national environmental policy act n e lessons a p ......the level of analysis is commensurate with...

NEPA - 1LESSONS LEARNED

continued next page

Theme of OctoberNEPA ComplianceOfficers MeetingLeading members of DOE�s NEPA community sharedprofessional experiences and reflected upon jobchallenges at the DOE NEPA Compliance Officers(NCO) meeting held in Washington, DC onOctober 29-30. In addition to 29 NCOs, the participantsincluded staff from the Offices of NEPA Policy andAssistance and the Assistant General Counsel forEnvironment. The meeting featured informal small groupdiscussions, rather than presentations to a large audience.

The meeting examined NCO and Office of Environment,Safety and Health (EH) roles and responsibilities, NEPAcontracting reform, and how to get the most fromprogrammatic NEPA documents. An early brainstormingsession elicited aspects of the DOE NEPA complianceprogram that are going well and �topics of concern�where improvement is needed. The former included:the NEPA teamwork process; the recent process ofrevising the DOE NEPA regulations; and stakeholderinvolvement. NCOs suggested that we measure "success"in terms of satisfying customers and protecting theenvironment. Areas identified as needing work included:misconceptions concerning NCO roles and responsibilities(it may be time to �re-energize� the NCO role);�answer shopping� for a favorable interpretation ofNEPA requirements; getting managers to view NEPAmore as a tool than an obstacle; and fear (in the Field) ofHeadquarters involvement.

Participants at October NCO meeting included (from left to right)Dean Monroe, GC; Reginald Tyler, RF; Drew Grainger, SR; andRoger Twitchell, ID.

Welcome again to the Quarterly Report on Lessons Learnedin the NEPA process. This report includes:

• Updates on CEQ's Cumulative Effects Handbook, NEPAcontracting, environmental justice guidance, a Senatehearing, the NEPA rule, NEPA litigation, and an EAquality study - Pages 3-7

• Guest article on EM's Environmental Information SystemsPilot Project - Page 7

• Fourth quarter FY1996 Lessons Learned Questionnaireresults, including EIS and EA cost and timereports - Pages 8-12

• Analysis of EA and EIS cost and timeoutliers - Pages 13-14

• EA and EIS cost and time trend analysis - Pages 15-16.

DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Assistance

Continuing Improvement:

National Environmental Policy ActNEPA

U.S. Department of Energy Quarterly Report

LESSONSLEARNED

LESSONSLEARNED

For Fourth Quarter FY 1996December 2, 1996

Inside LESSONS LEARNED

2 - NEPA LESSONS LEARNED

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

NEPA Compliance Officers Meeting (continued)In keeping with the Secretarial Policy Statement onNEPA and the Strategic Alignment Initiative, theprinciple of continuing improvement was an underlyingtheme throughout the NCO meeting. One challenge inthis regard is to track and measure progress towardreducing the cost and time of NEPA compliance withoutreducing quality. As presented at the meeting, ongoingstudies of cost and time for DOE NEPA documents areshowing moderately favorable trends. (See related reportstarting on page 15.) Another ongoing effort involves astudy of environmental assessment (EA) quality,evaluating how well a sample of 20 EAs complies withrequirements and follows applicable guidance.(See related article on page 7.)

In discussing teamwork and Headquarters/Fieldrelationships, a participant advised NCOs to avoidpressure to "keep the group small," thereby leaving outessential people. It was suggested that the typically broadissues raised by Headquarters should be introduced duringinternal scoping, although a team should recognize thatsome issues won't arise until the draft document reachesHeadquarters management.

In a guest appearance, Ray Clark, Associate Director forNEPA Oversight at the President�s Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ), led a discussion of CEQ�sdraft Cumulative Effects Handbook, issued forinteragency review in September. Some participants saidthey found CEQ�s recommended approaches to bedata-intensive, involving more analysis (and thereforemore cost) than current approaches. Another remarkedthat the draft Handbook�which is oriented primarilytowards ecological analysis�could be modified to �lookmore like DOE� by addressing more explicitly suchmatters as human health effects, nuclear issues, and wastetransportation impacts. Mr. Clark agreed with aparticipant�s speculation that the Handbook, althoughguidance, might have the effect of setting newrequirements. (See related article on page 3.)

EH staff shared information and updates on other DOENEPA matters, emphasizing guidance on addressingenvironmental justice in the NEPA process (see relatedarticle on page 4) and guidance for NEPA DocumentManagers, both of which were being readied for review.The Office of General Counsel (GC) provided updates onDOE NEPA litigation (involving the Dual AxisRadiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility EIS and theProgrammatic EIS on Foreign Research Reactor SpentFuel). GC staff also advised the group that the

requirements of Executive Order 13007 on Indian SacredSites (May 24, 1996), which include avoiding adverseimpacts to Indian sacred sites, should be considered in theNEPA process.

Participants shared insights on ways to enhance DOENEPA compliance activities, emphasizing the importanceof involving decision makers early and often throughoutthe process. NCOs also recommended that EIS teamsinclude members with incentive to expedite the process.One NCO noted that bringing stakeholders into thescoping process practically �builds the EIS.� Participantsalso referred to a number of Field Office guidancedocuments and other initiatives, such as guides for projectmanagers and NEPA Document Managers, that could beannounced or made available through the DOE NEPAWeb.

A panel of EH, Defense Programs, and EnvironmentalManagement (EM) participants presented updatedinformation on preparing pollution prevention analyses inNEPA documents, including a display of referencematerials. Martha Crosland, EM NCO, announced thatthe Assistant Secretary for Environmental Managementrecently issued pollution prevention guidance that buildson Environmental Protection Agency checklists andincorporates NEPA process requirements.

In closing, Carol Borgstrom praised NCOs as the �heartand soul� of the Department�s NEPA complianceprogram and the agency�s �conscience.� She said thatNCOs are also the �brains� behind effective NEPAcompliance, and a valuable resource for theDepartment.

Patty Phillips, NEPA Compliance Officer, Oak Ridge Operations Office,shares her experiences in enhancing DOE NEPA compliance activities.

LL


DOE Comments on Council on EnvironmentalQuality's Cumulative Effects Handbook

DOE-wide NEPA Procurement on Target

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) distributedits long-awaited draft Handbook, “ConsideringCumulative Effects Under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act,” for interagency review onSeptember 26, 1996. The draft Handbook presents theresults of research and consultations with Federal agenciesand a peer group. It contains sections on generalprinciples, scoping, the affected environment, determiningenvironmental consequences, and methods, techniques,and tools. CEQ stated that the Handbook would not beformal guidance and the recommendations are notintended to be legally binding.

Ray Clark, CEQ's Associate Director for NEPA Oversight,led a lively discussion of the Handbook at the NEPACompliance Officers meeting in Washington, DC,October 29, 1996 (see article on pages 1-2).

The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance distributed theHandbook to NEPA Compliance Officers for review andhas prepared comments that will shortly be provided toCEQ.

Updates from the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance

LL

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

LL

The Albuquerque Operations Office will solicit andadminister multiple task order contracts for NEPAdocument preparation on behalf of all DOE Offices withNEPA requirements. DOE believes task order contractsfor NEPA support services can reduce NEPA documentpreparation time and cost while maintaining or improvingquality (NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance: Phase II,December 1995). The Albuquerque Operations Officeplans to issue a draft Request for Proposals inmid-December for DOE and potential bidder comments;the final Request for Proposals is scheduled for early1997, with contract awards by September 1997.Contracting questions can be directed to Dawn Knepper,Contracting Officer, Albuquerque Operations Office, on505-845-6215.

Other DOE NEPA Contracting Reform initiatives are inthe final phase. In December 1996 the Office ofEnvironment, Safety and Health, in partnership with theOffices of Human Resources and Administration andGeneral Counsel, and in consultation with Program andField Office staff, will issue a Report on NEPAContracting Reform activities and final NEPA ContractingReform Guidance. (The Department�s NEPA Contracting

Reform initiatives began with the Secretary�s PolicyStatement on NEPA in June 1994. Phase III began withthe issuance of NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance:Phase II, December 1995, and extends throughDecember 1996.)

The Report will highlight Phase III activities, whichinclude acquisition planning for the multiple award, taskorder contracts for NEPA support discussed above;preparation of guidance for NEPA Document Managers;and conduct and assessment of a pilot program forNEPA contractor evaluation. The final Guidance willimprove the Phase II Guidance based on these Phase IIIactivities and on other experiences of the Department�sNEPA community this past year.

The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance plans totransmit a draft report and guidance to NEPACompliance Officers early in December and coordinateany comments by teleconference soon thereafter.Questions on this report and guidance can be directed toYardena Mansoor, Office of NEPA Policy andAssistance, on 202-586-9326.

The DOE comments:

1) Urge CEQ to explicitly apply the sliding scaleconcept, in which the level of analysis isproportional to the significance of the impacts.

2) Point out the difficulty of performing some ofthe recommended analyses.

3) Express concern that the Handbook may havethe unintended effect of setting newrequirements.

4) Offer help in addressing issues familiar to DOE,such as human health impacts from transportingradioactive materials, that are not discussed inthe draft Handbook.

When completed, the Handbook should help NEPApractitioners to better understand the complex issue ofcumulative effects and conduct useful cumulative effectsanalyses.


Environmental JusticeGuidance -- status report

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

A preliminary draft of the Department of Energy’s“Guidance on Incorporating Environmental JusticePrinciples into the National Environmental Policy ActProcess” was discussed at the October NEPA ComplianceOfficers meeting in Washington, DC and is being preparedfor distribution throughout DOE. The NCO's commentshelped clarify the guidance and avoid unnecessaryanalysis.

The draft guidance addresses Executive Order 12898 andthe President’s accompanying memorandum of February1994 on incorporation of environmental justice principlesinto the NEPA process. The guidance presents an efficientmethod for analyzing environmental justice impacts usinga phased approach and the “sliding scale” concept (wherethe level of analysis is commensurate with the significanceof the impacts).

The draft guidance covers environmental justice at eachstep of the NEPA process: internal scoping, notice ofintent, public scoping, and document preparation.Document preparation is further divided into subtopics:alternatives, description of the affected environment, andenvironmental consequences/impacts. Appendices includetechniques for enhancing public participationopportunities for minority and low income communitiesand an overview of DOE’s Environmental JusticeStrategy. The Council on Environmental Quality’s DraftGuidance for Addressing Environmental Justice under theNational Environmental Policy Act (including definitions)and the Executive Order are appended for the user'sconvenience.

A copy of the draft guidance can be obtained fromLinda Thurston (telephone 202-586-1509 or fax202-586-3915).


LL

The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance has a portableEnvironmental Justice display available to lend to DOEprogram and field offices just for the asking. A duplicateof the display used at the October 1996 NEPACompliance Officers meeting, this portableEnvironmental Justice package gives examples ofbackground materials and history, guidance, referencesand other available resources. For more information callLinda Thurston at 202-586-1509 or fax your request to202-586-3915.

Environmental JusticeTraveling Display

Linda Thurston and John Pulliam of the Office of NEPA Policyand Assistance at the October NCO Meeting, demonstratingtheir display package for presenting important environmentaljustice information.


The NEPA decision making processin Federal land management agencies,including the role of the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ), wasthe focus of a September 26, 1996,hearing before the SenateSubcommittee on Oversight andInvestigations (of the Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources).Witnesses were Kathleen McGinty,Chair of CEQ, Jack Ward Thomas,Chief of the United States ForestService, and Nancy K. Hayes, Chiefof Staff and Counselor for the Bureauof Land Management. AttendingSubcommittee members wereSenator Craig Thomas (Wyoming),Subcommittee Chairman, andSenators Burns (Montana), Domenici(New Mexico), Craig (Idaho), andAkaka (Hawaii). Also present forportions of the hearing were SenatorsBradley (New Jersey), Bennett(Utah), and Murkowski (Alaska).

In opening remarks, Senator Thomasemphasized that the purpose of thehearing was to examine the NEPAdecision making process and makethe statute work better. He stated that“this hearing is not about how toweaken or gut NEPA, as opponents tochange so frequently and mistakenlycontend.” Senator Thomas alsoindicated that this hearing was anopportunity for the testifying agenciesto give a status report on theirinitiatives to review and streamlinetheir decision making process andreduce costs, and for CEQ to followup on the status of its initiatives forimproving NEPA's effectiveness.

Senator Thomas further stated,“Administrative reforms can only goso far to address the issuesassociated with NEPA

implementation by the Federalagencies. Administrative reforms canattempt to make the process workbetter, but they cannot fully addressthe procedural requirements andmandates imposed by the courts.Only Congress can do that. It maybe time, after nearly 30 years[since NEPA was enacted], forCongress to look more closely at howcourts have interpreted therequirements of NEPA and forCongress to make a decision aboutwhether or not those requirements areconsistent with Congressional intent.”

Ms. McGinty reviewed the findingsof the NEPA effectiveness study CEQhas been working on for two years.

She stated that “NEPA works,”explaining that “agencies must nowtake a ‘hard look’ at theenvironmental consequences ofproposed actions, ... must tell thepublic what they are proposing to do,invite public views on their proposals,and respond to those views.” Shealso noted that two trends areoccurring in agency NEPA practice.First, the number of lawsuits againstagencies is declining. Second,agencies are preparing many moreenvironmental assessments thanenvironmental impact statements.Ms. McGinty indicated that the draftNEPA effectiveness study would bedistributed for interagency review inthe near future. [Editor's Note: Theinteragency review has since beenconducted.]

McGinty acknowledged shortcomingsin agencies’ implementation ofNEPA, including that: the NEPAprocess sometimes is too lengthy andcosts too much; some documents aretoo long and too technical for mostpeople to use; agency officials areinadequately trained, particularlysenior officials; and there have beeninstances of delayed public andinteragency involvement. She alsonoted that often, after a project isapproved, agencies fail to collectlong-term data on the actualenvironmental impacts of the project.

Ms. McGinty cited DOE as an agencythat has improved NEPAimplementation. She stated that

“NEPA reinvention has become apillar in DOE’s overall reinventionstrategy.” Ms. McGinty noted thatDOE has recently amended its NEPAregulations to exclude additionalactions that clearly have nosignificant environmental impact andhas made other streamlining changesfor significant cost savings.

A lively question and answer periodfollowed prepared testimony byJack Ward Thomas (U.S. ForestService) and Nancy K. Hayes(Bureau of Land Management).Much of this centered aroundPresident Clinton’s controversial useof the Antiquities Act to establish anational monument in southern Utah.


LL

Senate Subcommittee Focuses on NEPA

"NEPA reinvention has become a pillar inDOE's overall reinvention strategy."

Kathleen McGintyChair, Council on Environmental QualitySeptember 26, 1996

Joanne Arenwald Geroe, Office of NEPA Policy and AssistanceBy:



LL

The status of NEPA litigationinvolving the Department of Energyhas not changed significantly sincethe last Lessons Learned QuarterlyReport. Two other recent casesconcerning reasonable alternatives,however, may be of interest.

Unreasonable Alternatives

The Federal AviationAdministration’s rejection of twoalternatives to the proposedexpansion of an existing runway wasnot arbitrary and capricious. Theconstruction of an alternative parallelrunway was infeasible, because ofexisting urban land use, rapidlyfalling terrain, and the need toremove two major Air Force weaponslaboratories and storage facilities.The construction of a new airport wasinfeasible because planners wouldhave to build new facilities and a newinfrastructure, extend utilities andfreeways, possibly relocate the

adjoining Air Force facilities topreviously undeveloped land, andaddress numerous environmentalcomplications. The court ruled that anagency need not analyze theenvironmental impacts of alternativesin good faith rejected as too remote,speculative, impractical or ineffective.Airport Neighbors Alliance v. UnitedStates, 90 F.3d 426 (10th Cir. 1996).

Need for Reasonable Range ofAlternatives

The Federal HighwayAdministration’s (FHWA’s) EIS for aproposed highway was defectivebecause FHWA narrowed thestatement of purpose and need foragency action from the Draft EIS tothe Final EIS without rescoping thealternatives. The change was to add aneed for a specified Level of Service(a measure of road capacity), whichonly one of the alternatives couldmeet. The court held that an agency

does not abuse its discretion merelyby changing the statement of purposeand need, as long as a range ofalternatives remains open toconsideration even under the newstatement. But if a range ofalternatives is developed inconjunction with one statement ofpurpose and need, and the statementof purpose and need is subsequentlychanged to eliminate all but one ofthe initial alternatives, the agency hasabused its discretion because therehas not been an adequateconsideration of a reasonable range ofalternatives. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Department ofTransportation, 95 F.3d 892(9th Cir. 1996).

Copies of complete opinions areavailable from Stephen Simpson,Office of NEPA Policy andAssistance, at 202-586-0125 (e-mail:[email protected]).

DOE has completed the requiredconsultation with the Council onEnvironmental Quality regarding afinal rule amending limited portionsof the DOE NEPA regulations, andthe rule is scheduled to be publishedin the Federal Register early inDecember 1996.

The power marketing activitiesaddressed in this rulemaking wereinitially included in a broader scopeNEPA rulemaking that wascompleted in July 1996. AtCongressman John Doolittle's

(California) request, however, finalaction regarding power marketingactivities was deferred while DOEpolled Federal and State agencies thatregulate similar activities.

The final power marketingamendments include modifications toseven categorical exclusions thatchange the basis for application of theclass of action, increase the coverage,or expand the length of the electricpowerline that may be constructed,reconstructed, or relocated.Additional clarifying examples were

Final Amendments to DOE NEPA Regulations(10 CFR Part 1021) for Power Marketing Activitiesto Be Published Soon

LL

added to one categorical exclusion.Conforming changes were made tofour classes of actions. Althoughthese classes of actions are usedprimarily by the power marketingadministrations, they are available foruse by any DOE program.

The amendments will take effect30 days after publication. For a copyof the power marketing amendments,call Bob Strickler at 202-586-2410(fax 202-586-3915). DOE's NEPAregulations also are availableon the DOE Web Site(http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/nepa).

Recent Rulings on Alternatives Stephen Simpson, Office of NEPA Policyand Assistance

By:

Litigation Updates


The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance is studyingrecent DOE EAs to foster continuing improvement of theNEPA process by providing feedback (not oversight) onperformance to DOE's NEPA community. A furtherpurpose is to provide a quality benchmark for future suchstudies, in light of DOE's ongoing goal to reduce the costand time to prepare NEPA documents while maintainingquality.

To provide a snapshot of DOE performance, Office ofNEPA Policy and Assistance staff are examining the20 most recently completed EAs (as of August 1996)against the EA Checklist of required and recommendedelements, while judging application of the “sliding scale”concept and keeping an eye open for any particularlycommendable or deficient features. Findings will be

reported as general trends and lessons learned, and mayinfluence guidance development priorities. Whenappropriate, cognizant NEPA Compliance Officers will beinformed of findings regarding specific EAs.

NEPA Compliance Officers expressed interest in the EAQuality Study during their October 1996 meeting, andsuggested expanding the scope of the study to include areview of: 1) the overall EA process (EA determinationsand notifications, public participation, and DOE’sresponses to external comments on EAs); and 2) findingsof no significant impact. The Office of NEPA Policy andAssistance will consider such further studies after firsttaking the steps described above, and welcomes commentsand suggestions on all aspects of the study.

Environmental Assessment Quality Study

LL


Guest Article

The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM)recently began the Environmental Information SystemsPilot Project to improve environmental informationmanagement, and thereby support, strengthen, andstreamline the NEPA process. EM set two goals for theProject: (1) improve and integrate site environmentalinformation management, and (2) improve environmentalinformation availability within and outside theDepartment. EM Assistant Secretary Alvin L. Alm hasencouraged EM field operations to propose usinggeographic information systems to enhance environmentalinformation management. EM headquarters will cooperatewith selected field offices in performing and evaluatingeach pilot project's applicability to other DOE sites.

The pilot program was inspired by work performed inpreparing the draft Hanford Remedial ActionEnvironmental Impact Statement and ComprehensiveLand Use Plan. Hanford consolidated existinginformation on many aspects of the Site’s geography,hydrology, soils, habitats, vegetation, facilities, andcontamination into a geographic information system.The Richland Operations Office uses the new system tosupport a wide range of environmental management

activities at the Hanford Site. Moreover, local, state, andtribal governments and regulators use the system toenhance their understanding of the Site, and toindependently formulate and evaluate future land usescenarios for Hanford.

EM plans to complete cleanup at most sites within10 years, although treatment of a few remaining wastestreams would continue at a small number of sites.“Complete cleanup” means that land, facilities, andmaterials are adequately safe to be available for alternativeuse, based on future land use policy decisions, with aminimum cost for long term surveillance and monitoring.Because many completed sites are likely to require longterm stewardship, reliable and easily accessibleinformation will be needed for decades, or even centuries,into the future. The Environmental Information SystemsPilot Project is a step towards meeting these long termneeds.

EM is currently evaluating several pilot project proposals.For additional information, contact Steven Taub, Officeof Strategic Planning and Analysis (EM-24), at202-586-7634.

DOE'S Environmental Management Office StartsEnvironmental Information Systems Pilot Project

LL

Steve Taub, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis, Environmental ManagementBy:


What Worked and Didn't Work in the NEPA Process

continued next page

To foster continuing improvement of the Department's NEPACompliance Program, DOE Order 451.1 requires the Office ofEnvironment, Safety and Health to solicit comments on lessonslearned in the process of completing NEPA documents and todistribute quarterly reports. This Quarterly Report coversdocuments completed between July 1 and September 30, 1996.Comments and lessons learned on the following topics weresubmitted by questionnaire respondents.

Editor's Note: Some of the material presentedhere reflects the personal views of individualquestionnaire respondents, which (appropriately)may be inconsistent. Unless indicated otherwise,views reported herein should not be interpreted asrecommendations from the Office of Environment,Safety and Health.

Fourth Quarter FY 1996 Questionnaire Results

SCOPING

• A respondent reported success in involving agencies andtribes in the process from the beginning, explaining thatNEPA compliance is a Federal requirement and thatDOE would adhere to its principles and intent.

• Combining three separate facilities’ activities in one EAreportedly was cost effective and helped focus theproject.

DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS

• The National Scenic Area Geographical InformationSystem (GIS) database provided almost all the data thatneeded to be collected, which was an important factor inreducing preparation costs for an EA.

IMPACT ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGY

• A respondent reported successful use of a teamapproach in a case for which the comparison of impactswas highly technical and complex. The team, whichincluded outside technical experts, the Indian tribes, andDOE staff, reached consensus on how to compare theimpacts of the various alternatives to the No Actionalternative. The team process was also reported as veryuseful in identifying appropriate mitigation measures(e.g., habitat improvements, and monitoring) and helpedkeep the “big picture” in mind.

• GIS maps were used in an EA to display and comparealternative vegetation management practices that wouldmeet project requirements and avoid adverse impacts toresources in the vicinity of electrical power lines.

SCHEDULE

Timely Completion of Documents was Facilitated by:

• Use of an interagency EA document preparation team,including a representative of the U.S. Forest Service.

• Use of a Forest Service GIS database.

• A team approach that allowed for multiple sections to beworked on simultaneously, and also ensured coveragefor those who took vacations.

Procedures for Keeping the Document on Schedule:

• Effective use of a writer/editor.

• Holding NEPA meetings with open communication, andkeeping the Indian tribe constantly informed as to everyaction taking place and what to expect. Open, direct,and consistent communication is the key.

• Working up front with county officials and publicinterest groups to create a better understanding ofproject goals and impacts, which facilitated andimproved the review process.

Timely Completion of Documents was Inhibited by:

• Developing the EIS with the participation of the StateDepartment of Fish and Wildlife and the ConfederatedTribes and getting these two entities to recognize NEPArequirements. The two entities changed the proposedaction twice, which resulted in significant schedulechanges.


SCHEDULE (continued)


• Difficulty in contacting DOE line project managers.Comments on the EA from the DOE line projectmanagers were sometimes not timely.

Factors that Facilitated Teamwork:

• Hiring a writer/editor to integrate the products of severaldifferent authors.

• A DOE NEPA group that compiled comment responses.

Factors that Inhibited Teamwork:

• A NEPA Document Manager who lacked adequateNEPA training and did not understand the NEPAprocess.

• The line organization, early on, appeared to be scheduledriven and uninterested in NEPA suggestions orconcerns.

Factors that Facilitated Teamwork with Contractors:

• A detailed contract work statement that helped to defineproject objectives and method.

• Allowing contractor technical support staff to participatein the EA Review Panel that resolved specific issues.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUCCESS

Successful Aspects of the Public Participation Process:

• Informal, open-house types of meetings, and having thepublic and agencies work cooperatively towards acommon goal.

• Holding separate meetings with the Citizen AdvisoryGroup (CAG) to identify objectives, gather issue relatedinformation, and clarify CAG questions, which made theCAG feel like they were part of the process andsolution.

Unsuccessful Aspects of the Public ParticipationProcess:

• Inability to obtain Indian tribe participation in theprocess.

• An additional public meeting was held based on therecommendation of the Citizen Advisory Group andCounty Commissioners, yet only one new citizenattended.

Public Reactions to the NEPA Process:

• The process worked quite well. Mailing lists, publicmeetings, and exchanges with the County officialsresulted in a successful program.

• Some members of the public wanted to defer theproposed action until new technology would beavailable that would further reduce the risk.

USEFULNESS

Agency Planning and Decision Making

• The NEPA process helped to develop a clear definitionof the project. We addressed issues in the context of theNEPA process.

• The NEPA process provided guidance to the decisionmakers.

• The NEPA process and project development wereintegrated. Environmental information was used todefine vegetation management practices to avoidimpacts, which were incorporated directly in avegetation control contract. This ensured thatenvironmental information was correctly passed on tothose who would carry out the project, and avoided oneof the most serious flaws in most NEPA documents —ineffective communication of environmental mitigationto implementors.

• The NEPA analysis helped to solidify plans for theproposed activities that are part of the proposed action;otherwise, decisions were made 2 to 3 years ago. TheNEPA analysis should have been done 3 to 4 years ago.LL


PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RATING THE NEPA PROCESS AS EFFECTIVE, FOR EAs*

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

9/30/94 12/31/94 3/31/95 9/30/95 12/31/95 3/31/96

*Effective = the NEPA process received a rating of 3 or higher on a scale of 0 to 5.

(16)(17)

(15)(37)

(40) (19)(10)

( ) = total # of respondents

6/30/95

End Date of Quarter

(23)

6/30/96

(13)

9/30/96

The adjacent charts illustrate howrespondents rated the effectiveness ofthe NEPA process. For the purposesof these charts, �effective� meansthe NEPA process was rated 3, 4 or5 on a scale from zero to five, withzero meaning �not effective at all�and five �highly effective.�

For this quarter, 8 of the 13respondents for EAs and all 5 of therespondents for EISs rated the NEPAprocess as �effective.� One EArespondent commented that many ofthe decisions about the project wereinfluenced by the NEPA process. Itwas important to make sure that theproposed hatchery would notadversely affect the Wildlife Refugewhere it was built.

Another respondent stated: �I thinkthe NEPA folks did a good thoroughjob, and the project will nowundergo construction with a goodconscience that the environment hadbeen considered in all decisions.�

Two respondents rated theeffectiveness of the NEPA process aslow because the decisions toimplement the action partially wereforegone conclusions, and the NEPAprocess did not enhance the ultimatedecision.

LL

Effectiveness of the NEPA Process


Figure 1

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS RATING THE NEPA PROCESS AS EFFECTIVE, FOR EISs*

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

9/30/94 12/31/94 3/31/95 9/30/95 12/31/95 3/31/96

*Effective = the NEPA process received a rating of 3 or higher on a scale of 0 to 5.

(11)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(8)

(11)

(5)

( ) = total # of respondents

6/30/95

End Date of Quarter

(11)

6/30/96

(5)

9/30/96

Figure 2


ENVIRONMENTAL

EISs

Bonneville PowerAdministration1 = Hood River FisheriesRestoration Project, HoodCounty, Oregon,DOE/EIS-0241,EPA Rating: LO($13,000 Federal cost,$11,600 contractor cost;15 months)

2 = Northwest Regional PowerFacility Project,DOE/EIS-0214,EPA Rating: EC-2(All costs paid by applicant,costs not reported;26 months)

Richland Operations Office/Environmental Management3 = Tank Waste RemediationSystem (TWRS), Richland,Washington,DOE/EIS-0189,No EPA rating($100,000 Federal cost,$14.4 million contractor cost;31 months)

Completion Time Facts

•

• Three EISs were completed during the fourth quarter of FY1996, in 15, 26,and 31 months.

• One EIS reported scheduling information and it was completed on schedule.

Cumulatively over the last year, the median completion time for 16 EISs was25 months; the average completion time was 29 months.

EIS Cost and Completion Times Data


Cost Facts

• Total NEPA process costs, reported for two EISs completed during the fourthquarter, were $25,000 and $14.5 million. The corresponding contractor costswere $12,000 and $14.4 million.

• Budget data were reported for one EIS, for which the NEPA process costexceeded the original budget by 95%.

• For EIS #1 and #3 respectively, the NEPA process costs represented 0.1%and 0.05% of the total project costs.

Cumulatively, over the last year, the median contractor cost for thepreparation of 11 EISs for which cost data were reported was $3.7 million; theaverage cost was $5.8 million.

•

Environmental Impact of theActionLO — Lack of ObjectionsEC — Environmental ConcernsEO — Environmental ObjectionsEU — Environmentally Unsatisfactory

Adequacy of the EISCategory 1 — AdequateCategory 2 — Insufficient InformationCategory 3 — Inadequate

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY (EPA) RATING

DEFINITIONS


Completion Time Facts

•

• The median completion time for the 8 EAs completed during the fourthquarter of FY1996 was 6 months (range: 3 to 14 months).

• Five of the eight EAs for which scheduling information was reported werecompleted on schedule.

• The NEPA process was initiated early enough for 6 EAs to avoid being ona critical path.

Cumulatively for the last year, the median completion time for 47 EAs was9 months; the average completion time was 14 months.

EAs

Albuquerque Operations Office/Los Alamos Area Office/Environmental Management1 = Effluent Reduction EA,Los Alamos, New Mexico,DOE/EA-1156 ($10,000 Federalcost, $40,000 contractor cost;6 months)

Bonneville Power Administration2 = Columbia River GorgeVegetation Management,Washington, DOE/EA-1162(Costs unreported; 6 months)

3 = Kalispel Tribe Resident FishProject, Pend Orielle, Washington,DOE/EA-1154 (Costs unreported;6 months)

4 = Northeast Oregon WildlifeMitigation Project, DOE/EA-1160($43,000 Federal cost, contractornot used; 4 months)

5 = Washington Wildlife MitigationProjects, DOE/EA-1096($2,500 Federal cost; $60,000contractor cost; 14 months)

Idaho Operations Office/Environmental Management6 = Closure of the Waste CalciningFacility (CPP-633), DOE/EA-1149(Federal cost unreported; $48,000contractor cost; 6 months)

Richland Operations Office/Environmental Management7 = Salvage/Demolition of 200West Area, 300 Area SteamPlants, Hanford Site, Richland,Washington, DOE/EA-1177(Federal cost unreported, $32,500contractor cost; 3 months)

Savannah River OperationsOffice/EnvironmentalManagement8 = Closure of the High-LevelWaste Tanks in the F&H Areas atSRS, Aiken, Georgia,DOE/EA-1164 ($6,000 Federalcost; $46,000 contractor cost;4 months)

Cost Facts

•

• NEPA process cost data were reported for 6 EAs; the median cost was$49,000.

• Budget data were reported for 3 EAs; 1 was completed within budget, and2 were not.

• Total project cost was reported for 1 EA, for which the NEPA process costrepresented 1%.

Cumulatively for the last year, the median contractor cost for thepreparation of 28 EAs was $54,000; the average cost was $79,000.


Figure 3

EA Costs and Completion Tim es

0 5 10 15 200

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

C ompletion Time (Months)

Total NEPA Cost ($1,000s)(C ontrac tor Cost + Federal Staff Cost)

* No cost data reported** Contractor cost only, F edera l staff costs not reported.

1

4***

8

2* ,3*

5

7**

6**

*** No contractor used.

EA Cost and Completion Times Data


Analysis of EA and EIS Cost and Time Outliers

Approach

In conducting this analysis, 133 EAs and 27 EISscompleted between 1/1/95 and 6/30/96 were sorted bytheir respective costs and preparation times, and the topand bottom 20 percent of the EISs and 10 percent of theEAs were regarded as �outliers.� Lessons learnedquestionnaires submitted for the outliers were reviewed,and cognizant NEPA Document Managers and NEPACompliance Officers were interviewed regarding severalEAs. Note that cost data were available only for 86 EAsand 23 EISs.

Results

Common factors associated with the outliers aresummarized below.

1. Short Completion Times

The 5 EISs completed in the shortest amount of time(less than 11 months) all had:

• aggressive preparation and review schedules

• preparation teams dedicated to only one EIS• high-level DOE management support

The 13 EAs completed in the shortest amount of time(3 months or less) also all had aggressive schedules.Additional common factors reported for the EAsinclude:

• excellent teamwork

• little to no public interest, making documentrevisions based on public comments unnecessary

2. Long Completion Times

Four of the 5 EISs with long completion times(more than 61 months) were Power MarketingAdministration (PMA) documents; the fifth involved anon-PMA electrical transmission line project.

(These EISs were also among the lowest cost EISsdiscussed below.) In one case, litigation associatedwith a proposed marketing plan was cited as thereason for a lengthy delay. For the others, commonfactors included that the proposals involved:

• wide areas of potential impact

• complex scopes• multiple actions or decisions

• changing policy

• multiple cooperating agencies

Although no common thread was apparent for 10 EAswith long completion times (more than 40 months),the following factors applied in more than one case:

• staffing problems (insufficient numbers orchanges in)

• lack of EA ownership (Note: All 10 EAs werestarted before the requirement to assign a NEPADocument Manager)

• multiple review cycles

• �EAs that look like EISs�

One NEPA Compliance Officer reported that long EApreparation times may result because a substantialperiod of time elapses after the EA determinationbefore the EA preparation work begins �in earnest.�(Note: EA preparation time starts with the EAdetermination and ends upon issuance of adetermination based on a completed EA.)

In an effort to identify ways to reduce the cost and time to prepare NEPA documents, the Office ofNEPA Policy and Assistance examined the preparation process for EAs and EISs that had unusuallyhigh and low costs and completion times. Studying these �outliers� could reveal how managementpractices and other factors favorably and detrimentally affect document cost and completion time.

continued next page


Analysis of EA and EIS Cost and Time Outliers

3. Lowest Cost

Four of the 5 EISs with lowest costs (less than$612,000; average cost $287,000) were prepared byPMAs; no common underlying factor was apparent.One PMA EIS document was prepared �in-house,�and no contractor costs were incurred. Factors citedfor low cost for the non-PMA document include:

• availability of existing data and accident analysis

• efficient multi-document scoping meetings

• positive public reactions (few responses tocomments or revisions to the draft EIS wererequired)

Factors common to several of the 8 EAs costing theleast (less than $15,000) include:

• in-house preparation

• preparation by a management and operationscontractor for a certain major weapons complexsite. [As noted below, however, a NEPACompliance Officer for a different weaponscomplex site has reached the oppositeconclusion.]

4. Highest Cost

The 4 EISs costing the most (more than $7.5 million)were major programmatic documents, and allinvolved: a high-level of public interest and aheightened level of technical controversy; broadly-scoped proposals with multiple alternatives; multiplefacilities in the DOE weapons complex; extensive datagathering and analytical requirements; and extensivepublic involvement including multiple nationwidemeetings. They were all large documents. In severalcases, document managers cited large, cumbersomecomment response documents as a contributor to highcosts.

No common thread was apparent for the 8 most costlyEAs (more than $420,000). More than one-half alsohad relatively long completion times(more than 26 months), but only one was among the

long completion time outlier group. In two cases, theneed to respond to public comments and preparecomment response documents was cited as a costinflator. Finally, as noted above, preparation by amanagement and operations contractor reportedlycontributes to high EA costs at a major DOE weaponscomplex site.

Summary

A wide range of factors influence the cost and time toprepare NEPA documents, and appear to reflect the widerange of DOE proposals. Heightened technicalcontroversy is frequently involved with proposals atweapons complex sites and is clearly associated with thehighest cost documents. For such proposals, managementattention to conducting an effective public participationprocess while responding efficiently to public commentswould help to reduce preparation costs. Common factorsassociated with document preparation times include thedegree of dedication of the preparation team and thecommitment of higher-level management to the NEPAprocess. LL

(continued)

REMINDER: Lessons Learned Questionnaires forall NEPA documents completed during thefirst quarter of FY 97 (October 1, 1996 toDecember 31, 1996) should be submitted as soonas possible after document completion, but no laterthan February 1, 1997. (Fax: 202-586-7031 orInternet: [email protected]). The LessonsLearned Questionnaire is now available interactivelyon the DOE NEPA Web [http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/nepa] on the Internet. Look for it under NEPAProcess Information.


EA and EIS Cost and Time Trend Analysis

The Office of NEPA Policy andAssistance reported certain dataand conclusions regarding EAand EIS cost and completion timetrends at the October NEPACompliance Officers meeting.This information is now presentedhere, updated with the latestquarter�s results.

EA cost (Figure 4) andcompletion time (Figure 5)trendlines continue moderatelydownward.

Cost distributions (not shownhere) for EAs prepared in timesgreater or less than the mediancompletion time were notsignificantly different. Similarly,completion time distributions forEAs prepared for more versusless than the median cost were notsignificantly different. Theseresults indicate that, for DOE as awhole, EA cost and completiontimes are not strongly correlated,which seems counterintuitive.This issue will be revisited as newdata increase the statistical powerof the sample.

Figure 4

Figure 5

continued next page

EA Completion Times6 month moving trendline, revised quarterly*

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Mo

nth

s

Median Time Average Time

* Each data point represents EAs completed within the 6 month period ending on the indicated date.

This technique tends to smooth out quarterly changes.

** EAs may be counted in two data points.

12/31/94 3/31/95 6/30/95 9/30/95 12/31/96 3/31/96

(29)

(36)(51)

(58)(41)

(19)

( ) = # of EAs in data point**

EA Authority Delegations

6/14/94 - 12/31/94

155 EAs Completed 7/1/94 - 9/30/96

End Date of Period

(26)

6/30/96

(28)

9/30/96

Total EA Costs6 month moving trendline, revised quarterly*

0

50

100

150

200

250

($1,000s)

Median Cost Average Cost

3/31/95 9/30/95 12/31/9512/31/94 6/30/95

(13)

(17)

(36)

(42)

(26)

3/31/96

(13)

* Each data point represents EAs completed within the 6 month period ending on the indicated date. This technique tends to smooth out quarterly changes.** EAs may be counted in two data points.

155 EAs completed 7/1/94 - 9/30/96Data shown represent 98 EAs with total cost reported

EA Authority Delegations 6/14/94 - 12/31/94

( ) = # of EAs in data point**

End Date of Period

6/30/96

(18)

(20)

9/30/96


EA and EIS Cost and Time Trend Analysis

Approximately half of DOE�sEAs are prepared (by FieldOffices) on behalf of proposedactions under the Office ofEnvironmental Management.Figure 6 illustrates the mediancost distributions by Field Office.Most Offices have prepared toofew EAs to permit meaningfulcomparisons with the others.

For the Albuquerque andSavannah River Offices,however, the characteristic costsfor preparing EnvironmentalManagement EAs may well besignificantly different. This resultdoes not necessarily mean thatone Office is preparing adequateEAs more efficiently than theother, but does suggest that theOffices conduct a benchmarkingprocess to identify the underlyingreasons for these apparent costdifferences.

Statistical limitations on studyingtrends for EISs are severe. Withthis in mind, EIS completiontimes nevertheless seem to show amoderately favorable downwardtrend (Figure 7), with a mediantime for recent EISs of about20 months. Cost results for EISshave fluctuated too broadly andare statistically too meager todraw any conclusion.

Figure 7

LL

EIS Completion Times6 month moving trendline, revised quarterly*

0

10

20

30

40

50

Mo

nth

s

Median Time Average Time

12/31/94 3/31/95 6/30/95 9/30/95 12/31/95 3/31/96

(8)

(3)

(4)

(11) (14)

(10)

( ) = # of EISs in data point**

(6)

6/30/96

* Each data point represents EISs completed within the 6 month period ending on the indicated date.

This technique tends to smooth out quarterly changes.

** EISs may be counted in two data points.

End Date of Period

35 EISs Completed 7/1/94 - 9/30/96

(6)

9/30/96

Figure 6

Cost of Environmental Management EAsTotal Costs Reported for 45 of 75 EAs Completed July 1, 1994 - September 30, 1996*

Albuquerque

Chicago

Idaho

Oak R idge

Ohio

Richland

Rocky Flats

Savannah River

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Operations Office

Median Cost (Thousands of D ollars)

10 EAs

3 EAs

4 EAs

5 EAs

4 EAs

7 EAs

2 EAs

9 EAs

* Oakland Operations Office reported one E A with a total cost of $45,000.

Overal l Median = $139,000


Fold the back of this page over and tape/staple closed.

How are we doing?Evaluation Form

Your name (optional)

Does the format of the Lessons Learned Report help you understand the information? Do you have any suggestionsfor improvements?

Which sections do you consider to be the most helpful? The least helpful?

What should be added to the report to make it more useful?

Please offer any other suggestions on how we may improve the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report.


FROM:

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42Attn: Joanne Arenwald GeroeU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0119

Stamp