N LESSONS National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA Lessons Learned December 2001 1

National Environmental Policy ActNEPA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUARTERLY REPORT

Fourth Quarter FY 2001December 5, 2001; Issue No. 29

CEQ Chair Describes Goals, Supports NEPA PrinciplesThe Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) wants Federal agencies toweave environmental considerationsinto everyday business, as opposedto conducting NEPA complianceas a distinct project to fend off

lawsuits. Recently appointedCEQ Chair James L. Connaughton

(Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, June 2001, page 12)described this and other key CEQ goals at a September 21,2001, meeting with Federal agency NEPA Contacts.

Mr. Connaughton made it clear that this administrationsupports NEPA�s principles �as much as all previousadministrations.� In this connection, he referred toSection 101 of NEPA � which declares a Federal policy�to use all practicable means and measures... to create

continued on page 3

DOE NEPA Post-9/11: Reconciling the Needto Protect and the Need to Inform the Public

and maintain conditions under which man and naturecan exist in productive harmony� � as the first articulationof �sustainable development.�

Approach to Environmental IssuesBased on his favorable experiences in advising majorcorporations how to deal with environmental aspects,Mr. Connaughton described his approach for Federalagencies in terms of the following �themes:�

4 Promote stewardship. Empower and challenge localmanagers to carry out day-to-day environmentalresponsibilities as an integral component oftheir long-range management. Develop an�e-consciousness,� seeking to avoid environmentalproblems today, and in the future.

continued on page 4

LESSONSLEARNEDLEARNED

LESSONS

This article describes the current situation regarding DOE�sactions to protect information that terrorists might use andthe implications for DOE�s NEPA Program. Policiesregarding protection of such sensitive information areevolving within DOE and the Federal government. We willupdate DOE�s NEPA Community as any significant changesoccur. It should be noted that DOE continues to distributepaper copies of its NEPA documents to the public inaccordance with NEPA regulations.

Public access to DOE NEPA documents on the Internet hasbeen restricted as a result of the events of September 11,2001. In early November, the Office of Environment, Safetyand Health blocked all access to environmentalassessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements

(EISs) and related documents published on the DOE NEPAWeb. (Access to NEPA Announcements and guidancemodules has not been restricted.) Various DOE Programand Field Offices also removed NEPA documents fromtheir Web sites or blocked access to the documents.Other Federal agencies, including the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, have taken similar actions.

DOE actions to restrict Web information were taken inresponse to a memorandum dated October 26, 2001,from DOE Deputy Secretary Francis S. Blake. Referringto the recent terrorist attacks and the resulting heightenedconcern about publicly available information on theDepartment�s operations, Deputy Secretary Blake directed

Lessons Learned NEPA2 December 2001

Be Part of Lessons LearnedWe Welcome Your Contributions

We welcome suggestions and contributed drafts for theLessons Learned Quarterly Report. Draft articles for thenext issue are requested by February 1, 2002. To proposean article for a future issue, contact Yardena Mansoor [email protected] or 202-586-9326.

Quarterly Questionnaires Due February 1, 2002Lessons Learned Questionnaires for NEPA documentscompleted during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002(October 1 through December 31, 2001) should besubmitted by February 1, but preferably as soon aspossible after document completion. The Questionnaireis available interactively on the DOE NEPA Webat tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ under DOE NEPA ProcessInformation. For Questionnaire issues, contactVivian Bowie at [email protected] or202-586-1771.

Feedback on LLQRDo you have a comment or a suggestion? Please submitfeedback to either of the contacts listed above.

LLQR OnlineCurrent and past issues of the Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report are available on the DOE NEPA Web attis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ under DOE NEPA Process Information.

LLQR IndexA cumulative index of the Lessons Learned QuarterlyReport is provided in the September issue each year.

Inside LESSONS LEARNED

Printed on recycled paper

Welcome to the 29th quarterly report on lessons learnedin the NEPA process. We thank you for your continuingsupport of the Lessons Learned program.

Agencies� Responses to Terrorist Attacks ........................... 6

Forest Service Succeeds with NEPA Training ...................... 7

Oak Ridge Holds NEPA Community Meeting ........................... 8

DOE-wide NEPA Contracts Update ........................................ 9

Training Opportunities ........................................................... 10

New on the NEPA Bookshelf ................................................. 11

Litigation Update ................................................................... 12

EAs and EISs Completed This Quarter ................................ 13

Recent EIS-Related Milestones ............................................ 14

Fourth Quarter FY 2001 Questionnaire Results ................. 16

NEPA Document Cost and Time Facts ................................. 19

DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Compliance

March 30, 2002, is the deadline for submitting nominationsfor the National Association of EnvironmentalProfessionals (NAEP) Environmental Excellence Awards.This national award competition recognizes projects,including NEPA reviews, and programs that serve asmodels of excellence in the environmental professionsand that have made significant contributions. The Awardcategories are NEPA excellence, educational excellence,environmental management, planning integration, publicinvolvement and partnership, environmental stewardship,conservation programs, and best available environmentaltechnology. NAEP will present the 2002 EnvironmentalExcellence awards at its annual conference to be heldJune 23 to 26, in Dearborn, Michigan.

NAEP Environmental Excellence AwardNominations Due in March

DOE has earned several Environmental Excellence Awards(Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, June 2001, page 2,and September 2000, page 3). Most recently, DOE�s Officeof Environmental Policy and Guidance was recognized inJune 2001 for its graded approach for evaluating radiationdoses to aquatic and terrestrial biota. Previously, DOEreceived three awards in 2000, including one for its NEPALessons Learned Program (which includes this quarterlyreport).

For additional information and a copy of the awardnomination form, visit the NAEP Web site atwww.naep.org or contact Dr. Fred Pinkney, NAEP AwardsChairman, at [email protected] or 816-822-3304.Self-nominations are permitted and appropriate.


CEQ Chair Describes Goals (continued from page 1)

4 Employ science-based decision making. Improvethe application of risk management tools toenvironmental risks. Mr. Connaughton believesFederal agencies already manage financial andphysical risks very well.

4 Strengthen Federalism. Involve local governmentsearly. Mr. Connaughton realizes this may be achallenge at the outset, but believes it producesbetter outcomes. CEQ will press Federal agencies toovercome their apparent resistance and engage localgovernments as cooperating agencies in EISs.

4 Strive for innovation. Emulate how the marketplaceoften finds efficient solutions by examiningunderlying issues apart from legal requirements.

4 Assure compliance. Build assurance of compliancewith environmental requirements into effectivemanagement processes.

Upcoming ActionsMr. Connaughton plans several actions �to help get onwith the people�s business more quickly.� He expects, forexample, that the President will �recharge� Executive Ordersconcerning environmental management, waste prevention,and recycling. Further, the Chair intends to meet frequentlywith senior-level Federal agency managers, such as DeputySecretaries, to challenge them to change agency culturesso as to optimize their environmental managementprocesses. That is one of the reasons he recently askedagency heads to designate senior-level managers asNEPA Liaisons to CEQ. Finally, CEQ is seeking to identifypotential changes to its regulations or guidance that wouldstreamline or otherwise improve the NEPA process.

Recent CEQ NEPA ActivitiesCEQ circulated refresher guidance on emergency alternative arrangements under NEPA (40 CFR 1506.11).(See page 6.)

CEQ sought and received suggestions from agency NEPA Contacts regarding

� Improvements to CEQ�s NEPA regulations and guidance: CEQ is evaluating the ideas it has received fromFederal agencies and is preparing a draft action plan that it will give to agencies for review and comment.Horst Greczmiel, CEQ�s Associate Director for NEPA Oversight, says that CEQ has not yet decided whetherit will propose changes to its regulations for implementing NEPA, prepare additional CEQ guidance, or provideeducation on its current regulations and guidance. He expects that all these options will be used to addressthe issues raised to date.

� Draft guidance on cooperating agencies: CEQ continues efforts to ensure that all Federal agencies activelyconsider designation of Federal and non-Federal cooperating agencies in the preparation of NEPA analysesand documents. Mr. Greczmiel projected that the guidance will provide factors for Federal agencies to considerwhen determining whether to invite or to end cooperating agency status. Mr. Connaughton again emphasizedthat �cooperating agency status does not enlarge or diminish the decision-making authority of any agencyinvolved in the NEPA process.�


NEPA Post-9/11 (continued from page 1)

continued on next page

all Departmental elements to review information that isavailable on the Internet and in other venues that couldbe used by those who would target DOE sites, facilities,and activities for terrorist attacks. Citing EISs as anexample of the type of information that could be used byterrorists, the Deputy Secretary directed the Departmentto remove or restrict public access to such information,as appropriate.

Aiming to Limit But Not Eliminate Access

�The need to protect the public post-9/11 and the needto inform the public through the NEPA process presentsan extremely challenging security review, but these twoobjectives must be reconciled,� said Nancy Slater, whois leading an ongoing operational security review for theOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW).�Our intention is to limit, as necessary, but not eliminate,access to sensitive material,� she said.

Public access to information under the NEPA processgenerally parallels public access under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). The Council on EnvironmentalQuality�s regulations implementing NEPA direct Federalagencies to make EISs and related documents available tothe public under the provisions of FOIA with oneexception � �without regard to the exclusion forinteragency memoranda where such memoranda transmitcomments of Federal agencies on the environmentalimpact of the proposed action� (40 CFR 1506.6(f)). In itsNEPA regulations, DOE affirms that it shall not discloseclassified, confidential, or other information that DOEotherwise would not disclose pursuant to FOIA. However,DOE shall, �to the fullest extent possible,� segregate anyinformation that is exempt from disclosure requirementsinto an appendix to allow public review of the remainder ofa NEPA document. (See 10 CFR 1021.340.)

Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a Memorandumon FOIA procedures for Heads of all Federal Departmentsand Agencies on October 12, 2001, emphasizing the needfor Federal agencies to carefully consider institutional,commercial, and personal privacy interests that couldbe implicated by disclosure of information. �When youcarefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withholdrecords in whole or in part,� the memorandum states,�you can be assured that the Department of Justice willdefend your decisions unless they lack a sound legalbasis....�

The Attorney General�s memorandum and Departmentof Justice guidance on its application are available on theDepartment of Justice Web site (www.usdoj.gov, under�FOIA,� then �Reference Materials,� then �FOIA Post,�then �New Attorney General FOIA Memorandum Issued�(posted 10/15/01)). The guidance accompanying thememorandum focuses on an exemption referred to as�High 2 Exemption: Risk of Circumvention,� and theimportant role it can play in allowing agencies to protectcritical infrastructure information.

The Department�s regulations implementing FOIA requireDOE to make records (even records authorized by FOIAto be withheld) available to the requester whenever suchdisclosure is in the public interest (10 CFR 1004.1), andobligates DOE when denying a request for informationto state why a discretionary release is not appropriate(10 CFR 1004.7(b)(1)).

Focus Shifts to Documents in Preparation

In response to the Blake directive, the NEPA Office firstfocused on securing information on the DOE NEPAWeb site so as to limit easy access to existing information.(In this regard, access to EAs and EISs on the DOE NEPAWeb for persons with doe.gov addresses has beenrestored. A process for password access for others with a�need to know� is being developed.) Attention has nowshifted to the content of NEPA documents that are beingprepared.

In reconciling the sometimes competing needs ofprotecting and informing the public in the RW program,Ms. Slater is consulting with the NEPA Office, Office ofGeneral Counsel, Office of Security, and other entities,and applying a general security concept that is analogousto a �three-legged stool.�

The �three legs� represent types of information that maybe useful to a terrorist who wants to cause an adverse�consequence� (e.g., fatalities, radiation exposures tothe public, theft of Special Nuclear Material, etc.).Removing any one �leg� would render the stool useless �that is, make the information represented by the other twolegs unusable. The three legs are: (1) �Target� (e.g.,identifying an inventory of nuclear or hazardous materialthat a terrorist might find to be an attractive target),


NEPA Post-9/11 (continued)

An e-NEPA ReminderFor all completed DOE NEPA documents, please continue to provide the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliancewith the required electronic file(s) and a completed DOE NEPA Document Certification and Transmittal Form. Wewill continue to maintain the Department�s comprehensive electronic NEPA library for access by the DOE NEPAcommunity and others with a �need to know.� For further information on electronic files and submittal procedures,see Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, December 2000, page 7, and June 2000, page 11, or contact Denise Freemanat [email protected] or 202-586-7879.

(2) �Location� (e.g., identifying specific buildings oroperations where such materials or hazards are located),and (3) �Accessibility� (e.g., identifying vulnerabilitiesof materials to unauthorized access or destruction).

Security Concerns Do Not Change RequiredNEPA Analysis

The analytical work that is done for an EIS or EA hasnot changed as a result of our heightened concerns forsecurity. The same type of analysis with the same levelof detail needs to be provided to the decision maker andothers with a �need to know.� How the analyticalinformation is packaged and issued may change, however.

Most DOE NEPA documents routinely undergo aScientific and Technical Information review beforeissuance that may consist of a patent review,classification review and review for �unclassifiedcontrolled nuclear information� (UCNI), and anoperational security review. As the Department is nowfocusing more attention on operational security, thesereviews may take longer, affect EIS and EA schedules, andresult in segregation of certain sensitive information.

DOE has precedents and the NEPA process providesflexibility for necessary segregation of all or parts of anenvironmental analysis from public review. For example,in proposing the �Sapphire Project,� DOE prepared aclassified EA that was later declassified and issued to thepublic after the action was taken (DOE/EA-1006,October 1994, Proposed Interim Storage at the Y-12 Plant,Oak Ridge, TN, of Highly Enriched Uranium Acquiredfrom Kazakhstan by the United States). In several othercases, DOE has segregated material into classifiedappendices that were nonetheless provided toEnvironmental Protection Agency personnel with securityclearances for review (DOE/EIS-0236, StockpileStewardship and Management Programmatic EIS,is a major example).

What�s Next

The Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance is working toaddress the need for public disclosure of appropriateinformation while protecting homeland security. TheOffice plans to prepare guidance on evaluating andsegregating NEPA information for security purposes asNEPA documents are prepared. In addition, the Office isconsidering the feasibility of reviewing NEPA documentsthat were previously accessible to the public on the DOENEPA Web, segregating information as necessary, andagain making the documents accessible to the public onits Web site.

Some Types of Information

Classified � Information that is classified asRestricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data underthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, orinformation determined to require protection againstunauthorized disclosure under Executive Order 12958or prior Executive Orders, which is identified asNational Security Information. DOE Manual 475.1-1A,May 8, 1998, issued under DOE Order 200.1.

Official Use Only (OUO) � A designation identifyingcertain unclassified but sensitive informationthat may be exempt from public release under theFreedom of Information Act. DOE Manual 475.1-1A,May 8, 1998. (Per the Office of DOE General Counselfor General Law, OUO is not a recognized exemptionunder FOIA. Only that material that qualifies underone or more of FOIA�s nine exemptions may bewithheld from a FOIA requester.) (A DOE Orderconcerning OUO is being developed.)

Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) �Certain unclassified but sensitive Governmentinformation concerning nuclear material, weapons,and components whose dissemination is controlledunder Section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act. DOEOrder 471.1A, June 30, 2000.


� The CEQ NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 1506.11)address emergencies:

�Where emergency circumstances make itnecessary to take an action with significantenvironmental impact without observing theprovisions of these regulations, the Federalagency taking the action should consultwith the Council about alternative arrangements.Agencies and the Council will limit sucharrangements to actions necessary to controlthe immediate impacts of the emergency. Otheractions remain subject to NEPA review.�

� Federal action is required to trigger NEPA.(For example, New York City authoritiescondemning a building does not trigger NEPA.)

1. If impacts are not �significant,� then theprovisions of section 1506.11 do not apply(e.g., the Federal Aviation Administrationcanceling all flights is unlikely to triggerNEPA).

2. If impacts are �significant,� considerwhether they are covered by an existingNEPA analysis or applicable statutoryexemption (e.g., implementing plans toredeploy military vessels and aircraft;Federal Emergency Management Agencyemergency actions).

3. If impacts are �significant� and you are notalready covered (e.g., unsorted disposalof debris at a specific site; permanentexpansion of airport facilities), consultwith CEQ.

� Do not delay immediate actions necessary tosecure lives and safety of citizens to consult,but consult as soon as feasible.

� The �alternative arrangements� take the placeof an EIS and only apply to Federal actionswith �significant environmental impacts.�Lesser actions may be subject to agency NEPAprocedures. Agency NEPA personnel shouldbe contacted regarding agency-specificdefinitions of �significant� actions andactions that are �categorically excluded.�

� �Alternative arrangements� for compliancewith NEPA may be subject to judicial review.�Alternative arrangements do not waive therequirement to comply with NEPA, but establishan alternative means for compliance.�

� Alternative arrangements are limited to �theactions necessary to control the immediateimpacts of the emergency.�

� Courts afford CEQ substantial deferenceregarding its determination of emergencyalternative arrangements. Alternativearrangements have been unsuccessfullychallenged three times (including Westover,Massachusetts, overflights for Desert Stormtraining). Once the alternative arrangementsare established, CEQ will provide a letter spellingout the considerations on which they are based.

� Factors to address when crafting �alternativearrangements:� nature and scope of theemergency; actions necessary to controlthe immediate impacts of the emergency;potential adverse effects of the proposedaction; components of the NEPA process thatcan be followed and provide value; durationof the emergency; and potential mitigationmeasures.

Do Agency Responses Trigger NEPA Procedures?Notes from CEQ, September 12, 2001 (edited for this publication)

Agencies� Responses to Terrorist AttacksHave Implications for NEPA, Other Reviews

The September 11 terrorist acts at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, and the President�ssubsequent Proclamation 7463 � Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (66 FR 48199;September 18, 2001), prompted agency responses with implications for all, including the environmental community. TheCouncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promptly provided guidance on the applicability of NEPA to emergency actions,and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established and then extended emergency provisions.

Emergency Alternative Arrangementsunder NEPA

One day after the September 11 terrorist attacks,CEQ Chair Jim Connaughton e-mailed to agency NEPAContacts a list of factors (below) for decision makers

to consider in determining whether Federal responseactions would trigger the procedural requirements ofNEPA. He reminded the Contacts that �CEQ is empoweredto provide alternative arrangements for NEPA complianceto facilitate expeditious responses to emergencies.�



Agencies� Responses (continued)

Forest Service Succeeds with NEPA TrainingBy: Joseph Carbone, National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceMore than 10 years ago, the ForestService developed its Forest PlanImplementation course to help itsstaff successfully implement landand resource management plans atthe project level. Taught by instructorswith field experience, the course meets

the needs of line officers responsible fordecisions by focusing on key NEPA and

decision-making concepts. Although the course is basedon Forest Service procedures and case studies, otheragencies have found it useful and are welcome to registertheir employees.

The course charts a path from broad early planningthrough analysis to decision making. It presents land andresource plan implementation as a three-phase process:

� Pre-NEPA assessment identifies needs andpreliminary project-level alternatives by comparingexisting conditions and practices to those describedin a land and resource management plan.

� The NEPA process focuses on defining issues,developing alternative activities to implement theplan, and analyzing environmental impacts.

� Environmental monitoring supports mitigation ofproject impacts and adjustments to the land andresource management plan.

Class modules include: process management, makingphased or tiered decisions, and creating a project recordto support appeals and litigation. Public involvementstrategies are discussed throughout the course.

The Forest Plan Implementation course is �hands on,�not just informational. After presenting concepts andcase studies, instructors help students practiceapplications through team exercises. Assessingstudent performance in the classroom helps instructorsand students identify what material they need to revisitbefore the class ends and students are back on the job.

The four-day course has five or six instructors, drawnprimarily from field units, for 30 to 35 students. Manyinstructors are environmental practitioners rather thanNEPA specialists � for example, district rangers maydiscuss key decision strategies, and wildlife biologistsmay teach effects analysis. Each of the nine ForestService regions maintains instructor teams andschedules courses, while the Headquarters Officein Washington, DC, oversees the course contentand format.

The Forest Plan Implementation course was offeredapproximately 30 times during fiscal year 2001 to highpraise from students. One student commented: �NEPAis just like eating your vegetables. Not everyone likesto do it, but it is good for you.... You guys are the�cheese sauce� over the NEPA, you make it tastebetter.� Whatever works!

The Forest Service plans to deliver about 20 to 30 coursesin 2002 (with cheese sauce). Contact Joe Carbone [email protected] or 202-205-0884 for schedules andadditional information, or see the course descriptionat www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/ftcp1.html.

DOE recently applied the emergency provisions of CEQ�sand its own NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.343) inresponding to the Cerro Grande wildfire near Los AlamosNational Laboratory. (See Lessons Learned QuarterlyReport, September 2000, page 1, and September 2001,page 4.)

Advisory Council Sets Emergency Provisionsfor Historic PropertiesOn October 26, 2001, the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation notified its contacts that, as a result of thePresident�s declaration of national emergency, Federalagencies may use the emergency provisions of theAdvisory Council�s regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.12,for undertakings that are an essential and immediateresponse to the President�s declaration.

The Advisory Council�s emergency provisions apply�only to those undertakings that will be implementedwithin 30 days after the disaster or emergency has been

formally declared....� Because of the nature of theemergency and the ongoing national security needs,however, the Advisory Council extended the applicabilityperiod of the emergency provisions until further notice,provided that agency undertakings are directly associatedwith �the continuing and immediate threat of furtherattacks.� While the regulations allow for an agency torequest an extension of the emergency provisions, theAdvisory Council is granting extensions without requiringofficial requests because many agencies may beimplementing emergency undertakings in the comingmonths.

The Advisory Council urges those agencies that mayneed to implement emergency provisions for multipleundertakings to develop their own procedures for takinghistoric properties into account during their emergencyoperations.

Questions concerning the Advisory Council�s decision toextend its emergency provisions can be directed by e-mailto [email protected].


To improve its implementation of NEPA, about 40 OakRidge Operations Office (ORO) employees and NEPAsupport contractors gathered for a half-day NEPACommunity Meeting on October 4, 2001, in Oak Ridge,Tennessee. Additional participants at ORO-managedfacilities in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky,were linked by voice line.

�This meeting provided us with an excellent opportunityto share our accomplishments and plans among ourcontractors and Federal employees,� said Leah Dever,Operations Office Manager. �Oak Ridge has many plansfor new projects; consequently, talking about our variousprojects, the NEPA expectations, and lessons learned wastime well spent!�

Ms. Dever opened the meeting by reflecting upon herpersonal experiences in preparing NEPA documents.She recommended early NEPA planning and closeattention to public participation.

The NEPA Community Meeting consisted of fivepresentations and a panel discussion.

4 Walter Perry, Public Affairs Office, and David Page,NEPA Team, discussed the benefits of publicparticipation in the NEPA process, describing theappropriately different levels of involvement for anEA and an EIS. Mr. Page emphasized the value ofcooperating agency status for agencies such as theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers: such �partnering� can enhancethe development of alternatives, provide technicalassistance with field studies (e.g., floodplain studies,wetland delineation, and archaeological inventories),and facilitate project implementation.

4 Katatra Day, NEPA Team, discussed mattersinvolving �Electronic NEPA,� including electronicpublishing guidelines, the Oak Ridge internal NEPAWeb site (currently in development), and the DOENEPA Web.

4 David Allen, NEPA Compliance Officer, explainedand promoted the use of the DOE-wide NEPAtask order contracts for document preparation.Representatives from contract incumbentsSAIC, Battelle Memorial Institute, and Tetra Tech,Inc., discussed NEPA documents completed for OROunder the DOE-wide NEPA contracts and providedinformation on their companies� NEPA capabilities.

Oak Ridge Holds NEPA Community Meeting

4 Jim Elmore, Alternate NEPA Compliance Officer,discussed environmental reviews and consultationsthat should be integrated with the NEPA process,to the fullest extent possible, such as thethreatened and endangered species consultationwith the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/index.html),and floodplain and wetlands requirements under10 CFR Part 1022.

4 Ray Moore, Cultural Resources ManagementCoordinator, reviewed cultural resources laws andregulations and discussed the status of culturalresources management at Oak Ridge, Paducah, andPortsmouth. He explained how, in consultation withthe State Historic Preservation Office, OROcompleted a survey of all structures at Oak Ridgeand determined each structure�s eligibility forthe National Register of Historic Places. Healso described the benefits of ORO�s recentlycompleted Cultural Resources Management Plan,which adheres closely to DOE cultural resourcemanagement guidance (DOE/EH-0501, available attis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/cultural.cfm).

By: Katatra Day, Environmental Protection GroupDavid Allen, NEPA Compliance Officer, Oak Ridge Operations Office

Oak Ridge OperationsOffice Manager Leah Deverencourages NEPA practitionersto start NEPA early and payclose attention to publicinvolvement.



Task Description DOE Contact Date Awarded Contract Team

Nancy [email protected]

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

Ted [email protected]

Richard [email protected]

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

John [email protected]

Michael G. [email protected]

NEPA Document Support for NewPower Plant Sites

EA for the Gray�s Harbor LateralPipeline

Environmental Reviews andDocumentation for Fiber Optic CableInstallations

EA for Decontamination &Decommissioning of the OmegaWest Reactor and AssociatedStructures at Los Alamos NationalLaboratory

EIS for Islander East Pipeline Project

Williston-Wolf Point EnvironmentalReview and Documentation

Supplement Analysis for theSite-wide EIS for the NevadaTest Site

7/23/01

7/23/01

8/27/01

9/28/01

7/25/01

9/19/01

9/18/01

Battelle

Battelle

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Tetra Tech, Inc.

DOE-wide NEPA Contracts UpdateThe following tasks have been awarded recently under the DOE-wide NEPA contracts. For previously reported tasks, see theCumulative Index (under �Contracting, NEPA�) in the September 2001 issue. For questions or comments on the DOE-wideNEPA contracts, contact David Gallegos at [email protected] or 505-845-5849.

Oak Ridge NEPA Meeting (continued)

The panel discussion focused on lessons learned byOak Ridge NEPA Document Managers Carolyne Thomas(Programmatic Environmental Assessment to StorePotentially Reusable Uranium Materials, (DOE/EA-1393,in preparation) and Gary Hartman (Y-12 Sitewide EIS,DOE/EIS-0309) and the Portsmouth Winterization EA,DOE/EA-1392). They recommended that NEPA documentpreparers allow sufficient review time for draft documentsand initiate all consultation processes early. The panelalso discussed the future development of a handbookfor Oak Ridge NEPA Document Managers.

Mr. Allen closed the meeting by emphasizing keysto NEPA success: initiating the NEPA process early,

planning for adequate public involvement, writingclearly, consulting other agencies as appropriate inpreparing EAs, and properly using and keeping recordsof categorical exclusions. The participants judged theORO NEPA Community Meeting a success and scheduleda follow-up meeting for early March. As Mr. Allen stated,�Oak Ridge is a multi-program site, and, without increasedcommunication such as this meeting, we cannotimplement NEPA consistently.�

For more information on the Oak Ridge NEPAProgram, contact David Allen at [email protected] 865-576-0411 or Katatra Day at [email protected] 865-576-0835.


� Cumulative Effects Assessment in theNEPA ProcessDurham, NC: February 6-8Fee: $640Register by January 7

Preparing and Reviewing EnvironmentalImpact AnalysisDurham, NC: June 3-6Fee: $960Register by May 6

Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityPhone:919-613-8082E-mail: [email protected]: www.env.duke.edu/cee/execed.html

� �NEPACoach� ProgramCustom-designed coaching and training to improvean organization�s existing NEPA program in anyor all of four phases:

Phase I � Train the Team (NEPA Toolboxcurriculum).

Phase II � The NEPA Planning Blueprint,focusing on scoping, public involvement, andother early NEPA activities.

Phase III � The NEPA Navigator, focusingon the middle of the NEPA process � e.g.,evaluating impacts, and keeping documentpreparers on the right track.

Phase IV � The NEPA Document ProductionSystem, dealing with final compliance checks,preparing decision documents, distribution, andthe administrative record.

Available through GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0163L.

Environmental Training & ConsultingInternational, Inc.Phone: 720-859-0380E-mail: [email protected]: www.envirotrain.com

Training OpportunitiesNEPA-related courses are listed in the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report for information only, without endorsement.

NETO is ClosedDue to the reorganization of DOE EnvironmentalManagement resources, the National EnvironmentalTraining Office (NETO) has closed and NETO courseofferings have been discontinued.

Some environmental training courses previouslysponsored by NETO may be offered by the followingorganizations:

� WPI, an affiliate of Virginia Tech, at www.wpi.org

� Epsilon Solutions. Phone: 803-643-8704

� Advanced Resource Technologies Inc.,Environmental Training Management Divisionat www.team-arti.com/etmd/index.htm

� The Academy of Certified Hazardous MaterialsManagers (ACHMM) (www.achmm.org) sponsorsCHMM course offerings by local ACHMM Chapters.

For more information, contact David Hoel at803-725-0818 or [email protected].

� Clear Writing for NEPA SpecialistsBoise, ID: February 5-7Fee: $795

How to Manage the NEPA Process andWrite Effective NEPA DocumentsSeattle, WA: December 11-14Boise, ID: January 29 - February 1Fee: $995

Endangered Species Act OverviewPortland, OR: February 26Fee: $195

Section 106 (of the NHPA) OverviewPortland, OR: March 1Fee: $195

The Shipley GroupPhone: 888-270-2157 or 801-298-7800E-mail: [email protected]: www.shipleygroup.com


New on the NEPA BookshelfFrom time to time the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance highlights (without endorsement) new books that maybe useful or interesting to the DOE NEPA Community. (See Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, September 2000,page 11. Also, �Suggestions for the NEPA Practitioner�s Bookshelf,� August 1996, is available in the DOE NEPACompliance Guide on the DOE NEPA Web at tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ under �DOE NEPA Tools.�)

Environmental Assessment, Second Edition

Ravi Jain, L.V. Urban, Gary Stacey, Harold Balbach,and M. Diana WebbNew York, New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002Phone: 800-262-4729Internet: www.mhhe.com/catalogs/0071370080.mhtmlISBN 0-07-137008-0; 700 pages; $89.95

This work is intended as both a handbook for the NEPApractitioner and a textbook for college or graduate levelclasses. Although it focuses on NEPA, the book alsocovers other aspects of environmental assessment,including national and international issues such as acidrain, global warming, and biodiversity. DOE�s NEPACommunity will recognize two case studies based onDOE NEPA reviews, involving Los Alamos NationalLaboratory: the Dual Axis Radiographic HydrodynamicTest (DARHT) Facility EIS, and emergency procedures forthe Cerro Grande Fire. Other topics of interest includeenvironmental justice, public participation, assessmentof energy projects, and ecological risk analyses. Eachchapter ends with discussion and study questions.

This book features an appendixthat classifies and describes

environmental characteristics,or �attributes,� of resources thatmay be affected by proposedactions and therefore need tobe addressed in an environmental

analysis. Attributes are describedfor air, water, land, ecology, sound,

human aspects (e.g., community needs),economics, and fuel, non-fuel and aesthetic resources.For water, for example, the key attributes listed aspotentially relevant to an impact assessment arecategorized as physical (such as, aquifer yield, flowvariation, radioactivity), chemical (acidity, biochemicaloxygen demand), and biological (aquatic life). The textdefines each attribute, lists activities that may affect it,and describes measurement of variables, evaluation andinterpretation of data, geographical and temporallimitations, and mitigation of impacts. This material couldbe useful in developing explanations that are readilyunderstandable to nontechnical readers of a NEPAdocument.

(Diana Webb, formerly with DOE�s Office of NEPA Policyand Compliance and a DOE NEPA Compliance Officer,and now Ecology Group Leader at Los Alamos NationalLaboratory, is a co-author of this second edition.)

The NEPA Book: A Step-by-Step Guideon How to Comply with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, Second Edition

Ronald E. Bass, Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. BogdanPoint Arena, California: Solano Press Books; 2001Phone: 800-931-9373Internet: www.solano.comISBN 0-923956-67-0; 475 pages; $65.00

This practitioner�s handbook (expanded from a firstedition published as Mastering NEPA: A Step-by-StepApproach) describes the requirements and decisionpoints of the NEPA review process. In addition toexplaining the EA and EIS processes, the book addressesintegrating NEPA with other environmental laws, usingNEPA information technology, and applying NEPA toglobal environmental issues. The book providesappendices with the CEQ regulations and guidance,summaries of key NEPA litigation decisions, and listsof Federal agency NEPA regulations and Web sites.(The authors praise the DOE NEPA Web and DOELessons Learned Program as particularly worthwhileresources.)

Prediction: Science, Decision Making,and the Future of NatureEdited by Daniel Sarewitz, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.,and Radford Byerly, Jr.Center for Science, Policy, and OutcomesWashington, D.C.: Island Press; 2000Internet: www.cspo.org/products/books/ISBN 1-55963-776-5; 400 pages; $29.50

Prediction �attempts to paint a comprehensive portraitof the troubled relationship between predictive scienceand environmental decision making� by looking at theinterdependent scientific, political, and social factorsinvolved. It suggests that the appealing notion ofbasing decisions on a clear picture of the future isdeeply problematic in practice. The book explores10 case histories in predictive science, subdividedinto three groups:

1. �Natural� hazards that decision makers perceiveas largely unavoidable: short-term weather, floods,asteroids, and earthquakes;



The September 2001 issue of the Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report (page 19) reported on litigationinvolving the National Park Service�s Vessel ManagementPlan and an associated EA for Glacier Bay National Parkand Preserve in Alaska. The U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit had found that the Park Service�s EA �which acknowledged potential adverse effects on theGlacier Bay environment but assessed their severity as�unknown� � could not support a Finding of NoSignificant Impact. For this reason, and because agencycommitments to monitor impacts and mitigate them afterimplementing the Plan had the process �exactlybackwards,� the appeals court found that an EISwas required.

The Park Service�s 1996 Plan had proposed to increasecruise ship entries into Glacier Bay by 30 percent andallow phased increases in the future. As part of itsdecision, however, the appeals court also granted theplaintiff�s request for an injunction by ordering theNational Park Service to roll back the number of vesselsallowed to enter Glacier Bay to pre-Plan levels.

Congress Overturns InjunctionOn November 5, the President signed the Department ofthe Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of

Litigation Update

Congressional Action Changes Outcomein Glacier Bay National Park Service Case

2002 (Public Law No. 107-63). Section 130, originallyattached as a rider to the appropriations bill by SenatorTed Stevens on behalf of the Alaska cruise ship industry,counteracts the appeals court decision.

The Act requires the Park Service �to complete and issue,no later than January 1, 2004, an [EIS] to identify andanalyze possible effects of the 1996 increases in thenumber of vessel entries issued for Glacier Bay NationalPark and Preserve,� and provides that the Secretary of theInterior shall use the completed EIS �to set the maximumlevel of vessel entries.�

The Act further provides that, �until the Secretary sets thelevel of vessel entries based on the new EIS, the numberof vessel entries into the Park shall be the same as that ineffect during the 2000 calendar year,� thus effectivelyoverturning the appeals court injunction. This provisionalso approves the alternative in the Park Service�s 1996Plan allowing the highest phased increase of vesselentries. Finally, Section 130 states that �nothing in thissection shall preclude the Secretary from suspending orrevoking any vessel entry if the Secretary determines thatit is necessary to protect Park resources.�

2. Problems for which environmental predictions aregenerated in a context that already has strongpolitical involvements: beach erosion, mining impacts,and nuclear waste disposal; and

3. Multifaceted environmental issues that respond to �and raise � complex unresolved policy dilemmas: oiland gas reserves, acid rain, and global climatechange.

To help predictive science contribute to positive policyoutcomes for environmental issues like these, the authorsdevelop recommendations:

4 Users of predictions, along with other stakeholders,must question predictions. Predictions should be astransparent as possible, including assumptions,limitations, and weaknesses in input data.

New on the NEPA Bookshelf (continued)

4 The prediction process must be open to externalscrutiny.

4 Predictions must be generated primarily with theneeds of the user in mind.

4 Uncertainties must be clearly articulated so userscan understand their implications.

4 Decision makers must realize that predictions canthemselves be significant events that catalyzedecision making.

4 The quest for alternatives to prediction must beinstitutionalized in the prediction process, especiallywhen dealing with an action that will occur over orafter a very long time and when decision makershave limited experience with the predictedphenomenon.


EAsAlbuquerque Operations OfficeDOE/EA-1375 (7/26/01)Construction and Operation of a New AdministrationBuilding and Parking Garage in TA-3 at Los AlamosNational LaboratoryCost: $80,000Time: 6 months

DOE/EA-1376 (7/26/01)Construction and Operation of a Joint OperationsCenter at Los Alamos National LaboratoryCost: $74,000Time: 6 months

Chicago Operations OfficeDOE/EA-1387 (9/19/01)Proposed Wetlands Management Programat Argonne National LaboratoryCost: $100,000Time: 7 months

Fossil EnergyDOE/EA-1357 (3/8/01)Presidential Permit Application, Brownsvilleto Mexico Transmission Line Project[Not previously reported in Lessons LearnedQuarterly Report]Time: 6 months[Note: The cost for this EA was paid by theapplicant; therefore, cost information does notapply to DOE.]

DOE/EA-1383 (9/21/01)Amendment of Presidential Permit (PP-68), SanDiego Gas and Electric Company, for Interconnectionof Otay Mesa Generating Project to Miguel-TijuanaTime: 7 months[Note: The cost for this EA was paid by theapplicant; therefore, cost information does notapply to DOE.]

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves inColorado, Utah and Wyoming/Fossil EnergyDOE/EA-1350 (7/11/01)Preparation for Production of Crude Oil from aSubterranean FacilityCost: $10,000Time: 12 months

Oak Ridge Operations Office/EnvironmentalManagementDOE/EA-1315 (7/18/01)Off-Site Transportation of Low Level Waste,Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, TNCost: $95,000Time: 30 months

EAs and EISs Completed(July 1 to September 30, 2001)

Western Area Power AdministrationDOE/EA-1354 (9/25/01)Fort Collins 115kV Transmission LineUpgrade ProjectTime: 13 months[Note: The cost for this EA was paid by the applicant;therefore, cost information does not apply to DOE.]

DOE/EA-1390 (7/9/01)Page Generating ProjectTime: 3 months[Note: The cost for this EA was paid by the applicant;therefore, cost information does not apply to DOE.]

EISsBonneville Power AdministrationDOE/EIS-0321 (66 FR 46792; 9/7/01)(EPA Rating: LO)Condon Wind Project, Gilliam County, ORCost: $440,000Time: 15 months

Savannah River OperationsOffice/Environmental ManagementDOE/EIS-0082-S2 (66 FR 37957; 7/20/01)(EPA Rating: EC-2)Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives,Aiken, SCCost: $1.5 millionTime: 29 months

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)RATING DEFINITIONS

Environmental Impact of the Action

LO � Lack of Objections

EC � Environmental Concerns

EO � Environmental Objections

EU � Environmentally Unsatisfactory

Adequacy of the EIS

Category 1 � Adequate

Category 2 � Insufficient Information

Category 3 � Inadequate

(See the EPA Web site, http://es/epa/gov/oeca/ofa/rating.html for a full explanation of these definitions.)


Recent EIS-Related Milestones(September 1 to November 30, 2001)

Notices of IntentEnvironmental ManagementDOE/EIS-0329Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facilities9/10/01 (66 FR 48123; 9/18/01)

Environmental Management/Ohio Field OfficeDOE/EIS-0337Advance Notice of Intent, Decommissioning and/orLong-Term Stewardship at the West ValleyDemonstration Project and Western New YorkNuclear Service Center10/31/01 (66 FR 56090; 11/6/01)

Bonneville Power AdministrationDOE/EIS-0338Horse Heaven Wind Farm Project,Benton County, WA10/5/01 (66 FR 52398; 10/15/01)

DOE/EIS-0340Northeast Oregon Hatchery � Grande Ronde andImnaha Spring Chinook Project11/4/01 (66 FR 58721; 11/23/01)

Draft EISsFossil EnergyDOE/EIS-0318Kentucky Pioneer Integrated Gasification CombinedCycle (IGCC) Demonstration Project, Trapp,Kentucky (Clark County)November 2001 (66 FR 57716, 11/16/01)

Final EISOak Ridge Operations Office/Defense Programs� National Nuclear Security AdministrationDOE/EIS-0309Site-Wide for the Y-12 National Security ComplexNovember 2001 (66 FR 55658; 11/2/01)

Amended Record of DecisionSavannah River OperationsOffice/Environmental ManagementDOE/EIS-0220Interim Management of Nuclear Materials,Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC10/19/01 (66 FR 55166; 11/1/01)

Records of DecisionBonneville Power AdministrationDOE/EIS-0183TransAlta Centralia Generation LLCBig Hanaford Project10/19/01 (66 FR 54507; 10/29/01)

DOE/EIS-0321Condon Wind Project, Gilliam County, OR11/6/01 (66 FR 57710; 11/16/01)

Savannah River OperationsOffice/Environmental ManagementDOE/EIS-0082-S2Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives,Aiken, SC10/9/01 (66 FR 52752; 10/17/01)

Supplement AnalysesBonneville Power Administration

Mid-Columbia Coho ReintroductionFeasibility Project (DOE/EA-1282)

DOE/EA-1282/SA-2Peshastin Incubation Facility(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

Wildlife Mitigation Program(DOE/EIS-0246)

DOE/EIS-0246/SA-17Eagle Lakes Ranch Acquisition and Restoration(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0246/SA-18Eugene Wetlands Acquisition Phase II,Lane County, OR(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001



Recent EIS-Related Milestones (continued from previous page)

Watershed Management Program(DOE/EIS-0265)

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-60Wagner Ranch Acquisition(Decision: No further NEPA review required)August 2001*

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-62Hood River Fish Habitat Project(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-63Pelican Creek Crossing Improvement(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-64Yakima Basin Side Channels Project,Easton Reach Land Acquisition(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-66Water Rights Acquisition Program(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-67Install Fish Screens to Protect ESA Listed Steelheadand Bull Trout in the Walla Walla Basin(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-68Mill Creek and Little Creek Crossing Improvement,Union County, OR(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-70Yakima Basin Side Channels Project, ScatterCreek/Plum Creek Land Acquisition, Phase I,Kittitas County, WA(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

DOE/EIS-0265/SA-71Duncan Creek Channel Rehabilitation Project,Skamania County, WA(Decision: No further NEPA review required)November 2001

Transmission System VegetationManagement Program (DOE/EIS-0285)

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-22Vegetation Management Along the Chief Joseph-Snomish No. 3 and 4 Transmission Line Right-of-Wayfrom Structure 94/1 to Structure 113/1(Decision: No further NEPA review required)August 2001*

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-23Vegetation Management Along the Schultz RiverNos. 1 and 2 from Structure 60/3 to Structure 75/5and the Olympia-Grand Coulee from Structure 70/2to Structure 70/5 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way(Decision: No further NEPA review required)August 2001*

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-24Vegetation Management Along the Keeler-AlstonTransmission Line Right-of-Way from Structure 29/1to Structure 43/5(Decision: No further NEPA review required)August 2001*

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-25Vegetation Management Along the Right-of-Wayof the Ostrander-Pearl Transmission Line(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-26Vegetation Management on Reedsport-Fairview No. 1Transmission Line from Structure 1/5 toStructure 39/4(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-27Vegetation Management Along the Marion-AlveyNo. 1 from Structure 14/5 to Structure 64/3and the Marion-Lane No. 1 from Structure 14/5to Structure 70/2(Decision: No further NEPA review required)October 2001

DOE/EIS-0285/SA-28Vegetation Management Along the Port Angeles-Sappo No. 1 Transmission Line Right-of-Wayfrom Structure 1/1 to Structure 42/10(Decision: No further NEPA review required)September 2001

*Not previously reported in Lessons Learned


What Worked and Didn't Work in the NEPA Process

Fourth Quarter FY 2001 Questionnaire Results

To 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 July 1 and September 30, 2001.

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.

ScopingWhat Worked

� Use of external technical advice in developingalternatives. A National Academy of Sciences paneladvised DOE on alternative technologies for saltprocessing, which influenced the scope of the EIS.In particular, this advice caused DOE to consider onealternative that DOE had initially rejected asunreasonable.

� Early involvement of stakeholders. We invited all theneighboring agencies and entities to come to a kick-off meeting where we visited the existing emergencyoperations center and then the new proposedreplacement building site and asked for participationin the NEPA process. Almost every entity that mightever use the facility sent representatives, and thevisit to the old site was sufficient to convinceeveryone of the need for a new facility. The visit tothe proposed building site brought us severalcomments on how to lessen the effect of the visualimpacts of the proposed facility and how to planthe layout to make it more useful and efficient.

� Use of a research from multiple sources. DOE, thesite contractor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, theNational Academy of Sciences, and internal andexpert panels all contributed to determining whattechnologies should be considered in developingthe EIS alternatives.

Data Collection/AnalysisWhat Worked� General site surveys followed by more detailed

surveys. Because wind power projects cover a lot ofarea (though their actual footprint is small), surveystake a while. In the beginning, the applicant did notknow exactly where the turbines would go, so thesurveys were larger than necessary. For cultural continued on next page

resources, the contractor did very general surveysand then, after turbine locations were known, theydid a thorough survey of the proposed roads, turbinepads, etc.

� Use of skilled analysts. A very well-respected andknowledgeable contractor performed wildlife studies.Data obtained will aid future analysis of impacts ofwind farm projects on birds.

� Analysis of impacts on non-DOE workers. The maineffect analyzed was the potential for adverse humanhealth impacts on non-DOE workers who would cometo the site to work during an emergency, rather thanleave the area. This represented an unusual twist tothe �accident analysis,� considered as a normaloperations analysis in the EA for a proposedemergency operations center.

ScheduleFactors that Facilitated TimelyCompletion of Documents

� Communication with reviewers. All DOE reviewerswere notified of the project and EIS schedule, and thereasons for the time constraints were explained.

� In-house preparation. Preparing the EA in-house andhaving complete control facilitated timely completion.

� Setting monthly goals. The document was kept onschedule by setting monthly goals and ensuring thatthey were achieved.

� A motivated staff. Motivated project people whogathered information quickly made it easy to stayon schedule.

� A dedicated staff. Having a dedicated program andproject staff helped the timely completion of the EA.This greatly facilitated gathering information andgetting information to the preparers and project team.



What Worked and Didn't Work (continued)

� Working with the NEPA Compliance Officer. A closeworking relationship with the local NEPA ComplianceOfficer facilitated timely completion of the document.

� Early completion of a technical analysis. The riskanalysis was conducted up-front in order to preventnegative impacts to the schedule.

� Priority setting by a Deputy Assistant Secretary.The responsible Deputy Assistant Secretary madecompletion of the document the top NEPA priority ofhis organization.

� Close communication. Close communication amongEH and GC via fax, e-mail, and conference callsallowed for essentially real-time changes to theapproval drafts of the draft and final documents,and avoided travel expenses.

� Coordination with the printer. Establishing acontract with the printing contractor prior to the needdate, and close communication during the printingprocess, made printing more efficient.

� A team approach to document distribution. Timelydocument distribution was facilitated by earlycoordination with EH and Congressional Affairs,sending a small field team to Headquarters tocoordinate distribution, and having EH-42 activelyassist in distribution.

� Having a DOE staff person at the contractor�s office.The NEPA Compliance Officer, the document manager,or a program staff member was at the supportcontractor�s office during periods of intense work,which facilitated quick decision making and alloweduse of the contractor�s office as the centralcommunications point for completion of the EIS.

� Coffee and donuts. The unashamed, liberalapplication of sugar and caffeine was particularlyeffective as a procedure to help keep the documentteam on schedule.

Factors that Inhibited Timely Completion� Simultaneous EIS preparation and research. EIS

preparation coincided with technology research anddevelopment whose results needed to be discussedand reflected in the EIS.

� Regulatory delays. Delays in USFWS concurrencewith Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultationdeterminations inhibited timely completion of thedocument.

� Outside coordination. Several regulatory agenciesand other organizations did not submit reviews onschedule, which inhibited timely completion of thedocument.

� Delayed understanding of the schedule atHeadquarters. An earlier understanding of theEIS process and schedule on the part of Headquarterscould have allowed timely completion of the EIS ona more relaxed schedule.

Factors that Inhibited Effective Teamwork� Withholding project details. Project proponents

did not always provide complete information forpurposes of internal discussion and review. Forexample, the development and operation of a pilot-scale facility was a key element in implementing theproposed action, but this was not acknowledged ordocumented until after focused querying byHeadquarters participants. For effective teamwork,all team members need to have a full understandingof the project objectives and requirements.

� Limited DOE resources. Our office seems to bereaching a critical point in having enough availableDOE subject matter experts who can cover theirregular jobs and serve on a NEPA management andreview team at the same time. The project team hadto rely on the site contractor to provide that expertise.

� An inexperienced contractor. The contractor hiredby the applicant had never prepared a DOE NEPAdocument before and was a bit argumentative attimes.

ProcessSuccessful Aspects of the PublicParticipation Process� Open house workshops. Open house workshops,

which have been used for previous projects, weresuccessful for this EA.

� Publishing a comment form in a newspaper. Thelocal newspaper included a write-up on our publicscoping meeting, with a comment form. Several EIScomments were submitted on the form.



� Public input to the design process. By involving thepublic in the EA process, we were able to find flawsin design prior to construction and create win-winsituations with our stakeholders.

� Giving the public an opportunity to express theirfeelings. Some members of the public seemed toappreciate the opportunity to vent their negativefeelings about the project for this EA.

� Providing answers to questions. Although theprocess did not provide information useful to DOEdecision making, it did provide a vehicle for somemembers of the public to get answers to questionsfor which they had not received satisfactory answersin other venues.

UsefulnessAgency Planning and Decision Making �What Worked

� Anticipating and solving problems. The EA processhelped the project staff anticipate and solveproblems. It also helped point out a waste disposalproblem for the decontamination and decom-missioning of a very large building. The staff thendeveloped creative recycling and waste minimizationactions that became part of the project and will affecthow other decontamination and decommissioningprojects are conducted in the future.

� Coordinating design criteria. The project has a largenumber of user organizations, and the NEPA processprovided a useful method to coordinate designcriteria.

� Ensuring the safety of non-DOE workers. The NEPAprocess helped to focus the project�s attention on theneed to insure the safety of non-DOE workers whomay come to help staff the emergency operationscenter. In this respect it helped in making a sounddecision on the design and function of the facility.

� Reconsidering alternatives. The NEPA process mayhave helped facilitate identification of a reasonablealternative that previously had been rejected.

Agency Planning and Decision Making �What Didn�t Work

� Difficulty in coordinating related documents. Twoclosely related EISs were being prepared at the sametime. It was sometimes difficult to reconcile oreliminate differences between the two EISs in the waysimilar or related issues were being analyzed anddiscussed. The close association of the two EISsprobably inhibited preparation of both because ofconflicting demands on staff time and because teammembers tended to confuse the two EISs.

Enhancement/Protectionof the Environment� Altering locations of wind turbines. Several

proposed turbine locations were moved based onbird data collected for the wind power EIS.

� Incorporation of mitigation measures. Additionalscheduling and construction mitigation measureswere incorporated into the project as a result of theEA process.

� Waste reduction. Less waste will be generated thanwould have occurred without the NEPA process.

� Avoiding and reducing impacts. The humanenvironment was protected as well as the naturalenvironment, in that the facility was sited so as toavoid adverse effects on an archeological site nearby,and to reduce visual impacts to neighboring sensitiveareas.

Effectiveness of the NEPA 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 8 EAs and 2 EISs,9 out of 11 respondents rated the NEPA process as�effective.�





� A respondent who rated the process as �5� explainedthat DOE had a difficult technical decision to makeregarding technology alternatives, and the NEPAprocess was effective in ensuring that relevantenvironmental factors were not forgotten oroverlooked.

� One respondent who rated the process as �3� statedthat the proposed project design incorporated bestmanagement practices and best available tech-nologies, and the NEPA process didn�t add muchmore.



NEPA Document Cost and Time Facts

EA Costs and Completion Times

� For this quarter, the median cost of five EAs was$80,000; the average was $72,000. The costs for EAs1354, 1383, and 1390 were paid by the applicant anddo not apply to DOE.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedSeptember 30, 2001, the median cost for thepreparation of 23 EAs was $74,000; the averagewas $82,000.

� For this quarter, the median and average completiontimes of eight EAs were 7 and 11 months,respectively.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedSeptember 30, 2001, the median completion timefor 29 EAs was 8 months; the average was11 months.

EIS Costs and Completion Times

� For this quarter, the costs to prepare two EISs were$440,000 and $1.4 million; their respective completiontimes were 15 and 29 months.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedSeptember 30, 2001, the median cost for thepreparation of 4 EISs, excluding EIS-0322, whichwas paid for by the applicant, was $1.4 million.The average cost was $1.8 million.

� Cumulatively, for the 12 months that endedSeptember 30, 2001, the median completion timefor 5 EISs was 15 months; the average was20 months. This meets DOE�s policy goal to reducemedian process time to 15 months for EISs.

� One respondent who rated the process as �3� statedthat the NEPA process was valuable to projectplanning but not to DOE decision making.

� A respondent who rated the process as �4� statedthat the NEPA process provided a useful forum forfuture facility user organizations.

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