usersof Usersof Usersof Usersof Users Information TransferredInformation TransferredInformation TransferredInformation TransferredInformation Transferred

DOE/EIS-0238 92 2775 438 327,371

DOE/EIS-0271 64 2105 316 27,404

DOE/EIS-0290 13 57 21 3520


DOE-wide NEPA Contracts Showing Benefits

New Task Orders

In the first year, use of the multiple DOE-wide NEPAsupport contracts has changed pricing mechanisms forNEPA documents and substantially reduced procurementlead times, according to the Albuquerque OperationsOffice�s Contracts and Procurement Division(June 18, 1998, status memorandum to Richard H. Hopf,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement andAssistance Management). The Albuquerque OperationsOffice issued the contracts in June 1997 and isresponsible for overall contract administration on behalfof the Department.

Of the tasks issued at the time of the status report, onlyhalf were awarded on a cost plus fixed fee basis. As notedin the memorandum, the decreased use of this pricingmechanism �represents a significant departure from

historical practice and demonstrates progress toward theachievement of NEPA contract reform.� The outcome ofissuing half of the tasks (both by number and dollar value)on either a firm-fixed price or cost plus incentive feepricing arrangement (rather than cost plus fixed fee) willbe assessed when the tasks and performance evaluationsare complete.

The memorandum also reported that tasks orders wereissued within 10 to 31 days from the time that taskproposals were requested, depending on the complexity ofthe work. Such a reduction in procurement lead times(from about a year under conventional practice) wasachieved, as noted in the memorandum, �by all theordering offices, indicating a truly streamlined process.�

The tasks below have been issued since May 1998. (See related article and table of previous tasks in Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report, June 1998, page 6). For more information on the use of the DOE-wide NEPA contracts, contactDawn Knepper at [email protected] or (505) 845-6215.

Analyses to Support Tom Wichmann 5/8/98 Halliburton NUS

the INEEL High-Level Waste NEPA Document Manager

and Facilities Disposition EIS [email protected]

(208) 526-0535

Nuclear Materials Gary Roberson 6/1/98 Tetra Tech, Inc.

Integration Project, Technical Point of Contact

NEPA Compliance Assessment1 [email protected]

(505) 845-5805

Habitat Management Teralene Foxx 6/12/98 SAIC

Plan Overview Document1,2 Technical Point of Contact

[email protected]

(505) 667-3024

Rapid Reactivation Project at Tom Goss 8/18/98 Battelle MemorialSandia National Laboratory EA NEPA Document Manager Institute

[email protected](505) 845-5510

NEPA Document Manager/Task Description Technical Point of Contact Award Date Contractor Team

1 These are technical documents related to DOE�s NEPA Compliance Program.2 This was the first task to be issued by a management and operating contractor.

LL


in Web-ready format, preferably html. (MicrosoftWord 6.0 or newer and WordPerfect 6.0 or newerenable direct conversion of files to html.) Usingsoftware that does not conform to this standardrequires time-consuming conversion of the electronicfile and may preclude Web publication by the desireddate. Information on Web publishing standards isprovided in the EH Electronic Publishing Standardsand Guidelines (currently under revision) locatedin the Tools module of the DOE NEPA Web(http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/).

� Early Coordination: The NEPA Document Managershould coordinate early with the DOE NEPAWebmaster to identify technical and timingrequirements.

To coordinate on Web publication of a draft EIS,or for further information on the DOE NEPA Webresources or Web publishing standards, contactLee Jessee, DOE NEPA Webmaster, [email protected] or (202) 586-7600.

NEPA Web(continued from page 6)

Guidance Underway(continued from page 3)

NEPA Process in the Privatization Context.This guidance will address Section 216 of the DOE NEPAregulations (10 CFR Part 1021), which applies toconsideration of environmental information in theprocurement process. DOE increasingly appliesSection 216 as it turns to the competitive marketplace(rather than management and operating contractors) tocarry out projects.

Clean Air Act Conformity. This guidance will discuss theClean Air Act requirements found at 40 CFR Part 93 fordetermining conformity of Federal actions to StateImplementation Plans, and how these requirements areaddressed in the NEPA process. The guidance will helpNEPA document preparers obtain information regardingair quality designations, determine the applicability ofClean Air Act conformity regulations to proposed actions,judge whether a conformity determination is needed, andaddress conformity in NEPA documents.

NEPA Web Updates. The DOE NEPA Web has beenupgraded with a new search engine. The guidance willprovide an overview of new features and the latestinstructions on electronic publishing of DOE NEPAdocuments.

Communicating Risk in a Changing WorldTimothy L. Tinker, Maria T. Pavlova,Audrey R. Gotsch, and Elaine Bratic Arkin, editors;May 1998Ramazzini Institute/OEM PressOEM Health Information, Inc.8 West StreetBeverly Farms, Massachusetts 01915

Phone (800) 533-8046Internet http//www.oempress.com

OEM Press publication number 23046198 pages, $42.50

This book reports the discussions and conclusions of a1996 symposium sponsored by the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services Environmental HealthPolicy Committee�s Subcommittee on RiskCommunication and Education, DOE, and the

NEPA Bookshelf (continued from page 5)

LL

LL

LL

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with StakeholderParticipation. Participants included more than 25researchers and practitioners from government,academia, and industry who are active in science-basedpublic communications. Topics addressed include:environmental justice, comparative risk assessment,broadening stakeholder involvement, the role of themedia, educational strategies, and community andworker right-to-know issues. One of the editors,Dr. Maria Pavlova, is a Medical Officer in DOE�sOffice of Occupational Medicine and MedicalSurveillance (EH-61).

For more information on this book and the results ofthe symposium (including a DOE project on�Communicating Health Risk: Working Safelywith Beryllium�), contact Dr. Maria Pavlova [email protected] or phone (301) 903-3658.


Savannah River Guidance Wins NAEPEnvironmental Quality AwardNAEP recently awarded the Savannah River Site itsNEPA Presidential Excellence Award for integratingthe NEPA compliance and the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) processes at the site. The team, whichincluded Bart Marcy and John Sessions (WestinghouseSavannah River Company) and Richard Rustad andBrian Hennessey (DOE, Savannah River OperationsOffice), was acknowledged for developing aNEPA/CERCLA Integration Guidance documentthat complies with both NEPA and CERCLArequirements.

NAEP Conference Held in San DiegoBy: Yardena Mansoor, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

NEPA practitioners wishing to participate in a broaderenvironmental community may consider the opportunitiesprovided by the National Association of EnvironmentalProfessionals (NAEP). (See related article in LessonsLearned Quarterly Report, March 1998, page 9).

Conference Theme Links NEPAto Environmental ManagementOver 200 people, many of them members or friends of theDOE NEPA community, attended NAEP�s annualconference held June 21 to 24, 1998, in San Diego,California. The intertwined theme of the conference was�Environmental Management: Linking NEPA, ISO 14000,and Sustainable Development.� Conference sessions alsoaddressed public participation and university levelenvironmental education.

CEQ Counsel is Keynote SpeakerDinah Bear, General Counsel of the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ), delivered a keynote speechthat tied together the three conference sub-themes ofNEPA, ISO 14000, and sustainable development. Sheobserved that these ideas are linked as embodiments ofthe NEPA�s Section 101 statement of nationalenvironmental policy:

[I]t is the continuing policy of the FederalGovernment, in cooperation with State and localgovernments, and other concerned public and privateorganizations, to use all practicable means andmeasures . . . to promote the general welfare, tocreate and maintain conditions under which man andnature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfillthe social, economic, and other requirements ofpresent and future generations of Americans.

Ms. Bear remarked that NEPA emphasizes the role ofplanning in achieving these goals; ISO 14000 addressesapproaches to environmental management after theplanning stage; and sustainable development recognizesthe balancing between current and future resource use thatis central to both NEPA and ISO 14000. She also praisedNAEP � in particular, for its Code of Professional Ethicsand Standards of Practice � and urged its members tostrive for credible and effective communication ofscientific information.

The second keynote speaker was John Dunlop, Chairmanof the California Air Resources Board since 1995. Hedescribed the evolution of regulatory paradigms by whichCalifornia air quality has dramatically improved while the

state�s population and vehicle-miles driven havemultiplied. The early approach to improvingenvironmental quality was based on command and controlregulations based on the first feasible technologiesidentified, primarily for motor vehicles. As industrygained experience with implementation of thesetechnologies, both scientific knowledge and attitudeevolved, permitting the emergence of a vastenvironmental technology industry that offered a broadrange of choices for addressing many types of emissions.The maturing of the industry has permitted a new market-driven paradigm: state regulatory bodies work withindustry to set reasonable goals � now for 48 categoriesof consumer products � and industrial entities meet theirgoals by choosing individually preferable approaches.This system is more accommodating, more collaborative,and less adversarial than command and controlregulation, and is more economically efficient as well.

NAEP ActivitiesNAEP publishes a bimonthly magazine, �NAEPNews,� and administers an environmental professionalcertification program as a tool for career development.The organization has 19 affiliated state and regional chaptersthroughout the country and 25 university chapters.

Planning is underway for the 1999 NAEP Conferenceto be held in early June in Kansas City, Missouri.Abstracts will be due in October 1998. For moreinformation on NAEP, to obtain a copy of Conferenceproceedings, or to inquire about membership,contact the organization�s offices at (888) 251-9902,fax (904) 251-9901, or view http://www.naep.orgon the Web. LL

LL


Litigation UpdatesBy: Stephen Simpson, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

Court Dismisses Stockpile Stewardshipand Management Portion of Ongoing LawsuitInterim Decision in K-25 Lawsuit; WIPP and EBR-II Challenged

Stockpile StewardshipPortion of NRDC v. Pen~aCase DismissedOn August 18, 1998, Judge Stanley Sporkin of the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia granted DOE�sMotion for Partial Summary Judgment and dismissed thecase filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council et al.regarding NEPA compliance for the StockpileStewardship and Management (SSM) Program. In itsoriginal complaint filed in May 1997, the plaintiffs hadalleged that DOE failed to perform an adequateenvironmental review of the program as required byNEPA. (See related articles in the Lessons LearnedQuarterly Reports, June 1997, page 5; September 1997,page 3; and December 1997, page 17.) The plaintiffsamended their complaint in January 1998 to withdraw 11of their 13 claims concerning the SSM Program andsubstituting claims that DOE should prepare asupplemental SSM Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (PEIS) based on alleged new information. Thenew information cited by the plaintiffs involved: (1)seismic and safety risks affecting pit production facilitiesat Los Alamos National Laboratory; (2) the potential forplutonium fires at the Los Alamos facility where theagency uses both weapons grade plutonium-239 andplutonium-238; (3) a new congressionally mandated planrequiring the agency to design, construct, and partiallyoperate a larger scale pit production facility at multiplesites; and (4) new proposals to conduct a range of

experiments using hazardous and radioactive materials atthe National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory. (See related article in the LessonsLearned Quarterly Report, March 1998, page 13.)

Issues Not Ripe for ReviewIn this recent decision, Judge Sporkin ruled that, based onoral and written representations made by DOE, �none ofthe issues raised by Plaintiffs is now ripe for review.�However, the judge stated that the plaintiffs had the rightto return to the court for appropriate action if DOE wereto fail to follow through with its promises or if it werefound that the Department misrepresented its position tothe court. In dismissing the plaintiffs� SSM Programcauses of action, the court also entered an orderembodying DOE�s representations. These representationsinclude DOE�s commitment to:

� complete and publish several Los Alamos seismicstudies by December 31, 1998;

� issue a supplement analysis to the SSM PEIScontaining a technical analysis of whether theinformation in the seismic studies is significant;

� include in the supplement analysis a technical analysissetting forth the extent to which a building-wide fire atTechnical Area-55 at Los Alamos would result in therelease of plutonium;

� based on the supplement analysis and after a 30-daypublic comment period, make a determination on theneed to prepare a supplemental SSM PEIS;

�Litigation Updates� continues on page11

In the ongoing litigation concerning DOE�s NEPA review for the Stockpile Stewardship and ManagementProgram, the court has dismissed the plaintiffs� amended complaint that DOE should prepare a supplemental EIS,while ordering the Department to fulfill its commitments to complete certain technical studies and supplementanalyses; the Waste Management Programmatic EIS portion of this litigation continues. Concerning the NEPAreview for decontamination and decommissioning of three buildings at the former K-25 Plant in Oak Ridge, DOEhas received a partial victory based, in part, on the court�s interpretation of CERCLA requirements. In the existinglawsuit concerning the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Disposal Phase Final Supplemental EIS, a new partyhas moved to intervene. Also, another organization has sued DOE concerning the NEPA review for theExperimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) at Argonne National Laboratory-West.


1 The original lawsuit, filed in 1991 by the States of New Mexico and Texas, three Members of Congress, and four environmental groups, challengedthe DOE decision to begin a test program at WIPP. The original plaintiffs alleged violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, NEPA(with respect to the first WIPP Supplemental EIS), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The court enjoined DOE from proceeding withWIPP until the land was properly withdrawn. Subsequently, Congress passed the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, withdrawing the WIPP site from publiclands for testing and disposal of defense transuranic waste. The lawsuit lay dormant until May 1998, when DOE filed a Motion for Expedited StatusConference. Further proceedings, including CARD�s motion, followed.

�Litigation Updates� continues on page 12

Litigation Updates (continued from page 10)

� prepare and circulate a supplemental SSM PEIS priorto taking any action that would commit DOE resourcesfor pit production capability at Los Alamos for acapacity in excess of the level analyzed in the SSMPEIS; and

� determine, by January 1, 2004, whether certainexperiments involving hazardous and radioactivematerials would be conducted at the National IgnitionFacility or to prepare a supplemental SSM PEISanalyzing the reasonably foreseeable environmentalimpacts of such experiments.

Waste Management PEIS LitigationContinuesThis decision, however, does not end this litigation. Intheir original complaint, plaintiffs also claimed that DOEis required to prepare an Environmental Restoration andWaste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (ERWM PEIS). (See related article in theLessons Learned Quarterly Report, June 1997, page 5.)The plaintiffs requested that the court hold DOE incontempt for failing to issue an ERWM PEIS in allegedviolation of the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal inNatural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins,No. 89-1835 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 1990). A trial on thecontempt motion is scheduled to start October 15, 1998.(See related article in the Lessons Learned QuarterlyReport, March 1998, page 13.)

K-25 NEPA ChallengePartially Barred by CERCLAThe Department has received a partial victoryconcerning the NEPA review for the decontamination anddecommissioning of three buildings at the East TennesseeTechnology Park (ETTP) (formerly the K-25 GaseousDiffusion Plant) in Oak Ridge and possible recycling ofthe resulting contaminated metal.

On June 3, 1998, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia issued aMemorandum Opinion in the lawsuit concerning theDepartment�s award of a contract to BNFL, Inc. fordecontamination and decommissioning of three buildingsat the ETTP and possible recycling of the resulting

contaminated metal. The suit was filed by the Oil,Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,AFL-CIO; the union local in Oak Ridge, Tennessee;several union members in Oak Ridge; and the NaturalResources Defense Council, the Oak RidgeEnvironmental Peace Alliance, and two otherenvironmental groups. (See related article in the LessonsLearned Quarterly Report, December 1997, page 16.)

Judge Kessler dismissed that portion of the suit thatsought an EIS for the decontamination anddecommissioning action, finding that it was aComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (CERCLA) removal action and,therefore, could not be challenged before itsimplementation was completed.

Judge Kessler found, however, that although both theCERCLA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis and theBNFL contract encourage recycling of the recoveredmetals, they do not require BNFL to do so. She ruled thatan optional action is not an �organic element� of theremedial plan and that the same CERCLA bar would not,therefore, protect the recycling action from challenge.The judge is allowing the portions of the suit concerningthe recycling action to proceed to discovery and trial todetermine whether an EIS should be prepared.

WIPP SEIS-II Inadequate,Citizens Group AllegesCitizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping(CARD), a New Mexico organization, has moved tointervene in an existing lawsuit concerning the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).1 CARD�s motion andproposed complaint, filed June 9, 1998, alleges that theWIPP Disposal Phase Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS-II) isinadequate because it fails to:

� consider the feasibility of alternative disposal sites(e.g., long-term monitored retrievable storage facilitiesat transuranic waste generating sites);

� adequately consider that minority and low-incomepopulations would bear a disproportionate share of


Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language

LL

Litigation Updates (continued from page11)

President Clinton has directed heads of executivedepartments and agencies to use plain language inFederal government writing in an effort to make thegovernment more responsive, accessible, andunderstandable to the public (63 FR 31883, June 10,1998). By October 1, 1998, agencies are directed touse plain language in all new documents, other thanregulations, that explain how to obtain a benefit orservice or how to comply with a requirement. ByJanuary 1, 1999, agencies must use plain language inall proposed and final rulemaking published in theFederal Register. The Presidential Memorandum alsourges agencies to rewrite existing regulations in plainlanguage. To help departments and agencies comply

with these directives, the National Partnership forReinventing Government has issued guidance entitledPractical Guidance on Clarity of the Written Word.

Plain language documents are described as havinglogical organization and easy-to-read design features.Except for necessary technical terms, plain languagewriting uses common, everyday words; it also uses�you� and other pronouns and short sentences in theactive voice. The Presidential Memorandum and therelated guidance are accessible via the NEPA Toolsmodule of the DOE NEPA Web (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/) or from the Plain Language Action Network website (http://208.204.35.97/). LL

high and adverse environmental impacts fromactivities at WIPP and from transportation activities;

� adequately address the impacts of wastetransportation, especially the consequences ofintentional interference with waste shipments; and

� adequately consider the effect of the hydrology andgeology of the WIPP site (especially the existence ofkarst formations) on the long-term performance of WIPP.

The Department�s response to CARD�s motion asks thatthe court not allow CARD to intervene, stating thatCARD�s intervention would bring completely new issuesto the lawsuit, the motion is not timely, CARD�s interestsare adequately represented by existing parties in thelawsuit, and the resolution of the ongoing lawsuit wouldnot impair CARD�s legal right to challenge the adequacyof SEIS-II. The court has yet to rule on CARD�s motion.

Group Alleges that Shutdownof EBR-II Requires EISOn July 2, 1998, Coalition 21, an Idaho not-for-profitgroup, sued the Department, alleging that the proposedremoval of the sodium from the primary cooling system ofthe Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) at ArgonneNational Laboratory-West requires DOE to prepare anEIS which would include an analysis of the completedecontamination and decommissioning of the reactor.(Coalition 21 is a group that, according to the complaint,�supports nuclear technologies and technologicalsolutions to the problems facing Idaho, the nation, and theworld.�) DOE issued an EA and finding of no significantimpact for the proposed shutdown of EBR-II inSeptember 1997 (DOE/EA-1199).

Coalition 21 alleges that NEPA, the Council onEnvironmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA,and the DOE NEPA regulations require that DOE preparean EIS for the decommissioning of a nuclear fuelreprocessing facility. Coalition 21 also alleges that DOEdid not take a hard look at the environmentalconsequences of shutdown and decommissioning in theEA, including that the EA failed to:

� define the final state of EBR-II and fully discuss theimpacts of final decommissioning;

� analyze the impact of �the elimination of a uniquebillion-dollar research facility and the loss of the 19.5megawatt electrical power generated for� the IdahoNational Engineering and Environmental Laboratory;

� analyze the full range of reasonable alternatives;

� assess �the environmental, social, and economic issuesand the long-term losses involved in the decision todecommission the only facility in the United States thathas the capability to recycle spent nuclear fuel,plutonium, and uranium;� and

� consider �the worldwide and long-range character ofenvironmental problems that would result fromdepriving countries such as Japan, France, and Russiathe research generated from EBR-II concerning thelong-term use of nuclear energy.�

Furthermore, Coalition 21 alleges that DOE has illegallysegmented the decision making for the proposed actionand prepared the EA only after having begun the processof decommissioning the EBR-II facility. As of thiswriting, DOE has not filed its answer to Coalition 21�scomplaint.


What Worked and Didn't Work in the NEPA Process

ScopingWhat Worked

• Tiering. The EA tiered off the programmatic EIS,which provided the framework for the analysisstrategy.

What Didn�t Work

• Miscommunication with the public. The publicmisunderstood the intent of the scoping process anddid not provide adequate input.

Data Collection/AnalysisWhat Didn�t Work

• Relying on another agency for data. We relied on theother agency and their consultants for data that wasnot supplied to us in a timely manner.

ScheduleFactors that Facilitated Timely Completionof Documents

• Dedicated staff. I was able to focus nearly all of mytime on this project.

• Effective teamwork. Concurrent reviews,teleconferences, e-mailing draft documents andcomments, and good communication among teammembers facilitated timely completion of the EA.

• Incorporation by reference. The EA was kept to aminimum of pages by incorporating information byreference from other documents.

Factors that Inhibited Timely Completionof Documents

• Extended public review. Stakeholders requested anextension of the public review.

• Disagreement on the determination. Although theNEPA Compliance Officer (NCO) had determinedwith Field Counsel support that an EA wasappropriate, the project manager, projectproponents, and the contractor argued for aboutthree months that the action could be categoricallyexcluded.

• Late determination. The project manager did notadvise the NCO of the project when it was firstidentified because the manager thought a NEPAreview was not necessary.

• Headquarters input. A more timely response fromHeadquarters regarding our request for assistancewould have helped us deal more efficiently with asituation that was new to our office.

Factors that Facilitated Effective Teamwork

• Trust, commitment to quality, cost consciousness, andgood communication.

ProcessSuccessful Aspects of the PublicParticipation Process

• Clear and open communication. Our success with thepublic was based on open lines of communicationand a clear understanding of project and agencyneeds.

• Project updates. The state, stakeholders, and thepublic were routinely advised via letters of progresson the EA.

To foster continuing improvement in the Department�s NEPACompliance Program, DOE Order 451.1A requires the Officeof Environment, Safety and Health to solicit comments onlessons learned in the process of completing NEPAdocuments and distribute quarterly reports. This QuarterlyReport covers documents completed between April 1 andJune 30, 1998. Comments and lessons learned on thefollowing topics were submitted by questionnairerespondents.

Third Quarter FY 1998 Questionnaire Results

Some of the material presented here reflects the personalviews of individual questionnaire respondents, which(appropriately) may be inconsistent. Unless indicatedotherwise, views reported herein should not be interpretedas recommendations from the Office of Environment,Safety and Health.


Third Quarter FY 1998 Questionnaire Results

Unsuccessful Aspects of the PublicParticipation Process• Mixed messages. It was difficult to get an honest

reading from the public on the process because someparticipants thought we did a good jobcommunicating and responding, while others, whomay not have liked the project, probably did not likeor trust our process.

• Misunderstandings by other agencies. The amount ofpublic participation sought, consistent with the DOEregulations and guidance, misled some of thecommenting agencies to think that the proposedaction was larger and more complex than it actuallywas.

UsefulnessAgency Planning and Decision Making �What Worked• Alternatives were improved. The process allowed us

to work closely with the cooperating agency and thepublic to develop alternatives that changedthroughout the process and responded more to theneeds of all parties involved while still meeting thepurpose and need for the project. I continue to besold on the value of the NEPA process!

• Technical issues were addressed. The NEPA processfacilitated decision making by answering technicalissues in a format that the public could understand.

Agency Planning and Decision Making �What Didn�t Work

• Treating NEPA as just mere paperwork. A decisionwas made based on technical merits, andenvironmental aspects were not directly consideredin the decision. Once the project was selected, thenecessary �NEPA paperwork� was completed by theproject manager.

CostCostCostCostCostFactors that Facilitated Cost Savings �What Worked

• Dedicated staff. Being able to focus nearly all of mytime on this project turned out to be cost-effective inthe long run.

What Didn�t Work• Budgeting costs associated with other agencies.

Because I didn�t have much experience with thecooperating agency, some cost items arose that I hadnot budgeted for.

Effectiveness of theNEPA ProcessFor the purposes of this section,�effective� means thatthe NEPA process was rated 3, 4, or 5 on a scale from 0to 5, with 0 meaning �not effective at all� and 5 meaning�highly effective� with respect to its influence on decisionmaking.

• For this quarter, in which there were four EAs andone EIS, four of the six respondents (two peopleresponded on one EA) rated the NEPA process as�effective.�

• The respondents rating the process as �effective�stated that the process facilitated effective interactionwith the cooperating agency and the public, thatalternatives were improved, and that scoping helpedcommunity involvement, which made the decisionsmore meaningful.

• The two respondents who rated the process as �noteffective at all� indicated that it was only apaperwork exercise for a decision already made.


Cost DataEISs� For this quarter, one EIS was completed at a cost of

$578,000.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that ended June 30,1998, the median cost for the preparation of fourEISs was $1,479,000; the average cost was$2,903,000.

EAs� For this quarter, the median cost for the four

completed EAs was $29,500 (the range was $25,500to $102,000); the average cost was $46,625.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that ended June 30,1998, the median cost for the preparation of 27 EAswas $28,000; the average cost was $77,000.

Completion Time DataEISs� For this quarter, the completion time for the one EIS

was 24 months.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that ended June 30,1998, the median completion time for the preparationof five EISs was 25 months; the average completiontime was 31 months.

� EIS Cohort Status: The March 2, 1998 LessonsLearned Quarterly Report (page 17) described acohort of 23 EISs for which Notices of Intent wereissued between July 1, 1994 and March 31, 1997.Fifteen of the cohort EISs have been completedthrough June 30, 1998, with a median completion timeof 15 months, and an average of 16 months. See theMarch 1998 article for more details.

EAs� For this quarter, the median completion time for four

EAs was 5 months (the range was 2 months to21 months); the average completion time was8 months.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that ended June 30,1998, the median completion time for 27 EAs was7 months; the average completion time was10 months.

NEPA DocumentsCompleted BetweenApril 1 and June 30, 1998

EISsBonneville Power AdministrationLower Valley Transmission SystemsReinforcement Project, WyomingDOE/EIS-0267Cost: $578,000Time: 24 months

EAsBonneville Power AdministrationGrande Ronde Basin Endemic Spring ChinookSalmon Supplementation ProgramDOE/EA-1173Cost: $102,000Time: 21 months

Golden Field Office/EEKotzebue Wind Installation ProjectKotzebue, AlaskaDOE/EA-1245Cost: $31,000Time: 7 months

Right-of-Way Easement for Public Service Companyof Colorado at the South Table Mountain Site,Golden, ColoradoDOE/EA-1254Cost: $25,500Time: 2 months

Grand Junction Project Office/EMGround Water Compliance at theFalls City, Texas, Uranium Mill TailingsRemediation Action (UMTRA) Project SiteDOE/EA-1227Cost: $28,000Time: 3 months

NEPA Document Cost and Completion Time Facts


Notices of Intent DOE/EIS# Date

Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land DOE/EIS-0293 4/30/98 (63 FR 25022)Tracts Located at Los Alamos NationalLaboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties,New Mexico

Griffith Power Plant and Transmission DOE/EIS-0297 4/3/98 (63 FR 16496)Line Project, Mohave County, Arizona

Draft EISs

Construction and Operation of a Tritium DOE/EIS-0271 April 1998Extraction Facility at Savannah River Site

Site-wide EIS for Continued Operation of the DOE/EIS-0238 April 1998Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,New Mexico

Telephone Flat Geothermal Development Project, DOE/EIS-0298 May 1998Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California(BPA is a cooperating agency)

Surplus Plutonium Disposition DOE/EIS-0283 June 1998

Supplement Analysis

Tank Waste Remediation System, Richland, DOE/EIS 0189-SA2 May 1998 Washington(No further NEPA review required)

EIS-Related Documents Issued Between April 1 and June 30, 1998

Recent EIS MilestonesDraft EISsProduction of Tritium in a Commercial Light WaterReactor (DOE/EIS-0288)(August 20, 1998)

Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project,INEEL (DOE/EIS-0290) (July 9, 1998)

Final EISManagement of Certain Plutonium Residues andScrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky FlatsEnvironmental Technology Site(DOE/EIS-0277) (August 6, 1998)

Records of DecisionWaste Management Programmatic EIS,Hazardous Wastes (DOE/EIS-0200)August 5, 1998 (63 FR 41810)

Storage and Disposition of Weapons Usable FissileMaterials Programmatic EIS, amended(DOE/EIS-0229), August 13, 1998(63 FR 43386)

BPA/Lower Valley Transmission SystemReinforcement Project, Wyoming(DOE/EIS-0267), August 21, 1998(63 FR 44853)

Supplement Analyses�Acceptance of Foreign Research ReactorSpent Nuclear Fuel Under Scenarios NotSpecifically Mentioned in the EIS.�Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear FuelProgrammatic EIS(DOE/EIS-0218-SA 2) (August 19, 1998)(No further NEPA review required)

�AL-R8 Sealed Insert Container for thePit Repackaging Program.�EIS for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant(DOE/EIS-0225-SA1), August 5, 1998(No further NEPA review required)

�Storing Plutonium in the Actinide Packagingand Storage Facility and Building 105-Kat the Savannah River Site.�Storage and Disposition of Weapons-UsableFissile Materials Programmatic EIS(DOE/EIS 0229-SA1), August 6, 1998(Amended DOE/EIS-0229 Record of Decision;no further NEPA review required)


Cumulative Topical Index to Quarterly Reportson Lessons Learned in the NEPA Process

AAccident Analyses

Sep 95/12; Dec 95/15;Sep 97/7; Sep 98/7

Administrative RecordMar 97/13; Sep 97/7; Jun 98/7

Affected EnvironmentSep 95/12

Alternative Dispute Resolutionsee also: Legal Issues

Jun 96/7; Jun 98/9Alternatives

elimination of unreasonableMar 96/4, 5

no actionMar 96/6; Dec 97/16

reasonableDec 96/6; Jun 98/13

siting, anticipating unknown wastes inMar 98/8

Appendices, use ofJun 96/4

Annual NEPA Planning SummariesJun 97/9; Dec 97/14; Mar 98/9

BBeneficial Landscaping Practices

Dec 97/11

Bounding AnalysesMar 96/5; Jun 96/3

CCategorical Exclusions, application ofsee also: Legal Issues

Mar 97/11; Sep 97/9; Jun 98/4

Classified information, working withsee also: Legal Issues

Mar 98/4

Clean Air ActMar 98/8; Jun 98/10

Commentssee also: CEQ, Cumulative EffectsHandbook; Public Involvement

on final EISSep 95/12

resolving other agency commentsSep 96/6

responding to commentsSep 96/4; Sep 97/12

Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

Sep 97/1; Dec 97/5; Sep 98/11

Congressional Hearings on NEPADec 96/5; Jun 98/12

Connected Actionssee: Legal Issues; Litigation,Other Agency NEPA

Contracting, NEPADOE-wide NEPA documentpreparation contract procurement,awards, and tasks

Dec 96/3; Jun 97/1; Sep 97/10;Dec 97/13; Mar 98/5; Jun 98/6;Sep 98/7

restructuring ofMar 98/5

fixed price contract, use inMar 96/3

general support contractor, use ofMar 96/2

performance evaluationof contractors

Mar 96/7; Jun 96/5reform of/ Contracting Reform initiative

Dec 96/3; Jun 96/1, 5

Core Technical Group (DOE tech. support)Mar 98/7

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Cumulative Effects Handbookand related activities

Dec 96/3; Mar 97/3; Jun 98/11Environmental Justice, guidance on

Jun 97/4Global Climate Change,draft guidance on

Dec 97/12NEPA Effectiveness Study

Dec 96/5; Mar 97/1; Jun 97/3NEPA Reinvention Project

Jun 97/3; Sep 97/8

Cultural ResourcesSep 97/1; Dec 97/2

Cumulative Effectssee: CEQ; EPA; Impact Analysis;Legal Issues

DDistribution of NEPA Documents

Jun 95/6; Dec 95/16;Mar 96/4; Sep 96/11; Mar 97/5

DOE NEPA Order 451.1/451.1AJun 96/5; Mar 97/13; Jun 97/4; Dec 97/14

DOE NEPA Rule (10 CFR 1021)see also: CEQ, NEPA Reinvention ProjectMar 96/7; Jun 96/9; Sep 96/11;

Dec 96/6; Mar 97/12; Dec 97/17

DOE NEPA WebJun 95/7; Mar 97/10;Jun 97/10; Mar 98/7; Sep 98/6

Draft Material, use ofJun 96/4

EEcological Society of AmericaJun 98/10

Endangered Species ActDec 95/14; Dec 97/1;Mar 98/13; Jun 98/7

Environmental Assessmentssee also: NEPA Document Preparationand Production; Public Involvement

adoption ofSep 95/12; Jun 98/8

Electrometallurgical ProcessDemonstration at ArgonneNational Laboratory�West

Jun 96/8Fernald Disposition ofPrehistoric Remains

Sep 97/1Hanford Site TRUMP-S

Mar 97/11INEEL Test Area North Pool

Jun 98/8Lead Test Assembly Irradiation andAnalysis (Hanford)

Mar 98/4no action alternative in

Mar 96/6public involvement for

Dec 95/15; Mar 96/7;Mar 97/4; Dec 97/9

Quality Review, results ofDec 96/7; Mar 97/8

Environmental Impact Statementssee also: Litigation, DOE NEPA; NEPADocument Preparation and Production;Public Involvement

adoption ofJun 98/8

Agricultural Research Service(EIS for a wind energy system)

Mar 98/6Bonneville Power AdministrationProgrammatic EISs

Dec 97/4; Dec 97/16Dual Axis RadiographicHydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT)

Dec 95/12; Jun 96/8F-Canyon Plutonium Solution

Mar 95/6; Jun 96/8Foreign Research ReactorSpent Nuclear Fuel

Jun 95/8; Sep 96/8; Mar 97/11Hanford K-Basins Spent Nuclear Fuel

Jun 96/5Hanford Remedial Action andComprehensive Land Use Plan

Dec 96/7INEEL High-level Waste

Dec 97/3

KEYPrimary Topic

Mon Yr/Page number (s)

Secondary Topic

Mon Yr/Page number (s)



National Spallation Neutron SourceSep 97/9

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1Dec 97/1; Mar 98/13

Pantex Site-wideSep 96/7

Safe Interim Storage ofHanford Tank Wastes

Mar 96/1Sandia National Laboratory/New Mexico Site-wide

Jun 96/7; Sep 96/8; Sep 97/2Shutdown of the SavannahRiver Water System

Dec 97/5Spent Nuclear Fuel Management andINEEL Environmental Restorationand Waste Management Programs

Jun 95/8; Sep 95/10;Jun 98/8; Jun 98/13

Stockpile Stewardship andManagement Programmatic

Jun 96/8; Mar 97/5;Jun 97/5; Sep 97/3

Storage and Disposition ofFissile Materials Programmatic

Jun 96/6Transuranic Management byPyroprocessing � Separation(TRUMP-S)

Mar 97/11Waste Management Programmatic

Sep 96/6; Jun 97/5Waste Management at theSavannah River Site

Jun 95/8WIPP Disposal PhaseSupplemental EIS II (SEIS II)

Jun 97/6; Dec 97/6; Mar 98/5WIPP Supplemental (SEIS)

Dec 95/11Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository

Mar 98/1

Environmental Justicesee also: CEQ, Environmental Justice,guidance on

Jun 95/8; Dec 96/4; Jun 97/4;Dec 97/4; Sep 98/3

Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)commendation from

Sep 96/7cumulative impact guidance

Jun 98/11improving comment resolution with

Sep 96/6policy for voluntary EISs

Mar 98/8rating system, EIS

Sep 96/6; Mar 97/6

Environmental StewardshipDec 95/14

Executive Committee, EISJun 96/2; Mar 98/2

Executive Ordersenvironmental justice

Jun 95/8protection of childrenfrom health risks

Jun 97/9

FFederal Environmental Quality AwardsSep 96/10

Federal Register, publishing inJun 95/6; Sep 96/9;Mar 97/18; Jun 97/7

Findings of No Significant ImpactSep 95/12

GGlobal Climate Change, CEQ draftguidance on

Dec 97/12

�Green Book� (�Recommendations for thePreparation of EAs and EISs�)

Dec 94/4; Sep 95/12; Mar 96/6

Guidance, DOE NEPAsee: NEPA Tools and specific topics

HHabitat Conservation and Restoration

beneficial landscaping practicesDec 97/11

transfer of mitigation requirementsin property transfer

Dec 97/1

IImpact Analysis

see also: accident analyses, boundinganalyses; CEQ, Cumulative EffectsHandbook

assessing worker impactsSep 95/12

bounding analysesJun 96/3

children, protection fromenvironmental health risks &safety risks, Executive Order on

Jun 97/9classified information,working with

Mar 98/4methodology

Sep 96/9models and codes, summary of

Sep 96/19timeframe for assessment of

Mar 96/6

waste, anticipating unknown,sample text for

Mar 98/8

International Association for ImpactAssessment (IAIA)

Jun 97/10; Sep 97/11

ISO 14000Dec 97/7

LLegal Issues

alternativesno action

Mar 96/6; Dec 97/16;Mar 98/13

reasonableDec 96/6; Mar 97/12;Jun 97/5; Sep 97/19;Mar 98/13, 14; Jun 98/13

beneficial impactsSep 96/9

biodiversitySep 96/9

categorical exclusions,application of

Mar 97/11; June 97/8;Sep 97/9, 13

CERCLA, NEPA documentation andSep 98/11

classified materialJun 96/8

closure, proposed siteJun 97/8

connected actionsMar 96/6; Sep 96/8

cultural resourcesMar 98/13

cumulative impactsJun 96/7; Sep 96/9; Dec 97/16

insufficient details in EISfor decision making

Jun 97/8methodology

Sep 96/9mitigation

Dec 97/18; Mar 98/14; Jun 98/18NEPA review, required/not required

Sep 96/9; Jun 97/8preparation of site-wideNEPA document

Jun 96/7; Sep 96/8purpose and need

Sep 97/19; Jun 98/13responding to comments

Jun 96/8; Sep 96/9segmentation

Mar 98/14; Jun 98/13security issues

Dec 97/17; Jun 98/13supplemental EIS, need for

Mar 97/12; Jun 98/13



tieringDec 97/16; Jun 98/13

transboundary environmentalimpact assessment

Dec 97/14transfer of property

Sep 96/9; Dec 97/1waste

off-site disposal ofJun 97/8

shipment (international) ofMar 98/14

Litigation, DOE NEPABonneville PowerAdministration Business Plan

Dec 97/16Dual Axis RadiographicHydrodynamic (DARHT) TestFacility (LANL)

Jun 96/8Electrometallurgical ProcessDemonstration at ArgonneNational Laboratory�West

Jun 96/8; Sep 96/8Experimental Breeder Reactor-II,Argonne-West

Sep 98/12F- and H- Canyon facilities,Savannah River Site

Mar 95/6; Jun 96/8Foreign Research ReactorSpent Nuclear Fuel

Sep 96/8; Mar 97/11; Dec 97/17K-25 decontamination anddecommissioning

Dec 97/17; Sep 98/11Naval Petroleum ReserveNumber 1 (NPR-1)

Mar 98/13Nevada Test Site Site-wide

Jun 97/8Programmatic Spent Nuclear FuelManagement and INEELEnvironmental Restorationand Waste ManagementPrograms EIS

Jun 98/13Sandia National Laboratory

Jun 96/7; Sep 96/8Stockpile Stewardship andManagement PEIS

Jun 97/5; Sep 97/3; Dec 97/17;Mar 98/13; Jun 98/14; Sep 98/10

Vortec Corporation VitrificationDemonstration, Paducah GaseousDiffusion Plant (PGDP)

Jun 97/8; Sep 97/13Waste Management PEIS

Jun 97/5; Mar 98/13; Sep 98/10Waste Isolation Pilot PlantSupplemental EIS II

Jun 97/6; Sep 98/11

Litigation, Other Agency NEPAArmy Corps of Engineers

Sep 96/8, 9; Sep 97/19Coast Guard

Jun 97/8Farmers Home Administration

Sep 96/9Federal Aviation Administration

Dec 96/6Federal Highway Administration

Dec 96/6; Jun 97/17Forest Service

Sep 96/9; Mar 97/12;Dec 97/18; Jun 98/14

General Services AdministrationMar 98/14

Housing and Urban DevelopmentDec 97/18

Postal ServiceMar 98/14

MMitigation

transfer of mitigation requirementsDec 97/1

Mitigation Action PlanDec 95/14; Mar 98/8

NNational Academy of PublicAdministration

Jun 98/10; Sep 98/1,4

National Association of EnvironmentalProfessionals (NAEP)

Sep 96/10; Dec 97/8, 9;Mar 98/9; Sep 98/9

National EnvironmentalTraining Office

Dec 97/10; Mar 98/12; Jun 98/5

NEPA Bookshelfsee also: NEPA tools, Book Reviews

National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)

Sep 97/4; Jun 98/7

NEPA Compliance Officers (NCOs)NCO meetings

Dec 96/1; Sep 97/6;Jun 98/1; Sep 98/1,3

NCO roleSep 96/1; Dec 96/1;Mar 98/10; Jun 98/3

NEPA Document Preparationand Productionsee also: Trend Analysis, NEPA DocumentPreparation

appendices, use ofJun 96/4

color printingSep 97/6

draft material, use ofJun 96/4

electronic publicationJun 97/10

geographic information systemDec 96/7

incorporation by referenceJun 96/4

information documents (pre-EIS data collection)

Sep 97/5models and codes, summary of

Sep 96/19photosimulation

Sep 97/14�Pragmatic� EIS (BPA model)

Dec 97/4visual elements

Sep 96/3

NEPA, Integration with other Reviewssee also: CAA; CERCLA; NHPA

Jun 98/7

NEPA Processsee also: Public Involvement

early applicationMar 98/6

decision making, effect onMar 96/1

improving the EA process/EA Quality Study

Dec 96/7innovative documentreview practices

Dec 97/6management of

Mar 98/1planning and coordination of

Sep 95/10; Mar 96/1;Jun 96/2; Dec 97/9

scopingSep 96/3, 11; Sep 97/2;Dec 97/3, 9; Mar 98/6

streamliningSep 96/11; Mar 97/1; Jun 97/3

NEPA TeamworkSep 96/1; Dec 96/1; Mar 98/11

NEPA Toolssee also: DOE NEPA Web;�Green Book�

archiving DOE�s NEPA documentsSep 96/11book reviews

Communicating Risk in aChanging World

Sep 98/5Environmental Policy and NEPA

Sep 98/5Environmental Impact Assessment

Sep 96/12NEPA Effectiveness �Managing the Process

Sep 98/5


Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42U.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0119


Compliance Guide, DOE NEPASep 98/3

DOE NEPA ImplementingProcedures (10 CFR 1021)

Dec 97/14see also: DOE NEPA RuleEIS Checklist

Dec 97/14geographical information system

Dec 96/7glossary, NEPA

Sep 98/3public involvement, guidance on(�Gold Book�)

Dec 95/15Stakeholders Directory

Dec 95/16; Mar 98/4; Sep 98/2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Jun 98/8

PPlain Language, PresidentialMemorandum on

Sep 98/12

Pollution PreventionDOE model commended by EPA

Sep 96/7beneficial landscaping practices

Dec 97/11

Privatizationsee also: Procurement

Sep 97/8

Procurementapplicability of 10 CFRSection1021.216

Mar 96/5; Sep 97/8request for proposals

Mar 96/5; Dec 96/3

Property Transfer/Divestituresee also: Legal Issues, transfer ofproperty

Dec 97/1

Public Involvementcoordination among DOE offices

Sep 95/10; Mar 97/5defining goals and objectives for

Dec 97/15early public notice

Mar 96/7; Mar 97/4; Jun 97/7approaches

Mar 96/1; Mar 97/4; Jun 97/6;Sep 97/2, 12; Dec 97/3, 15;Mar 98/4

reference materials, availability ofJun 96/4

responding to commentssee also: Comments

Sep 95/12; Sep 97/12public scoping, approaches toSep 97/2; Dec 97/3public hearings, approaches to

Dec 95/11; Jun 96/6; Jun 97/6Secretarial policy on publicinvolvement in EA process

Dec 95/15Stakeholders Directory

Jun 97/7; Mar 98/4toll free numbers, use of

Jun 96/6; Sep 97/2video conferencing

Jun 96/6Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)Supplemental EISs

Dec 95/11; Jun 97/6working groups, workshops

Mar 97/4; Dec 97/3

RReadability of NEPA Documents

Mar 97/9; Sep 97/14

Records of Decisionaddressing public commentson final EIS in

Sep 95/12management of TRU waste, RODs for

Mar 98/5

Reference MaterialsJun 96/4

Related NEPA Documentsneed for coordination/consistency

Sep 95/12, 13; Dec 95/15

SSafety Analysis Reports, NEPA Documentsand

Dec 95/15

Scopingsee: NEPA Process

Summary, EISMar 96/3

Supplemental EIS/Supplement Analysessee also: Legal Issues

Mar 97/13; Mar 98/13

TTraining and Certification

CD-ROM NEPA trainingJun 98/5

Certified EnvironmentalProfessional (NAEP)

Dec 97/8National Environmental TrainingOffice (NETO)

Dec 97/10; Mar 98/12; Jun 98/5�NEPA Process Game�(Richland Operations Office)

Mar 98/11U.S. Forest Service

Sep 97/12

Transboundary Environmental ImpactAssessment

Dec 97/14

Trend Analyses, NEPA DocumentPreparation

completion timeJun 96/16; Dec 96/15;Jun 97/16; Dec 97/22; Mar 98/17

costMar 96/15; Jun 96/17;Dec 96/15; Jun 97/19;Dec 97/22; Mar 98/17

cost and time outliersDec 96/13

effectivenessJun 96/13; Sep 96/16;Dec 96/10; Sep 97/17

misuse of questionnaire dataMar 97/12

WWaste Management, DOE NEPAdocumentation forsee also: Legal Issues; Litigation, DOENEPA; EISs; Impact Analysis

analysis of impacts associatedwith off-site facility

Mar 96/6anticipating unknown waste,sample language for

Mar 98/8; Jun 98/7management of TRU waste

Mar 98/5