National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for llw disposal nepa

  1. Final Design Report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Austad, Stephanie Lee

    2015-09-01

    The RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project was designed by AREVA Federal Services (AFS) and the design process was managed by Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) for the Department of Energy (DOE). The final design report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility Project is a compilation of the documents and deliverables included in the facility final design.

  2. Final Design Report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Austad, S. L.

    2015-05-01

    The RH LLW Disposal Facility (RDF) Project was designed by AREVA Federal Services (AFS) and the design process was managed by Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) for the Department of Energy (DOE). The final design report for the RH LLW Disposal Facility Project is a compilation of the documents and deliverables included in the facility final design.

  3. A process for establishing a financial assurance plan for LLW disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, P.

    1993-04-01

    This document describes a process by which an effective financial assurance program can be developed for new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The report identifies examples of activities that might cause financial losses and the types of losses they might create, discusses mechanisms that could be used to quantify and ensure against the various types of potential losses identified and describes a decision process to formulate a financial assurance program that takes into account the characteristics of both the potential losses and available mechanisms. A sample application of the concepts described in the report is provided.

  4. Assessment of Reusing 14-ton, Thin-Wall, Depleted UF{sub 6} Cylinders as LLW Disposal Containers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Connor, D.G.

    2000-11-30

    Approximately 700,000 MT of DUF{sub 6} is stored, or will be produced under a current agreement with the USEC, at the Paducah site in Kentucky, Portsmouth site in Ohio, and ETTP site in Tennessee. On July 21, 1998, the 105th Congress approved Public Law 105-204 (Ref; 1), which directed that facilities be built at the Kentucky and Ohio sites to convert DUF{sub 6} to a stable form for disposition. On July 6, 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued the ''Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 (Ref. 2), in which DOE committed to develop a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Materials Use Roadmap''. On September 1, 2000, DOE issued the Draft Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Materials Use Roadmap (Ref. 3) (Roadmap), which provides alternate paths for the long-term storage, beneficial use, and eventual disposition of each product form and material that will result from the DUF{sub 6} conversion activity. One of the paths being considered for DUF{sub 6} cylinders is to reuse the empty cylinders as containers to transport and dispose of LLW, including the converted DU. The Roadmap provides results of the many alternate uses and disposal paths for conversion products and the empty DUF{sub 6} storage cylinders. As a part of the Roadmap, evaluations were conducted of cost savings, technical maturity, barriers to implementation, and other impacts. Results of these evaluations indicate that using the DUF{sub 6} storage cylinders as LLW disposal containers could provide moderate cost savings due to the avoided cost of purchasing LLW packages and the avoided cost of disposing of the cylinders. No significant technical or institutional issues were identified that would make using cylinders as LLW packages less effective than other disposition paths. Over 58,000 cylinders have been used, or will be used, to store DUF{sub 6}. Over 51,000 of those cylinders are 14TTW cylinders with a nominal wall thickness of 5/16-m (0.79 cm). These- 14TTW cylinders, which have a nominal diameter of 48 inches and nominally contain 14 tons (12.7 MT) of DUF{sub 6}, were originally designed and fabricated for temporary storage of DUF{sub 6}. They were fabricated from pressure-vessel-grade steels according to the provisions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Ref. 4). Cylinders are stored in open yards at the three sites and, due to historical storage techniques, were subject to corrosion. Roughly 10,000 of the 14TTW cylinders are considered substandard (Ref. 5) due to corrosion and other structural anomalies caused by mishandling. This means that approximately 40,000 14TTW cylinders could be made available as containers for LLW disposal In order to demonstrate the use of 14TTW cylinders as LLW disposal containers, several qualifying tasks need to be performed. Two demonstrations are being considered using 14TTW cylinders--one demonstration using contaminated soil and one demonstration using U{sub 3}O{sub 8}. The objective of this report are to determine how much information is known that could be used to support the demonstrations, and how much additional work will need to be done in order to conduct the demonstrations. Information associated with the following four qualifying tasks are evaluated in this report. (1) Perform a review of structural assessments that have been conducted for 14TTW. (2) Develop a procedure for filling 14TTW cylinders with LLW that have been previously washed. (3) Evaluate the transportation requirements for shipping 14TTW cylinders containing LLW. (4) Evaluate the WAC that will be imposed by the NTS. Two assumptions are made to facilitate this evaluation of using DUF{sub 6} cylinders as LLW disposal containers. (1) Only 14TTW cylinders will be considered for use as LLW containers, and (2) The NTS will be the LLW disposal site.

  5. COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hiergesell, R; Mark Phifer, M; Frank02 Smith, F

    2009-01-08

    Composite Analyses (CA's) are required per DOE Order 435.1 [1], in order to provide a reasonable expectation that DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal, high-level waste tank closure, and transuranic (TRU) waste disposal in combination with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) actions, will not result in the need for future remedial actions in order to ensure radiological protection of the public and environment. This Order requires that an accounting of all sources of DOE man-made radionuclides and DOE enhanced natural radionuclides that are projected to remain on the site after all DOE site operations have ceased. This CA updates the previous CA that was developed in 1997. As part of this CA, an inventory of expected radionuclide residuals was conducted, exposure pathways were screened and a model was developed such that a dose to the MOP at the selected points of exposure might be evaluated.

  6. Integration of US Department of Energy contractor installations for the purpose of optimizing treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lucas, M.; Gnoose, J.; Coony, M.; Martin, E.; Piscitella, R.

    1998-02-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) manages a multibillion dollar environmental management (EM) program. In June 1996, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for EM issued a memorandum with guidance and a vision for a ten year planning process for the EM Program. The purpose of this process, which became known as the Accelerated Cleanup: Focus on 2006, is to make step changes within the DOE complex regarding the approach for making meaningful environmental cleanup progress. To augment the process, Assistant Secretary requested the site contractors to engage in an effort to identify and evaluate integration alternatives for EM waste stream treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) that would parallel the 2006 Plan. In October 1996, ten DOE contractor installations began the task of identifying alternative opportunities for low level radioactive waste (LLW). Cost effective, efficient solutions were necessary to meet all requirements associated with storing, characterizing, treating, packaging, transporting, and disposing of LLW while protecting the workers` health and safety, and minimizing impacts to the environment. To develop these solutions, a systems engineering approach was used to establish the baseline requirements, to develop alternatives, and to evaluate the alternatives. Key assumptions were that unique disposal capabilities exist within the DOE that must be maintained; private sector disposal capability for some LLW may not continue to exist into the foreseeable future; and decisions made by the LLW Team must be made on a system or complex wide basis to fully realize the potential cost and schedule benefits. This integration effort promoted more accurate waste volume estimates and forecasts; enhanced recognition of existing treatment, storage, and disposal capabilities and capacities; and improved identification of cost savings across the complex.

  7. Disposal of LLW and ILW in Germany - Characterisation and Documentation of Waste Packages with Respect to the Change of Requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bandt, G.; Spicher, G.; Steyer, St.; Brennecke, P.

    2008-07-01

    Since the 1998 termination of LLW and ILW emplacement in the Morsleben repository (ERAM), Germany, the treatment, conditioning and documentation of radioactive waste products and packages have been continued on the basis of the waste acceptance requirements as of 1995, prepared for the Konrad repository near Salzgitter in Lower Saxony, Germany. The resulting waste products and packages are stored in interim storage facilities. Due to the Konrad license issued in 2002 the waste acceptance requirements have to be completed by additional requirements imposed by the licensing authority, e. g. for the declaration of chemical waste package constituents. Therefore, documentation of waste products and packages which are checked by independent experts and are in parts approved by the responsible authority (Office for Radiation Protection, BfS) up to now will have to be checked again for fulfilling the final waste acceptance requirements prior to disposal. In order to simplify these additional checks, databases are used to ensure an easy access to all known facts about the waste packages. A short balance of the existing waste products and packages which are already checked and partly approved by BfS as well as an overview on the established databases ensuring a fast access to the known facts about the conditioning processes is presented. (authors)

  8. Some considerations in the evaluation of concrete as a structural material for alternative LLW (low-level radioactive waste) disposal technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MacKenzie, D.R.; Siskind, B.; Bowerman, B.S.; Piciulo, P.L.

    1987-01-01

    The objective of this study was to develop information needed to evaluate the long-term performance of concrete and reinforced concrete as a structural material for alternative LLW disposal methods. The capability to carry out such an evaluation is required for licensing a site which employs one of these alternative methods. The basis for achieving the study objective was the review and analysis of the literature on concrete and its properties, particularly its durability. In carrying out this program characteristics of concrete useful in evaluating its performance and factors that can affect its performance were identified. The factors are both intrinsic, i.e., associated with composition of the concrete (and thus controllable), and extrinsic, i.e., due to external environmental forces such as climatic conditions and aggressive chemicals in the soil. The testing of concrete, using both accelerated tests and long-term non-accelerated tests, is discussed with special reference to its application to modeling of long-term performance prediction. On the basis of the study's results, conditions for acceptance are recommended as an aid in the licensing of disposal sites which make use of alternative methods.

  9. RH-LLW Disposal Facility Project CD-2/3 to Design/Build Proposal Reconciliation Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette L. Schafer

    2012-06-01

    A reconciliation plan was developed and implemented to address potential gaps and responses to gaps between the design/build vendor proposals and the Critical Decision-2/3 approval request package for the Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Project. The plan and results of the plan implementation included development of a reconciliation team comprised of subject matter experts from Battelle Energy Alliance and the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office, identification of reconciliation questions, reconciliation by the team, identification of unresolved/remaining issues, and identification of follow-up actions and subsequent approvals of responses. The plan addressed the potential for gaps to exist in the following areas: • Department of Energy Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” requirements, including the performance assessment, composite analysis, monitoring plan, performance assessment/composite analysis maintenance plan, and closure plan • Environmental assessment supporting the National Environmental Policy Act • Nuclear safety • Safeguards and security • Emplacement operations • Requirements for commissioning • General project implementation. The reconciliation plan and results of the plan implementation are provided in a business-sensitive project file. This report provides the reconciliation plan and non-business sensitive summary responses to identified gaps.

  10. NEPA Documentation

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    a general NEPA briefing provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary in May 2008. Please let ... Briefing for Jeffrey Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary May 2, 2008 Office of NEPA Policy and ...

  11. LLW Forum meeting report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-08-01

    This report summarizes the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) meeting on May 29 through May 31, 1996.The LLW Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  12. About the NEPA Office

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Welcome to the U.S. Department of Energy's NEPA Website. The DOE NEPA Website serves as a focal point for DOE NEPA implementation, and contains information about current DOE NEPA events, an...

  13. OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS:

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    must submit annual NEPA planning summaries that briefly describe the status of ongoing NEPA compliance activities including Environmental Assessments expected to be prepared in...

  14. OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS:

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS: No NEPA reviews are ongoing or planned. SITE-WIDE: Preparation of a site-wide EIS was not considered at this time. The ongoing and planned NEPA reviews are listed in Part 2 below. A site-wide EIS WOULD facilitate future NEPA compliance efforts. A site-wide EIS WOULD NOT facilitate future NEPA compliance efforts. Part 3 DATE: PAGE: of 2016 Annual NEPA Planning Summary NEPA COMPLIANCE OFFICER: Secretarial Officers and Heads of Field Organizations submit annual NEPA planning

  15. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    procedures < details on the DOE NEPA Web site U.S. Department of Energy, Office of ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8. DOE NEPA WEB AND RELATED INFORMATION RESOURCES . . . . . ...

  16. OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS:

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    6 Annual NEPA Planning Summary NEPA COMPLIANCE OFFICER: Secretarial Officers and Heads of Field Organizations submit annual NEPA planning summaries that briefly describe the status of ongoing NEPA compliance activities including Environmental Assessments expected to be prepared in the next 12 months, Environmental Impact Statements expected to be prepared in the next 24 months, the planned cost and schedule for each NEPA review, and every 3 years each Field Organization must include an

  17. NEPA Litigation Surveys

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CEQ publishes surveys on NEPA litigation on an annual basis. These surveys identify the number of cases involving a NEPA based cause of action, Federal agencies that were identified as a lead...

  18. Federal Agency NEPA Procedures

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Each Federal agency is required to develop NEPA procedures that supplement the CEQ Regulations. Developed in consultation with CEQ, Federal agency NEPA procedures must meet the standards in the CEQ...

  19. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    CONTRACTING REFORM GUIDANCE U.S. Department of Energy Environment, Safety and Health Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance December 1996 printed on recycled paper NEPA CONTRACTING REFORM GUIDANCE Overview To reduce the cost and time of the NEPA process, it is critical to do it right the first time. An effective NEPA Contracting Strategy includes: < defining early what contractors should accomplish < establishing contracts ahead of time < minimizing cost while maintaining quality by *

  20. Category:NEPA Properties | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Decision Property:NEPA Decision Url Property:NEPA DecisionDocumentDate Property:NEPA DNA Worksheet Property:NEPA Document Property:NEPA EA EIS Report Property:NEPA EA EIS...

  1. Category:NEPA Doc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA Doc Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home Category: NEPA Documents Collections Add.png Add a new NEPA Document Collection Pages in category "NEPA Doc"...

  2. NEPA Litigation Surveys | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Litigation Surveys NEPA Litigation Surveys CEQ publishes surveys on NEPA litigation on an annual basis. These surveys identify the number of cases involving a NEPA based cause...

  3. The NEPA reference guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swartz, L.L.; Reinke, D.C.

    1999-10-01

    The NEPA Reference Guide conveniently organizes and indexes National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and guidance, along with relevant federal case law, all in one place. It allows the user to quickly learn the statutory, regulatory, and case law authority for a large number of NEPA subjects. A unique feature of The NEPA Reference Guide is its detailed index that includes a large number of diverse NEPA subjects. The index enables users to find and compile any statutory, regulatory (including CEQ guidance), and case law original source material and references on virtually any NEPA subject. This will be an especially useful tool for new NEPA practitioners who need to become immersed in a particular subject quickly.

  4. NEPA Updates | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Updates NEPA Updates Subscribe to DOE NEPA - Latest Documents and Notices Subscribe to DOE NEPA News The Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance maintains two notification services which provide you with updates for both: DOE NEPA News - which includes general announcements, and DOE NEPA - Latest Documents and Notices - which includes new project documents and notices posted on this website. You can subscribe to either or both of these services by clicking on panels or links above.

  5. Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA (CEQ,

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    2005) | Department of Energy Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA (CEQ, 2005) Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA (CEQ, 2005) This Council on Environmental Quality memorandum provides: General information on the response to hurricane Katrina Reporting oil and chemical spills Projected long term recovery efforts How agencies can respond to emergencies and comply with NEPA PDF icon Emergency Actions and NEPA PDF icon Alternative Arrangements approved

  6. OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    of whether a site-wide EIS would facilitate future NEPA compliance efforts. Part 1 PART 2 TYPE: STATUS: COST: NOIEAD: DRAFT: FINAL: DOCUMENT NUMBER & TITLE DATE DESCRIPTION ...

  7. Federal NEPA Contacts

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CEQ and most Federal agencies identify primary points of contact for NEPA compliance. Normally a senior environmental professional, environmental law attorney, or member of agency leadership, these...

  8. Development Of Strategy For The Management Of LLW In The United Kingdom

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wareing, A.S.; Fisher, J.

    2008-07-01

    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is a UK non-departmental public body with a remit to clean up the civil public sector nuclear legacy. Much work has been done to date on developing contractor competition for the management of NDA-owned sites, including the UK's principal disposal facility: the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) in Cumbria. The competition goals and principles are integrated with the framework for the development of a UK Low Level Waste (LLW) management plan, through which the NDA will deliver its commitments to UK Government and stakeholders. Nexia Solutions has undertaken work for the NDA in assessing strategic options and scenarios for the management and disposal of current UK LLW. The volumetric, radiological and strategic limitations of existing disposition routes have been assessed against the inventories and characteristics of LLW forecast to arise. A number of potential alternative scenarios and variants for future LLW management have been modelled and assessed. (authors)

  9. NEPA History | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    June 14, 2012 Federal Register Notices for DOE NEPA Guidelines and Regulations Historical compilation of Federal Register notices for DOE NEPA guidelines and regulations. December ...

  10. OpenEI Community - NEPA

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geothermal NEPA Workshop at GRC http:en.openei.orgcommunitybloggeothermal-nepa-workshop-grc

    On Tuesday, October 2, the Geothermal Technology Office and the National...

  11. The DOE NEPA process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Van Ooteghem, S.A.

    1993-09-01

    A brief overview indicating the types Of NEPA documents that are produced by the Department of Energy (DOE) in compliance with NEPA is shown in the figure. This figure indicates that the level of NEPA documentation required for any given project is graded and dependent on that project`s size, complexity, and potential consequences to health and the human environment. More complex projects with potentially greater environmental impacts require a much more in-depth analysis to ensure that these potential consequences can be managed and/or mitigated, so that the proposed project can proceed in compliance with NEPA. It is important to keep in mind the following points when conducting any project that involves Federal land, Federal monies, or Federal permits: Under these conditions (involvement of Federal lands, use of Federal monies, or requirement for Federal permits), some level of NEPA analysis and documentation is required. The NEPA process must be completed and a decision favorable to the proposed project must be supported by the NEPA analysis before that proposed project can fully expend Federal funds. Activities that cannot proceed until the NEPA analysis and decision-making process is completed are those that: Result in an adverse environmental impact and/or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.

  12. Federal Agency NEPA Procedures | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Federal Agency NEPA Procedures Federal Agency NEPA Procedures Each Federal agency is required to develop NEPA procedures that supplement the CEQ Regulations. Developed in...

  13. GC NEPA Listserv | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    NEPA Updates The Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance maintains two Listserv lists to provide a central notification system for (1) DOE NEPA news, including announcements, notices,...

  14. LLW Forum meeting report, May 7--9, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-12-31

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum met in Chicago, Illinois, on may 7--9, 1997. Twenty-three Forum Participants, Alternate Forum Participants, and meeting designees representing 20 compacts and states participated. A report on the meeting is given under the following subtitles: New developments in states and compacts; Upgrading an existing disposal facility; Revisions to DOE Order 5820 re DOE waste management; Conference of radiation control program directors: Recent and upcoming activities; National Conference of State Legislatures` (NCSL) low-level radioactive waste working group: Recent and upcoming activities; Executive session; LLW forum business session; Public involvement and risk communication: Success at West Valley, New York; DOE low-level waste management program; impact of the International Atomic Energy Agency`s convention on waste; Panel discussion: The environmental justice concept--Past, present and future; New technologies for processing and disposal of LLRW; High-level and low-level radioactive waste: A dialogue on parallels and intersections; Draft agreement re uniform application of manifesting procedures; Regulatory issues focus; LLW forum October 1997 agenda planning; Resolutions; LLW forum regulatory issues discussion group meets; and Attendance.

  15. NEPA Lessons Learned Questionnaire

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A questionnaire to help aid the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance in meeting its responsibility to foster continuing improvement of the Department of Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process.

  16. The DOE NEPA process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Van Ooteghem, S.A.

    1993-06-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) declares that Federal agencies shall have a general commitment to {open_quotes}use all practicable means{close_quotes} to conduct their activities in a way that will promote {open_quotes}the general welfare where man and nature can exist in productive harmony.{close_quotes} Within these general guidelines, the manner in which NEPA requirements are implemented may be somewhat different and unique from one Federal agency to the next. A brief overview indicating the types of NEPA documents that are produced by the Department of Energy (DOE) in compliance with NEPA is shown in the figure. This figure indicates that the level of NEPA documentation required for any given project is graded and dependent on that project`s size, complexity, and potential consequences to health and the human environment. More complex projects with potentially greater environmental impacts require a much more in-depth analysis to ensure that these potential consequences can be managed and/or mitigated, so that the proposed project can proceed in compliance with NEPA.

  17. NEPA Reading Room | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    NEPA Reading Room Welcome to the National Nuclear Security Administration's NEPA Reading Room. This site serves as a focal point for NNSA NEPA implementation and contains information about past and current NNSA NEPA actions as well as other resources for NEPA practitioners and members of the public. Welcome to the National Nuclear Security Administration's NEPA Reading Room. This site serves as a focal point for NNSA NEPA implementation and contains information about past and current NNSA NEPA

  18. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2010-10-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability.

  19. Tribal Energy NEPA Fundamentals Workshop

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hosted by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this two-day workshop is for tribes involved in energy and natural resource development to understand how to manage the NEPA process,...

  20. Tribal Energy NEPA Fundamentals Workshop

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Tribal Energy NEPA Fundamentals Workshop is a three-day workshop for tribes to understand how to manage the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and implement the Council on...

  1. NEPA Documents | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Services » NEPA Documents NEPA Documents To see a list of available NEPA documents by type and sorted by publication date, click on the links below. Documents listed in this section are available to members of the public. To see documents not electronically available to the public see the Secure NEPA Documents page for more information. Categorical Exclusion (CX) Determinations Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that DOE has determined, by regulation, do not individually or

  2. Waste simulant development for evaluation of LLW melter system technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shade, J.W.

    1994-05-25

    This document describes the LLW simulant compositions, basis for the simulants, and recipes for preparing nonradioactive simulants for LLW melter tests.

  3. Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners ...

  4. Sandia Field Office NEPA Documents and Categorical Exclusion...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Office of General Counsel National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA Reading Room Sandia Field Office NEPA Documents and Categorical ... Sandia Field Office NEPA...

  5. Preliminary low-level waste feed definition guidance - LLW pretreatment interface

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shade, J.W.; Connor, J.M.; Hendrickson, D.W.; Powell, W.J.; Watrous, R.A.

    1995-02-01

    The document describes limits for key constituents in the LLW feed, and the bases for these limits. The potential variability in the stream is then estimated and compared to the limits. Approaches for accomodating uncertainty in feed inventory, processing strategies, and process design (melter and disposal system) are discussed. Finally, regulatory constraints are briefly addressed.

  6. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Contracting Reform Guidance NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance This documents provides guidance on NEPA contracting strategy, including: defining the work of the contractor; establishing contracts ahead of time; minimizing cost while maintaining quality. Guidance also provides: model statements of work, direction on NEPA contract management by NEPA Document Manager; a system for measuring NEPA costs and for evaluating contractor procedures; details on the DOE NEPA website. PDF icon NEPA

  7. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Colsant, J.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-03-01

    Contents include articles entitled: California DHS sues US Interior Department to compel land transfer; LLW Forum holds winter meeting; LLW Forum waste information working group meets; LLW Forum regulatory issues discussion group meets; Envirocare investigation transferred to feds; Host state TCC meets in Laughlin, Nevada; BLM to require new permit for California site testing; Federal agencies and committees; Pena sworn in as Energy Secretary, Grumbly departs DOE; U.S. Supreme Court tackles property rights issues; GAO to study DOI`s actions; Congress scrutinizes FY `98 budget requests; and Senate committee passes high-level waste bill: Clinton threatens to veto.

  8. NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS FY 2016 - QUARTER TWO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    TWO DISPOSAL VOLUME REPORT DOE/NV/25946--2779 FY16 - Quarter 2 FY16 Cumulative FY16 - Quarter 2 FY16 Cumulative DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS (MD) LLW 0 1,122 LLW 604 776 LLW 7,328 8,138 CNR 2,560 2,560 MIXED 6,344 12,791 CNRH 328 328 ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB (IL) LLW 1,063 1,063 NAVARRO (NV) LLW 224 224 BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE (ID) LLW 8,465 8,465 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES (TN)

  9. LLW notes. Volume 11, No.8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-01

    `LLW Notes` is distributed by Afton Associates, Inc. to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state, and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive `LLW Notes`. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  10. LLW notes, Vol. 11, No. 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-03-01

    `LLW Notes` is distributed by Afton Associates, Inc. to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state, and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  11. NEPA Determination Form

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    LA NEPA COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION FORM PRID - 09P-0059 V2 Page 1 of 8 Project/Activity Title: TA-3 Substation Replacement Project PRID: 09P-0059 V2 Date: February 16, 2016 Purpose: The proposed demolition and replacement of the Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) Technical Area (TA)-3 electrical power substation is needed to provide reliable and efficient electrical distribution systems with sufficient electrical capacity to support the national security missions. The electrical distribution

  12. NEPA - Environmental Assessments - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Assessments Documents Documents Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework Tri-Party Agreement Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Hanford Site Budget Hanford Site Safety Standards DOE - ORP Contracts/Procurements DOE - RL Contracts/Procurements Integrated Waste Feed Delivery Plan Single-Shell Tank Evaluations Deep Vadose Zone 100-F RI/FS Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Environmental CERCLA Five-Year Review NEPA - Categorical Exclusions NEPA - Environmental Assessments NEPA -

  13. Property:NEPA FONSI | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    FONSI Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA FONSI Property Type Page Description FONSI files for NEPA Docs This is a property of type Page. Pages using the property "NEPA...

  14. Form:NEPA Doc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA Doc Jump to: navigation, search Input the name of a NEPA Document below. If the document already exists, you will be able to edit its information. AddEdit a NEPA Document...

  15. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality to assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed.

  16. Greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste characterization. Appendix E-2: Mixed GTCC LLW assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirner, N.P. [Ebasco Environmental, Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    1994-09-01

    Mixed greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (mixed GTCC LLW) is waste that combines two characteristics: it is radioactive, and it is hazardous. This report uses information compiled from Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Characterization: Estimated Volumes, Radionuclide Activities, and Other Characteristics (DOE/LLW 1 14, Revision 1), and applies it to the question of how much and what types of mixed GTCC LLW are generated and are likely to require disposal in facilities jointly regulated by the DOE and the NRC. The report describes how to classify a RCRA hazardous waste, and then applies that classification process to the 41 GTCC LLW waste types identified in the DOE/LLW-114 (Revision 1). Of the 41 GTCC LLW categories identified, only six were identified in this study as potentially requiring regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA. These wastes can be combined into the following three groups: fuel-in decontamination resins, organic liquids, and process waste consisting of lead scrap/shielding from a sealed source manufacturer. For the base case, no mixed GTCC LLW is expected from nuclear utilities or sealed source licensees, whereas only 177 ml of mixed GTCC LLW are expected to be produced by other generators through the year 2035. This relatively small volume represents approximately 40% of the base case estimate for GTCC wastes from other generators. For these other generators, volume estimates for mixed GTCC LLW ranged from less than 1 m{sup 3} to 187 m{sup 3}, depending on assumptions and treatments applied to the wastes.

  17. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (December 1996)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This guidance provides: model statements of work, information on contract types and incentives, direction on effective NEPA contract management by the NEPA Document Manager, a system for measuring...

  18. Property:NEPA Decision | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Decision Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Decision Property Type Page Description Files documenting decisions on NEPA Docs This is a property of type Page. Pages...

  19. Property:NEPA Application | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Application Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Application Property Type Page Description NEPA application files. All NOIs. Drilling permits are also appropriate. This...

  20. Federal NEPA Contacts | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Federal NEPA Contacts CEQ and most Federal agencies identify primary points of contact for NEPA compliance. Normally a senior environmental professional, environmental law...

  1. Property:NEPA Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Url Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Url Property Type URL Description URLs to any other relevant information associated with NEPA Docs that are not appropriate to...

  2. Property:NEPA Document | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Document Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Document Property Type Page Description Any other relevant files associated with NEPA Docs that are not appropriate to...

  3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    All Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) projects are reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 – 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq. The Department of Energy regulations that implement NEPA require OE to determine whether a proposal requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an Environmental Assessment (EA), or a Categorical Exclusion (CX).

  4. Low-level radioactive waste disposal technologies used outside the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Templeton, K.J.; Mitchell, S.J.; Molton, P.M.; Leigh, I.W.

    1994-01-01

    Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal technologies are an integral part of the waste management process. In the United States, commercial LLW disposal is the responsibility of the State or groups of States (compact regions). The United States defines LLW as all radioactive waste that is not classified as spent nuclear fuel, high- level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, or by-product material as defined in Section II(e)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act. LLW may contain some long-lived components in very low concentrations. Countries outside the United States, however, may define LLW differently and may use different disposal technologies. This paper outlines the LLW disposal technologies that are planned or being used in Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (UK).

  5. Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) management at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Becker, B.D.; Gertz, C.P.; Clayton, W.A.; Crowe, B.M.

    1998-12-31

    In 1978, the Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV), established a managed LLW disposal project at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Two, sites which were already accepting limited amounts of on-site generated waste for disposal and off-site generated Transuranic Waste for interim storage, were selected to house the disposal facilities. In those early days, these sites, located about 15 miles apart, afforded the DOE/NV the opportunity to use at least two technologies to manage its waste cost effectively. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) uses engineered shallow-land burial cells to dispose packaged waste while the Area 3 RWMS uses subsidence craters formed from underground testing of nuclear weapons for the disposal of packaged and unpackaged bulk waste. The paper describes the technical attributes of both Area 5 and Area 3 facilities, the acceptance process, the disposal processes, and present and future capacities of both sites.

  6. Comparison of low-level waste disposal programs of DOE and selected international countries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meagher, B.G. [Lockheed Idaho Technologies Co., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Cole, L.T. [Cole and Associates (United States)

    1996-06-01

    The purpose of this report is to examine and compare the approaches and practices of selected countries for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) with those of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The report addresses the programs for disposing of wastes into engineered LLW disposal facilities and is not intended to address in-situ options and practices associated with environmental restoration activities or the management of mill tailings and mixed LLW. The countries chosen for comparison are France, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The countries were selected as typical examples of the LLW programs which have evolved under differing technical constraints, regulatory requirements, and political/social systems. France was the first country to demonstrate use of engineered structure-type disposal facilities. The UK has been actively disposing of LLW since 1959. Sweden has been disposing of LLW since 1983 in an intermediate-depth disposal facility rather than a near-surface disposal facility. To date, Canada has been storing its LLW but will soon begin operation of Canada`s first demonstration LLW disposal facility.

  7. Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Council on Environmental Quality memorandum provides general information on (1) the response to hurricane Katrina; (2) reporting oil and chemical spills; (3) projected long term recovery efforts; and (4) how agencies can respond to emergencies and comply with NEPA.

  8. NEPA and Other Laws | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    and Other Laws NEPA and Other Laws Selected documents providing guidance on the relationship between NEPA and other laws. August 7, 2014 CEQ 's Response to a Petition for Rulemaking and Issuance of Guidance to Require Inclusion of Climate Change Analyses in NEPA Documents The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) denied a petition requesting that CEQ (1) amend its NEPA regulations to require Federal agencies to address greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change effects in their NEPA documents,

  9. NREL Programmatic NEPA Determinations | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Programmatic NEPA Determinations NREL Programmatic NEPA Determinations The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has developed five Programmatic NEPA Determinations (PND) to address routine activities and ongoing research conducted at National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) facilities. These determinations were conducted as part of a joint DOE and NREL NEPA Enhancement Project that was developed to help streamline the NEPA process for activities

  10. Disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste during 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-08-01

    Isotopic inventories and other data are presented for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed LLW disposed (and occasionally stored) during calendar year 1990 at commercial disposal facilities and Department of Energy (DOE) sites. Detailed isotopic information is presented for the three commercial disposal facilities located near Barnwell, SC, Richland, WA, and Beatty, NV. Less information is presented for the Envirocare disposal facility located near Clive, UT, and for LLW stored during 1990 at the West Valley site. DOE disposal information is included for the Savannah River Site (including the saltstone facility), Nevada Test Site, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Hanford Site, Y-12 Site, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Summary information is presented about stored DOE LLW. Suggestions are made about improving LLW disposal data.

  11. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-06-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  12. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Austad, S. L.; Guillen, L. E.; McKnight, C. W.; Ferguson, D. S.

    2015-04-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  13. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2014-06-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  14. Commercial disposal options for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory low-level radioactive waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Porter, C.L.; Widmayer, D.A.

    1995-09-01

    The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) is a Department of Energy (DOE)-owned, contractor-operated site. Significant quantities of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) have been generated and disposed of onsite at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). The INEL expects to continue generating LLW while performing its mission and as aging facilities are decommissioned. An on-going Performance Assessment process for the RWMC underscores the potential for reduced or limited LLW disposal capacity at the existing onsite facility. In order to properly manage the anticipated amount of LLW, the INEL is investigating various disposal options. These options include building a new facility, disposing the LLW at other DOE sites, using commercial disposal facilities, or seeking a combination of options. This evaluation reports on the feasibility of using commercial disposal facilities.

  15. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-04-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  16. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-04-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  17. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-01-01

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  18. MEMORANDUM FOR NEPA FILE FROM: MARK LUSK NEPA DOCUMENT MANAGER

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    February 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM FOR NEPA FILE FROM: MARK LUSK NEPA DOCUMENT MANAGER SUBJECT: Supplement Analysis for the Saft America, Inc. Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative Application, Jacksonville, Florida (DOE/EA-1711) UNew InformationU : Proposed Minor Change to Saft America, Inc. Proposed Project U LocationU : Saft America, Inc. Plant at the Cecil Commerce Center, near Jacksonville, Florida, in Duval County UProposed ByU : Saft America, Inc. 1. U

  19. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106 (CEQ and ACHP, 2013) NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106 (CEQ and ACHP, 2013) In this document, the ...

  20. Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ...

  1. Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template | Department of...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Planning Summary Report Template Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template Adobe Acrobat templates and User's Guide for preparing and submitting an Annual NEPA...

  2. NEPA Success Stories and Benefits | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Success Stories and Benefits NEPA Success Stories and Benefits September 16, 2013 Examples of Benefits from the NEPA process for ARRA funded activities Efforts to implement ...

  3. Federal Register Notices for DOE NEPA Guidelines and Regulations...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Notices for DOE NEPA Guidelines and Regulations Federal Register Notices for DOE NEPA Guidelines and Regulations Historical compilation of Federal Register notices for DOE NEPA...

  4. DOE-NEPA-Document-CertificationandTransmittalFormAugust2012.pdf

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    NEPA Policy and Compliance August 2012 DOE NEPA Document Certification and Transmittal Form 1. NEPA Document :(e.g., DOEEIS-XXX, DOEEA-XXXX)...

  5. LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2015 | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2015 More Documents & Publications 2015 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template 2013 Annual Planning Summary for...

  6. NEPA, monitoring, and adaptive management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carpenter, R.A.

    1995-12-01

    Getting concerns about the environment on the decision making table before Federal actions are taken is the recognized business of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but keeping them there is just as important. Human interventions into natural systems seldom proceed as originally planned. Scientific uncertainties prevent environmental impacts from being reliably or precisely predicted. Thus, the style of management must provide for monitoring to guide mid-course corrections adapting to inevitable surprises. the one time, pre-approval EA/EIS procedure remains essential but is not sufficient to assure the goal of NEPA {open_quotes}to...maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony...{close_quotes} (NEPA, 1969). This paper explores the extent to which NEPA encourages continuous assessment for timely feedback to managers, and the practical difficulties involved in doing so.

  7. NEPA Documentation | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    of a general NEPA briefing provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary in May 2008. Please let me know if you have any further questions (carol.borgstrom @hq.doe.gov; 202-586-4600). ...

  8. NEPA - Categorical Exclusions - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Documents Environmental NEPA - Categorical Exclusions Documents Documents Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework Tri-Party Agreement Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Hanford Site Budget Hanford Site Safety Standards DOE - ORP Contracts/Procurements DOE - RL Contracts/Procurements Integrated Waste Feed Delivery Plan Single-Shell Tank Evaluations Deep Vadose Zone 100-F RI/FS Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Environmental CERCLA Five-Year Review NEPA - Categorical Exclusions

  9. NEPA Implementation | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Implementation NEPA Implementation Selected documents providing guidance on the implementation of NEPA. September 7, 2012 OMB and CEQ Joint Memorandum on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (CEQ, 2012) This Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) joint memorandum expands and builds on the November 28, 2005, Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) Memorandum, directing departments and agencies to increase the appropriate and effective use

  10. NEPA Policy | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Policy NEPA Policy Selected documents on the topic of NEPA policy. September 7, 2012 OMB and CEQ Joint Memorandum on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (CEQ, 2012) This Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) joint memorandum expands and builds on the November 28, 2005, Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) Memorandum, directing departments and agencies to increase the appropriate and effective use of third-party assisted environmental

  11. NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS FY 2016 - QUARTER ONE

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ONE DISPOSAL VOLUME REPORT DOE/NV/25946--2729 FY16 - Quarter 1 FY16 Cumulative FY16 - Quarter 1 FY16 Cumulative DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS (MD) LLW 1,122 1,122 NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES (NV) LLW 173 173 LLW 810 810 MIXED 6,447 6,447 CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC / Y-12 (TN) LLW 23,066 23,066 OAK RIDGE RESERVATION / UCOR (TN) LLW 12,681 12,681 DURATEK / ENERGY

  12. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations and Links DOE NEPA Website NEPA Compliance Program (DOE O 451.1B) Council on Environmental Quality Citizen's Guide to the NEPA ...

  13. LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2016 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    6 LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2016 LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2016 PDF icon LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2016 More Documents & Publications LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2015

  14. Biodiversity conservation and NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Southerland, M.T. )

    1993-01-01

    The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recently developed new guidelines to facilitate the consideration of biodiversity in the preparation and review of environmental impact assessments. The purpose of these efforts is to facilitate the incorporation of biodiversity considerations into the ecological analyses of all federal agencies. Because federal decisions requiring environmental impact assessments under NEPA affect hundreds of millions of federal and non-federal lands and waters, improved consideration of the impacts of federal activities is essential to stemming the loss of biological diversity in the United States. The designation of ecosystems or habitats'' of concern is a useful first step identifying risks to biodiversity. After reviewing the status and trends of habitats within eight major regions of the US, the EPA guidelines identify habitats contributing to regional and global biodiversity such as remnant prairies, riparian habitats, and old-growth forests. This document also discusses how the impacts on habitats vary with the different activities of land conversion, timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and water management.

  15. 2015 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    5 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries 2015 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries The ongoing and projected Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements for various US Department of Energy offices. PDF icon 2015 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries More Documents & Publications LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2015 LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2016 Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template (DOE, 2015)

  16. DOE-wide NEPA Contracting Update

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A DOE team is evaluating the offers received in response to a Request for Quotations to provide NEPA support services. The scope of the solicitation is similar to that of the DOE-wide NEPA support...

  17. Designating and Supporting NEPA Document Managers

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize the important role that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Managers play in the success of the DOE's NEPA compliance program and to help maximize their effectiveness.

  18. NEPA Database | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA Database Home > Blogs > Kyoung's blog Kyoung's picture Submitted by Kyoung(150) Contributor 25 February, 2013 - 10:19 data NEPA quarterly meeting We are in the process of...

  19. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-02-01

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  20. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-05-01

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  1. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-10-01

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  2. Property:NEPA Extraordinary | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Extraordinary Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Extraordinary Property Type Page Description Files documenting extraordinary circumstances checklist or documentation...

  3. NEPA Terminology | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    NEPA Terminology A brief overview of some commonly used terms associated with the NEPA process A brief overview of some commonly used terms associated with the NEPA process Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) - The detailed written statement that is required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA for a proposed major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. ROD means a Record of Decision as described at 40 CFR 1505.2. Environmental Assessment (EA) - A concise public

  4. DOE NEPA Compliance Officers | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Compliance Officers DOE NEPA Compliance Officers NEPA Compliance Officers are listed by program office. Field offices are listed under their primary program office. PDF icon NCO_Directory_2016-03-24.pdf More Documents & Publications DOE Employee Concerns Program Contact List Privacy Act Officers Contact List Points of Contact for FEOSH Program at Field Sites

  5. NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS FY 2015 - QUARTER FOUR

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    QUARTER FOUR DISPOSAL VOLUME REPORT FY15 - Quarter 4 FY15 Cumulative FY15 - Quarter 4 FY15 Cumulative DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume DOE APPROVED Waste Volume Volume GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) GENERATORS Type (Ft 3 ) (Ft 3 ) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS (MD)LLW 4,926 7,642 LLW 111 1,491 LLW 6,430 27,485 MIXED 19 347 MIXED 16,197 76,337 CNR 1,383 2,870 ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB (IL) LLW 0 3,346 CNRH 493 821 LLW 14,761 27,732 NAVARRO LLW 16 7,837 CNR 1,271 3,814 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB (NY) LLW

  6. Collaboration in NEPA: A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (2007)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this handbook by the Council on Environmental Quality is to assist federal agencies to expand the effective use of collaboration as part of the NEPA process. It introduces the concept of collaboration, outlines general principles, presents useful steps, and provides information on methods of collaboration.

  7. Collaboration in NEPA: A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (CEQ, 2007)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this handbook by the Council on Environmental Quality is to assist federal agencies to expand the effective use of collaboration as part of the NEPA process. It introduces the concept of collaboration, outlines general principles, presents useful steps, and provides information on methods of collaboration.

  8. Project Execution Plan for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Danny Anderson

    2014-07-01

    As part of ongoing cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) is proceeding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq. 1980). INL-generated radioactive waste has been disposed of at RWMC since 1952. The Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) at RWMC accepted the bulk of INL’s contact and remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) for disposal. Disposal of contact-handled LLW and remote-handled LLW ion-exchange resins from the Advanced Test Reactor in the open pit of the SDA ceased September 30, 2008. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at RWMC will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the SDA (approximately at the end of fiscal year FY 2017). The continuing nuclear mission of INL, associated ongoing and planned operations, and Naval spent fuel activities at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) require continued capability to appropriately dispose of contact and remote handled LLW. A programmatic analysis of disposal alternatives for contact and remote-handled LLW generated at INL was conducted by the INL contractor in Fiscal Year 2006; subsequent evaluations were completed in Fiscal Year 2007. The result of these analyses was a recommendation to the Department of Energy (DOE) that all contact-handled LLW generated after September 30, 2008, be disposed offsite, and that DOE proceed with a capital project to establish replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability. An analysis of the alternatives for providing replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability has been performed to support Critical Decision-1. The highest ranked alternative to provide this required capability has been determined to be the development of a new onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility to replace the existing remote-handled LLW disposal vaults at the SDA. Several offsite DOE and commercial disposal options exist for contact-handled LLW; however, offsite disposal options are either not currently available (i.e., commercial disposal facilities), practical, or cost-effective for all remote-handled LLW streams generated at INL. Offsite disposal of all INL and tenant-generated remote-handled waste is further complicated by issues associated with transporting highly radioactive waste in commerce; and infrastructure and processing changes at the generating facilities, specifically NRF, that would be required to support offsite disposal. The INL Remote-Handled LLW Disposal Project will develop a new remote handled LLW disposal facility to meet mission-critical, remote-handled LLW disposal needs. A formal DOE decision to proceed with the project has been made in accordance with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC§ 4321 et seq.). Remote-handled LLW is generated from nuclear programs conducted at INL, including spent nuclear fuel handling and operations at NRF and operations at the Advanced Test Reactor. Remote-handled LLW also will be generated by new INL programs and from segregation and treatment (as necessary) of remote handled scrap and waste currently stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility at the Materials and Fuels Complex.

  9. LLW Notes: Volume 10, Number 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-04-01

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  10. Future challenges of NEPA: A panel discussion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, E.D.

    1989-01-01

    One portion of a plenary session during the conference was a forum on The Future Challenges of NEPA.'' The session was a panel discussion. Each of the panelists was to spent 10 to 15 minutes talking about their observations on how NEPA is operating, some of the trends they observed, and how they thought NEPA might change in the future. Topics discussed in this forum included Congressional proposals to amend NEPA; possible changes at the CEQ; post-decision monitoring, mitigation, and follow-up studies; applicability of NEPA to international actions of the US government; assessment of global change impacts; and the relationship between NEPA and state little NEPA'' laws. The individual presentations and the subsequent discussion are described in this paper. 5 refs.

  11. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (DOE, 1996) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Contracting Reform Guidance (DOE, 1996) NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (DOE, 1996) This guidance provides: model statements of work, information on contract types and incentives, direction on effective NEPA contract management by the NEPA Document Manager, a system for measuring NEPA process costs, NEPA contractor evaluation procedures, and details on the DOE NEPA Web site. The statement of work here is superseded by that of the DOE-wide Contracts. PDF icon NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance

  12. Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts to Support the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette Schafer; Arthur S. Rood; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2011-12-01

    The groundwater impacts have been analyzed for the proposed RH-LLW disposal facility. A four-step analysis approach was documented and applied. This assessment compared the predicted groundwater ingestion dose to the more restrictive of either the 25 mrem/yr all pathway dose performance objective, or the maximum contaminant limit performance objective. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives. The analysis was prepared to support the NEPA-EA for the top two ranking of the proposed RH-LLW sites. As such, site-specific conditions were incorporated for each set of results generated. These site-specific conditions were included to account for the transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone and through the aquifer at each site. Site-specific parameters included the thickness of vadose zone sediments and basalts, moisture characteristics of the sediments, and aquifer velocity. Sorption parameters (Kd) were assumed to be very conservative values used in Track II analysis of CERCLA sites at INL. Infiltration was also conservatively assumed to represent higher rates corresponding to disturbed soil conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives.

  13. Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts to Support the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette Schafer; Arthur S. Rood; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2010-08-01

    The groundwater impacts have been analyzed for the proposed RH-LLW disposal facility. A four-step analysis approach was documented and applied. This assessment compared the predicted groundwater ingestion dose to the more restrictive of either the 25 mrem/yr all pathway dose performance objective, or the maximum contaminant limit performance objective. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives. The analysis was prepared to support the NEPA-EA for the top two ranking of the proposed RH-LLW sites. As such, site-specific conditions were incorporated for each set of results generated. These site-specific conditions were included to account for the transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone and through the aquifer at each site. Site-specific parameters included the thickness of vadose zone sediments and basalts, moisture characteristics of the sediments, and aquifer velocity. Sorption parameters (Kd) were assumed to be very conservative values used in Track II analysis of CERCLA sites at INL. Infiltration was also conservatively assumed to represent higher rates corresponding to disturbed soil conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives.

  14. Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts to Support the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette Schafer; Arthur S. Rood; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2011-08-01

    The groundwater impacts have been analyzed for the proposed RH-LLW disposal facility. A four-step analysis approach was documented and applied. This assessment compared the predicted groundwater ingestion dose to the more restrictive of either the 25 mrem/yr all pathway dose performance objective, or the maximum contaminant limit performance objective. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives. The analysis was prepared to support the NEPA-EA for the top two ranking of the proposed RH-LLW sites. As such, site-specific conditions were incorporated for each set of results generated. These site-specific conditions were included to account for the transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone and through the aquifer at each site. Site-specific parameters included the thickness of vadose zone sediments and basalts, moisture characteristics of the sediments, and aquifer velocity. Sorption parameters (Kd) were assumed to be very conservative values used in Track II analysis of CERCLA sites at INL. Infiltration was also conservatively assumed to represent higher rates corresponding to disturbed soil conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives.

  15. LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 PDF icon LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 More Documents & Publications 2013 Annual Planning Summary for the Office of Fossil Energy 2011 ANNUAL PLANNING SUMMARY FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH AND PROJECTS AGENCY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 20

  16. Summary - Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) at Idaho National Laboratory

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    INL, Idaho EM Project: Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility ETR Report Date: December 2007 ETR-10 United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) External Technical Review of Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) At Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Why DOE-EM Did This Review The Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) is a land disposal facility that is used to dispose of LLW and MLW generated from remedial activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Components of

  17. NEPA effectiveness -- a survey of academics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Canter, L.; Clark, R.

    1997-09-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) went into effect in the United States on January 1, 1970, just over 25 years ago. In light of this milestone, a survey of academics on the effectiveness of NEPA has been conducted regarding the preparation of environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental impact statements (EISs). This paper summarizes the results of a survey of 31 academics in 12 disciplines from 21 states. Several strengths of NEPA were identified, most importantly that NEPA encourages agencies and decision makers: (1) to acknowledge potential environmental consequences to the public, thus opening up the decision process; and (2) to think about environmental consequences before resources are committed. Surveyed participants also prioritized needs for improvement. While this survey was focused on the NEPA process in the United States, the identified issues have implications for the worldwide practice of environmental impact assessment. Finally, recommendations are described that are primarily associated with guidance, possible modifications in the NEPA process and follow-on training.

  18. NEPA - Environmental Impact Statements - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Statements Documents Documents Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework Tri-Party Agreement Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Hanford Site Budget Hanford Site Safety Standards DOE - ORP Contracts/Procurements DOE - RL Contracts/Procurements Integrated Waste Feed Delivery Plan Single-Shell Tank Evaluations Deep Vadose Zone 100-F RI/FS Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Environmental CERCLA Five-Year Review NEPA - Categorical Exclusions NEPA - Environmental Assessments NEPA -

  19. DOE NEPA Rulemaking | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DOE NEPA Rulemaking DOE NEPA Rulemaking Revisions to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regulations regarding implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) became effective on November 14, 2011. DOE has established 20 new categorical exclusions, most of which include criteria (e.g., acreage, location, and height limitations) that limit the covered actions. These categorical exclusions address actions such as stormwater runoff control, alternative fuel vehicle fueling stations and

  20. All NEPA Guidance | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Guidance » All NEPA Guidance All NEPA Guidance Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Final Guidance on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews Under the National Environmental Policy Act (2012) Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact (2011) Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Establishing, Applying, and Revising Categorical Exclusions under NEPA (2010)

  1. Microsoft Word - NEPA Fact Sheet 082814.doc

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was enacted by Congress to ensure that federal agencies consider the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and alternatives before deciding on a course of action. NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment. Under NEPA, the term "environment" encompasses both the

  2. Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Collaboration in NEPA - a Handbook for NEPA Practitioners is a collaboration of research and consultations by CEQ concerning analyses prepared under NEPA. Updated in the Fall of 2007, this 100-page guide introduces interested parties to collaborative principles, and includes suggestions for successful collaborative efforts.

  3. Template:NEPA Doc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    General NEPA Document Information EnergyTechnology - Energy Sector (e.g. Geothermal, Solar, Wind) (page: Category:ElectricityGeneratingTechnologies) EnvironmentalAnalysisTyp...

  4. Template:Nepa Transmission | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    General NEPA Document Information TransmissionType - Energy Sector (e.g. Geothermal, Solar, Wind) (page: Category:ElectricityGeneratingTechnologies) EnvironmentalAnalysisTyp...

  5. Recommendations for Analyzing Accidents Under NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This DOE guidance clarifies and supplements "Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements." It focuses on principles of accident analyses under NEPA.

  6. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under NEPA (CEQ, 1997)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality to assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed.

  7. 2008 Network Open Season (NOS) NEPA Request

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the preliminary engineering and design work (stage gate 1 of a 2-stage gated project approval process) for the following transmission...

  8. BOR NEPA Handbook | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: BOR NEPA HandbookPermittingRegulatory GuidanceGuideHandbook Abstract...

  9. RAPID/NEPA/About | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and potential application of future tiered NEPA analyses such as DNAs. Resource (e.g. Air Quality) Users can look at mitigation measures proposed and imposed on previous...

  10. FWS NEPA Handbook | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    GuidanceGuideHandbook Abstract Provides overview of FWS's NEPA process. Author Fish and Wildlife Service Published Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015 DOI Not Provided Check...

  11. Category:NEPA Transmission | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Pages in category "NEPA Transmission" This category contains only the following page. T TransWest Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleCategory:NEPATransmiss...

  12. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance DOE Issues 86th Lessons Learned Quarterly Report DOE Issues 86th Lessons Learned Quarterly Report This issue highlights practices to improve NEPA implementation for environmental justice and public access to references; these practices remind us of NEPA's emphasis on meaningful public involvement. Read more DOE NEPA Projects Currently Open for Public Comment DOE NEPA Projects Currently Open for Public Comment Find how to comment on DOE NEPA documents in an

  13. DOE-Wide NEPA Contracting | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DOE-Wide NEPA Contracting DOE-Wide NEPA Contracting The DOE-wide NEPA contracts expired in 2014. These contracts were for NEPA support services in preparing EISs and EAs and other environmental documents. This page will be updated when new information is available. Inquiries may be addressed to askNEPA@hq.doe.gov. Document(s) Available For Download December 1, 1996 NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (DOE, 1996) This guidance provides: model statements of work, information on contract types and

  14. Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template (DOE, 2015) | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template (DOE, 2015) Annual NEPA Planning Summary Report Template (DOE, 2015) Adobe Acrobat templates and User's Guide for preparing and submitting an Annual NEPA Planning Summary. PDF icon 2016 Annual Planning Summary Template PDF icon 2016 Annual Planning Summary Template Continuation Sheet PDF icon APS User's Guide More Documents & Publications LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2015 2015 Annual NEPA Planning Summaries LM Annual NEPA Planning

  15. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Environmental Management System » National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations and Links DOE NEPA Website NEPA Compliance Program (DOE O 451.1B) Council on Environmental Quality Citizen's Guide to the NEPA Recent NEPA Actions and Determinations Categorically Excluded Actions Environmental Assessments (EA) None in Progress Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Uranium Leasing Program Programmatic EIS Record of Decision (ROD) issued in May 2014

  16. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-02-01

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  17. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-05-01

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  18. DOE NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index - List of Contents...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    NEPA Reviews DOE1992 Amended Environmental Impact Statement Filing System Guidance EPA2012 ... DOE2012 DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) DOE2012 ...

  19. Handbook Issued on NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Handbook Issued on NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews Handbook Issued on NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews March 7, ...

  20. 2012 General Counsel's Reminder Letter Regarding NEPA Planning...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    General Counsel's Reminder Letter Regarding NEPA Planning Summaries 2012 General Counsel's Reminder Letter Regarding NEPA Planning Summaries PDF icon 2012 APS Reminder Letter...

  1. DOE NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index - List of Contents...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    the NEPA Process - Interim Actions DOE2003 Administrative Record Guidance DOJ1991 Aligning the NEPA Process with EMS CEQ2007 Alternative Actions For Analysis in ...

  2. Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews (CEQ, 2014)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Council on Environmental Quality issued this guidance to explain the requirements of NEPA and CEQ Regulations when agencies prepare programmatic NEPA reviews.

  3. Property:NEPA ApplicationAttachments | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ApplicationAttachments Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA ApplicationAttachments Property Type Page Description FONSI files for NEPA Docs. For example: Cover letters,...

  4. Property:NEPA SerialRegisterPage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    SerialRegisterPage Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA SerialRegisterPage Property Type Page Description Serial Register Page files for NEPA Docs. Related Serial...

  5. CEQ Issues Guidance on Improving NEPA Process Efficiency | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    by reference; expediting responses to comments; and clear timelines for NEPA reviews. ... Efficiency CEQ Issues Revised Draft NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions and Climate Change

  6. Asking the Right Questions for a NEPA Review: An Environmental...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Asking the Right Questions for a NEPA Review: An Environmental Questionnaire for Funding Proposals Asking the Right Questions for a NEPA Review: An Environmental Questionnaire for ...

  7. Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of Certain State Energy Program Projects Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of Certain State...

  8. DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and ...

  9. NEPA Implementation Procedures: Appendices I, II, and III

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These appendices are intended to improve public participation and facilitate agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA...

  10. Council on Environmental Quality - Emergency Actions and NEPA...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Memorandum: Council on Environmental Quality - Emergency Actions and NEPA Abstract This memorandum...

  11. 550 FW 3 NEPA Decision Documents | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Handbook Abstract Outlines required NEPA documents for FWS NEPA process. Author Fish and Wildlife Service Published Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996 DOI Not Provided Check...

  12. Using the NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    your computer or USB drive. 2. Locate and Open the extracted folder "NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index". 3. Locate and Open the .PDX file titled "Search - NEPA ...

  13. NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews (Draft) The Council on ... & Publications NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews (Final

  14. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) NBL Home About Programs Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) Training NEPA Documents Categorical ...

  15. Guidance Regarding Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process: Interim Actions Guidance Regarding Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process: Interim Actions DOE guidance to provide...

  16. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA PDF icon CEQ Regulations for Implementing the...

  17. Property:NEPA CU Document | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    CU Document Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA CU Document Property Type Page Description CU files for NEPA Docs. Typically Casual Use Documentation consists of a...

  18. Property:NEPA Application Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Application Url Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Application Url Property Type URL Description URLs to NEPA application files. All NOIs. Drilling permits are also...

  19. "Frequently Asked Questions" on the Department of Energy's NEPA...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    regarding DOE's NEPA implementation regulations. Revised "Frequently Asked Questions on the Department of Energy's NEPA Regulations More Documents & Publications Questions and...

  20. States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements | Department...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements Several states have environmental planning requirements that are...

  1. Time of Compliance for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy Time of Compliance for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Time of Compliance for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Roger Seitz*, Savannah River National Laboratory ; Andrew Wallo, U.S. Department of Energy Abstract: The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has more than 25 years of experience conducting and overseeing performance assessments (PAs) for low-level waste (LLW) and mixed LLW from on-going operations, decommissioning and environmental restoration

  2. Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations (CEQ, 1983) | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    NEPA Regulations (CEQ, 1983) Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations (CEQ, 1983) This document provides Council on Environmental Quality guidance on several topics: scoping, categorical exclusions, adoption procedures, contracting provisions, selection of alternatives in licensing and permitting situations, and tiering. PDF icon Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations More Documents & Publications Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Review Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning

  3. Assessment of Preferred Depleted Uranium Disposal Forms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Croff, A.G.; Hightower, J.R.; Lee, D.W.; Michaels, G.E.; Ranek, N.L.; Trabalka, J.R.

    2000-06-01

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of converting about 700,000 metric tons (MT) of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) containing 475,000 MT of depleted uranium (DU) to a stable form more suitable for long-term storage or disposal. Potential conversion forms include the tetrafluoride (DUF4), oxide (DUO2 or DU3O8), or metal. If worthwhile beneficial uses cannot be found for the DU product form, it will be sent to an appropriate site for disposal. The DU products are considered to be low-level waste (LLW) under both DOE orders and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptability of the potential DU conversion products at potential LLW disposal sites to provide a basis for DOE decisions on the preferred DU product form and a path forward that will ensure reliable and efficient disposal.

  4. Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Review

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    On December 18, 2014, CEQ published final guidance that provides clarification on when and how Federal agencies can use programmatic NEPA reviews in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the CEQ NEPA Regulations. Guidance on programmatic NEPA reviews has been requested by the agencies and attention on programmatic NEPA reviews has increased as agencies are increasingly undertaking broad landscape scale analyses for proposals that affect the resources they manage.

  5. NEPA-Related Public Involvement | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA-Related Public Involvement NEPA-Related Public Involvement The Loan Programs Office's NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and public notices (e.g. public scoping meeting, public hearing, notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action) are presented below under NEPA-Related Hearings, Meetings, and Notices. Available environmental documents can be found at the following links: Categorical Exclusions Environmental Assessments Environmental Impact Statements NEPA-Related Hearings,

  6. States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements Several states have environmental planning requirements that are similar to NEPA. These requirements are either State laws, regulations, or executive orders. Please click below for additional information on those requirements. PDF icon States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements More Documents & Publications Federal NEPA Contacts Directory of Potential

  7. Questions and Answers about National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Answers about NEPA Compliance 1. Can State environmental regulations (e.g., New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act) be used in place of NEPA? Or, can DOE delegate NEPA authority to States with their own governmental bodies designed to conduct their own environmental impact assessments? Answer: NEPA is a federal statute and a federal obligation. State processes cannot substitute for the Federal NEPA process, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 does not authorize DOE

  8. Promoting NEPA Transparency and Public Engagement | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Promoting NEPA Transparency and Public Engagement Promoting NEPA Transparency and Public Engagement June 3, 2011 - 1:14pm Addthis "NEPA is, at its core, a transparency statute," said Katie Scharf, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Deputy General Counsel, in opening a panel discussion on using information technology to support open government initiatives, engage the public, and add value to NEPA analysis. At the March 9, 2011, event - hosted by CEQ for Federal NEPA and legal staff

  9. USCG NEPA Handbook | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: USCG NEPA HandbookPermittingRegulatory GuidanceGuideHandbook Abstract This...

  10. BLM NEPA Handbook | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: BLM NEPA HandbookPermittingRegulatory GuidanceGuideHandbook Author BLM...

  11. Development of low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity in the United States - progress or stalemate?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Devgun, J.S. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States); Larson, G.S. [Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, St. Paul, MN (United States)

    1995-12-31

    It has been fifteen years since responsibility for the disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive waste (LLW) was shifted to the states by the United States Congress through the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA). In December 1985, Congress revisited the issue and enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). No new disposal sites have opened yet, however, and it is now evident that disposal facility development is more complex, time-consuming, and controversial than originally anticipated. For a nation with a large nuclear power industry, the lack of availability of LLW disposal capacity coupled with a similar lack of high-level radioactive waste disposal capacity could adversely affect the future viability of the nuclear energy option. The U.S. nuclear power industry, with 109 operating reactors, generates about half of the LLW shipped to commercial disposal sites and faces dwindling access to waste disposal sites and escalating waste management costs. The other producers of LLW - industries, government (except the defense related research and production waste), academic institutions, and medical institutions that account for the remaining half of the commercial LLW - face the same storage and cost uncertainties. This paper will summarize the current status of U.S. low-level radioactive waste generation and the status of new disposal facility development efforts by the states. The paper will also examine the factors that have contributed to delays, the most frequently suggested alternatives, and the likelihood of change.

  12. Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (GTCC LLW) ...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (GTCC LLW) Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (GTCC LLW) A transuranic (TRU) waste shipment makes its way to the ...

  13. NNSS Waste Disposal Proves Vital Resource for DOE Complex | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy NNSS Waste Disposal Proves Vital Resource for DOE Complex NNSS Waste Disposal Proves Vital Resource for DOE Complex March 20, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Like most LLW, RTGs disposed of at the NNSS were handled without any special equipment or clothing because of the relatively low dose rate levels. Like most LLW, RTGs disposed of at the NNSS were handled without any special equipment or clothing

  14. Review of private sector and Department of Energy treatment, storage, and disposal capabilities for low-level and mixed low-level waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Willson, R.A.; Ball, L.W.; Mousseau, J.D.; Piper, R.B.

    1996-03-01

    Private sector capacity for treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of various categories of radioactive waste has been researched and reviewed for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) by Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company, the primary contractor for the INEL. The purpose of this document is to provide assistance to the INEL and other US Department of Energy (DOE) sites in determining if private sector capabilities exist for those waste streams that currently cannot be handled either on site or within the DOE complex. The survey of private sector vendors was limited to vendors currently capable of, or expected within the next five years to be able to perform one or more of the following services: low-level waste (LLW) volume reduction, storage, or disposal; mixed LLW treatment, storage, or disposal; alpha-contaminated mixed LLW treatment; LLW decontamination for recycling, reclamation, or reuse; laundering of radioactively-contaminated laundry and/or respirators; mixed LLW treatability studies; mixed LLW treatment technology development. Section 2.0 of this report will identify the approach used to modify vendor information from previous revisions of this report. It will also illustrate the methodology used to identify any additional companies. Section 3.0 will identify, by service, specific vendor capabilities and capacities. Because this document will be used to identify private sector vendors that may be able to handle DOE LLW and mixed LLW streams, it was decided that current DOE capabilities should also be identified. This would encourage cooperation between DOE sites and the various states and, in some instances, may result in a more cost-effective alternative to privatization. The DOE complex has approximately 35 sites that generate the majority of both LLW and mixed LLW. Section 4.0 will identify these sites by Operations Office, and their associated LLW and mixed LLW TSD units.

  15. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 7

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H.; Gedden, R.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-09-01

    Contents include articles entitled: House votes 309 to 107 to approve Texas compact; Nebraska governor hosts LLRW meeting; Southeast Compact considers funding proposal; Chem-Nuclear explores options re SC revenue requirements; Legislation sets revenue requirements for Barnwell; TCC meets: Supports CA request for technical assistance; DOE approves part of California`s technical assistance request; State legislators discuss LLRW management for OH, IL, NC; Washington governor re Potential New Hanford Role; Federal court enjoins DOE from excluding WCS on new disposal; Appellate court in favor of DOE in surcharge rebates dispute; Hearing set for October in Ward Valley case; court rejects federal motion to dismiss Ward Valley suit; NE sues commission re veto over export authorizations; US Supreme Court dismisses line-item veto challenge; Department of Interior Inspector General investigation requested; USEC privatization plan approved; DOD finalizes LLRW disposal charter; Clinton nominates six DOE appointees; Congress moves FUSRAP to Army Corps of Engineers; Schaefer named interim director of USGS: Nichols leaves EPA: NRC Commissioner Rogers` term expires; NRC: CA ``Well-Quantified`` to license Ward Valley facility; EPA objects to state permit for Louisiana facility; Petitions submitted to EPA oppose Shintech permits; ECOS draft recommendations re Enviro programs; Legislation introduced to prohibit spent fuel shipments to the Goshutes; and HLW legislation ready for floor action.

  16. ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC FROM LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE (LLW) TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEVADA TEST SITE.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, J.J.; Campbell, S.; Church, B.W.; Shafer, D. S.; Gillespie, D.; Sedano, S.; Cebe, J.J.

    2003-02-27

    The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada Test Site (NTS) is one of two regional sites where low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from approved DOE and U.S. DOD generators across the United States is disposed. In federal fiscal year (FY) 2002, over 57,000 cubic meters of waste was transported to and disposed at the NTS. DOE and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations ensure that radiation exposure from truck shipments to members of the public is negligible. Nevertheless, particularly in rural communities along transportation routes in Utah and Nevada, there is perceived risk from members of the public about incremental exposure from LLW trucks, especially when ''Main Street'' and the LLW transportation route are the same. To better quantify the exposure to gamma radiation, a stationary monitoring array of four pressurized ion chambers (PICs) have been set up in a pullout just before LLW trucks reach the entrance to the NTS. The PICs are positioned at a distance of one meter from the sides of the truck trailer and at a height appropriate for the design of the trucks that will be used in FY2003 to haul LLW to the NTS. The use of four PICs (two on each side of the truck) is to minimize and to correct for non-uniformity where radiation levels from waste packages vary from side to side, and from front to back in the truck trailer. The PIC array is being calibrated by collecting readings from each PIC exposed to a known 137Cs source that was positioned at different locations on a flatbed stationed in the PIC array, along with taking secondary readings from other known sources. Continuous data collection using the PICs, with and without a truck in the array, is being used to develop background readings. In addition, acoustic sensors are positioned on each side of the PIC array to record when a large object (presumably a truck) enters the array. In FY2003, PIC surveys from as many incoming LLW trucks as possible will be made and survey data recorded automatically by dataloggers that will be periodically downloaded. Solar panels provide power for the batteries to run both the dataloggers and PICs. Truck drivers have been asked to park their truck within the PIC array for only the time it takes to complete an information log before moving on to one of two Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMS) on the NTS. On the log, the truck drivers record their shipment identification number, the time of day, where the waste originated, and information on the route they used to reach the NTS. This data will facilitate comparison of PIC readings with waste manifests and other waste disposal operations data collected at the RWMSs. Gamma radiation measurements collected from the PICs will be analyzed using standard health physics and statistical methods for comparison to DOT standards, but with the added benefit of obtaining an improved understanding of the variability of readings that can occur in the near vicinity of a LLW truck. The data collected will be combined with measurements of street width and other information about transportation routes through towns to develop realistic dose scenarios for citizens in Nevada and Utah towns.

  17. Department of Energy - Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Department of Energy - Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance...

  18. Property:NEPA RevisedApplicationDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    RevisedApplicationDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA RevisedApplicationDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Pages using the property "NEPA...

  19. Property:NEPA DNA Worksheet | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    DNA Worksheet Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA DNA Worksheet Property Type Page Description DNA Worksheet files for NEPA Docs. This is a property of type Page. It...

  20. Property:NEPA Application Type | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Type Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Application Type Property Type String Allows Values NOI;GPD;POO;POU;POD;ROW;Sundry Notice Pages using the property "NEPA...

  1. Property:NEPA ScopingInitiatedDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ScopingInitiatedDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA ScopingInitiatedDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Pages using the property "NEPA...

  2. Property:NEPA PreliminaryEA-EISDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    PreliminaryEA-EISDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA PreliminaryEA-EISDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Pages using the property "NEPA...

  3. Property:NEPA FinalEA-EISDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    FinalEA-EISDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA FinalEA-EISDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Pages using the property "NEPA FinalEA-EISDate"...

  4. Property:NEPA TieredDoc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    TieredDoc Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA TieredDoc Property Type Page This is a property of type Page. Pages using the property "NEPA TieredDoc" Showing 25 pages...

  5. Property:NEPA SerialNumber | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    SerialNumber Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA SerialNumber Property Type String This is a property of type String. Pages using the property "NEPA SerialNumber"...

  6. Property:NEPA ApplicationDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ApplicationDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA ApplicationDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Pages using the property "NEPA ApplicationDate"...

  7. Designating and Supporting NEPA Document Managers (DOE, 1998)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize the important role that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Managers play in the success of the DOE's NEPA compliance program and to help maximize their effectiveness.

  8. DOE NEPA Guidance on EIS Distribution (06/15/06)

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ... NEPA guidance, available on the DOE NEPA Web site at www.eh.doe.govnepa under Selected ... copy, compact disk (CD), access from a DOE Web site). - Other information that may be ...

  9. Bureau of Land Management - NEPA Website | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Website Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Bureau of Land Management - NEPA Website Abstract This page links to the BLM NEPA website....

  10. Bureau of Land Management - NEPA Web Guide | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Web Guide Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Bureau of Land Management - NEPA Web Guide Abstract The NEPA Web Guide includes links to...

  11. Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR Part 1021 Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR Part 1021 Public Comment...

  12. Title 40 CFR 1505 NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 1505 NEPA and...

  13. Property:NEPA Decision Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Decision Url Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Decision Url Property Type URL Description URLs to decisions on NEPA Docs This is a property of type URL. Retrieved from...

  14. Property:NEPA FONSI Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    FONSI Url Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA FONSI Url Property Type URL Description URLs to FONSI reports for NEPA Docs This is a property of type URL. Retrieved from...

  15. Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (DOE, 1994) Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (DOE, 1994) The purpose of this ...

  16. Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Certain State Energy Program Projects | Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of Certain State Energy Program Projects Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of Certain State Energy Program Projects National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), expedited review for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) State Energy Program (SEP) in the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. PDF icon template_nepa_review.pdf More

  17. NEPA Success Stories from Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This document contains a compilation of NEPA "success stories" that were featured in DOE Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports (LLQRs).

  18. Techniques and guidelines for streamlining NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dickerman, J.A.; Tolbert, V.R.; Richmond, A.A.; Salk, M.S. )

    1993-01-01

    Five ideas for streamlining both the NEPA process and documents are explored for preparers of NEPA documents. Techniques and guidelines that implement these ideas will be provided as effective worksheets, pithy guidelines, flowcharts, and examples. The five streamlining ideas and the techniques or guidelines to achieve them are: (1) emphasize early planning through concise definition of project scope, purpose, need, and proposed action; determine need for compliance with applicable environmental requirements. (2) develop effective worksheets that include purpose, need, and proposed action; issue analysis; alternatives; environmental consequences; and NEPA checklist. (3) use information services/databases to integrate information services and identify existing databases. (4) maximize use of tables and graphs for analysis of alternatives; assumptions used (bounding analyses); environmental consequences. (5) create inviting documents with clear, concise writing; summarize in text; supporting data in appendices; and inviting visual layouts.

  19. Pollution Prevention- Environmental Impact Reduction Checklists for NEPA/309 Reviewers

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides a valuable opportunity for Federal agency NEPA/309 reviewers to incorporate pollution prevention and environmental impact reduction into actions (or projects). This Environmental Protection Agency guidance was prepared to assist NEPA/309 reviewers in incorporating pollution prevention into each step of the environmental review process, including scoping, mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement.

  20. The Application of NEPA to CERCLA Cleanups

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    On March 31, 1994, officials from the Departrnent of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) met with then Acting Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer and other representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discuss the issue of the relationship of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the cleanup of federal facilities under the CERCLA Superfund program. The meeting focused on proposals for addressing problems that have arisen from DOE's attempts to integrate the procedural and analytical approaches of NEPA into the CERCLA cleanup process. This document describes what was discussed at the meeting and the consensus reached there.

  1. {In Archive} Fw: NEPA for German Fuel

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Fw: NEPA for German Fuel Maxcine Maxted to: lsaraka 11/14/2014 08:14 AM Cc: Drew Grainger Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive. I got this late yesterday. Thanks, Maxcine Maxted (803) 208-0506 pager 20767 ----- Forwarded by Maxcine Maxted/DOE/Srs on 11/14/2014 08:14 AM ----- From: Herbert Crapse/DOE/Srs To: Jean Ridley/DOE/Srs@Srs, Maxcine Maxted/DOE/Srs@SRS, Date: 11/13/2014 02:25 PM Subject: Fw: NEPA for German Fuel As requested. I have reviewed their input for accuracy and find

  2. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Strategy for the Remote-Handled Low-level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peggy Hinman

    2010-10-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to have disposal capability for remote-handled low level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) at the time the existing disposal facility is full or must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the INL Subsurface Disposal Area in approximately the year 2017.

  3. Low-level radioactive waste management: transitioning to off-site disposal at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dorries, Alison M

    2010-11-09

    Facing the closure of nearly all on-site management and disposal capability for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is making ready to ship the majority of LLW off-site. In order to ship off-site, waste must meet the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility's (TSDF) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). In preparation, LANL's waste management organization must ensure LANL waste generators characterize and package waste compliantly and waste characterization documentation is complete and accurate. Key challenges that must be addressed to successfully make the shift to off-site disposal of LLW include improving the detail, accuracy, and quality of process knowledge (PK) and acceptable knowledge (AK) documentation, training waste generators and waste management staff on the higher standard of data quality and expectations, improved WAC compliance for off-site facilities, and enhanced quality assurance throughout the process. Certification of LANL generators will allow direct off-site shipping of LLW from their facilities.

  4. LLW Notes, Volume 9, Number 6. October 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-10-01

    LLW Notes is distributed to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  5. WRAP low level waste (LLW) glovebox acceptance test report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leist, K.J.

    1998-02-17

    In June 28, 1997, the Low Level Waste (LLW) glovebox was tested using glovebox acceptance test procedure 13031A-85. The primary focus of the glovebox acceptance test was to examine control system interlocks, display menus, alarms, and operator messages. Limited mechanical testing involving the drum ports, hoists, drum lifter, compacted drum lifter, drum tipper, transfer car, conveyors, lidder/delidder device and the supercompactor were also conducted. As of November 24, 1997, 2 of the 131 test exceptions that affect the LLW glovebox remain open. These items will be tracked and closed via the WRAP Master Test Exception Database. As part of Test Exception resolution/closure the responsible individual closing the Test Exception performs a retest of the affected item(s) to ensure the identified deficiency is corrected, and, or to test items not previously available to support testing. Test Exceptions are provided as appendices to this report.

  6. EA-1793: Replacement Capability for Disposal of Remote-handled Low-level Waste Generated at the Department of Energy's Idaho Site

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of replacement capability for disposal of remote-handled low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site beginning in October 2017.

  7. A Comprehensive Solution for Managing TRU and LLW From Generation to Final Disposition - 13205

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tozer, Justin C.; Sanchez, Edwina G.; Dorries, Alison M.

    2013-07-01

    A LANL multi-disciplinary team faced the challenge of building and delivering a waste information system capable of managing radioactive, hazardous, and industrial waste from cradle to grave. The result is the Waste Compliance and Tracking System (WCATS) a flexible, adaptive system that has allowed LANL to consolidate its legacy applications into one system, and leverage the advantages of managing all waste types within a single scalable enterprise application. Key functionality required for robust waste operations, include: waste characterization, waste identification, transportation, inventory management, waste processing, and disposal. In order to maintain data quality, field operations such as waste identification, surveillance checklists, wall-to-wall inventory assessments, waste transfers, shipment pickup and receipt, and simple consolidation operations are captured by the operator or technician using mobile computers. Work flow is managed via end-user defined work paths, to ensure that unit operations are performed in the correct order. Regulatory compliance reports and algorithms are provided to support typical U.S. EPA, DOT, NRC, and DOE requirements, including the EPA hazardous waste manifest, NRC LLW manifest, DOE nuclear material at risk, RCRA TSDF inventory rules, and so forth. The WCATS application has allowed LANL to migrate and consolidate its disparate legacy applications. The design and implementation is generalized so that facility owners can customize the user interface, setup facilities and unit operations (i.e., treatment, storage, disposal, characterization, and administrative), define inventory compliance rules, and establish custom work flow requirements. (authors)

  8. Potential co-disposal of greater-than-class C low-level radioactive waste with Department of Energy special case waste - greater-than-class C low-level waste management program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allred, W.E.

    1994-09-01

    This document evaluates the feasibility of co-disposing of greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (GTCC LLW) with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) special case waste (SCW). This document: (1) Discusses and evaluates key issues concerning co-disposal of GTCC LLW with SCW. This includes examining these issues in terms of regulatory concerns, technical feasibility, and economics; (2) Examines advantages and disadvantages of such co-disposal; and (3) Makes recommendations. Research and analysis of the issues presented in this report indicate that it would be technically and economically feasible to co-dispose of GTCC LLW with DOE SCW. However, a dilemma will likely arise in the current division of regulatory responsibilities between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and DOE (i.e., current requirement for disposal of GTCC LLW in a facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). DOE SCW is currently not subject to this licensing requirement.

  9. The administrative record: What constitutes a relevant NEPA document?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brennan, C.; Every, D.V.

    1997-08-01

    Neither the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing NEPA address the contents of an administrative record (AR). The AR typically contains the documents and information used in the development of NEPA documents and supports the decisions defined in them. The AR also should include all records pertaining to public comments and all records demonstrating the project`s efforts to involve the public. This paper will attempt to establish comprehensive guidelines to be used in assembling an AR in support of a NEPA document. While the AR is created to support an agency`s decisions, its main purpose is to demonstrate that an agency has adhered to NEPA`s procedural requirements. The CEQ requires that relevant environmental documents, comments and responses be part of the record in formal rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings. Other Federal agency NEPA implementing procedures generally do not provide additional guidance on the contents of an AR. The CEQ and DOE guidelines make reference to the inclusion of relevant NEPA documents. The guidelines established in this paper will aid the NEPA practitioner in determining what constitutes a relevant NEPA document.

  10. Erosion control for the Fundamental values in NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMillen, M.C.; Hinds, W.T.

    1997-08-01

    A commitment to exploring alternatives to major Federal actions, pursuing and facilitating public involvement, and identifying measures to mitigate the adverse effects of actions selected for implementation are important values of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. While other major environmental legislation may commit an agency to different aspects of environmental review and protection, no other Federal statute combines the unique values that NEPA does. Since its enactment over 26 years ago, NEPA has faced numerous challenges to its fundamental intent and values. Recently, processes deemed to be, or assumed to be, functionally equivalent have attempted to subsume important NEPA values while allowing major Federal actions to proceed without NEPA`s environmental review. This paper examines the concept and origin of the term NEPA values, and the effects of judicial review and actions such as DOE`s NEPA/CERCLA integration agreement, have had on maintaining fundamental NEPA values in the Federal decision making process. In addition, based on concerns that are building momentum in the US Congress, a brief discussion will be included exploring what may occur in the future to prevent further erosion of fundamental NEPA values.

  11. The NEPA mandate and federal regulation of the natural gas industry. [NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hoecker, J.J.

    1992-01-01

    Utility regulators increasingly take responsibility for the [open quotes]extemalities[close quotes] associated with their decisions, meaning the economic and social costs related to rate decisions or other kinds of authorizations. Yet, when Congress adopted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), it intervened to ensure protection of the natural environment, not from abuses by the citizenry but from the activities of the federal government itself. Comprised of action forcing procedures, NEPA was designed to infuse the decisional processes of federal agencies with a broad awareness of the environmental consequences of their actions. NEPA encourages decisionmakers to counterbalance the organic statutory and political missions of their departments or agencies with a sensitivity to the ecological consequences of their directives and authorizations. This paper examines how the requirements of NEPA have fared in the environment of classical public utility regulation at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Commission proceedings did not evidence any widely held opinion that economic regulation of the gas industry is hostile to the NEPA process.

  12. Taiwan industrial cooperation program technology transfer for low-level radioactive waste final disposal - phase I.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Knowlton, Robert G.; Cochran, John Russell; Arnold, Bill Walter; Jow, Hong-Nian; Mattie, Patrick D.; Schelling, Frank Joseph Jr.

    2007-01-01

    Sandia National Laboratories and the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Taiwan have collaborated in a technology transfer program related to low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal in Taiwan. Phase I of this program included regulatory analysis of LLW final disposal, development of LLW disposal performance assessment capabilities, and preliminary performance assessments of two potential disposal sites. Performance objectives were based on regulations in Taiwan and comparisons to those in the United States. Probabilistic performance assessment models were constructed based on limited site data using software including GoldSim, BLT-MS, FEHM, and HELP. These software codes provided the probabilistic framework, container degradation, waste-form leaching, groundwater flow, radionuclide transport, and cover infiltration simulation capabilities in the performance assessment. Preliminary performance assessment analyses were conducted for a near-surface disposal system and a mined cavern disposal system at two representative sites in Taiwan. Results of example calculations indicate peak simulated concentrations to a receptor within a few hundred years of LLW disposal, primarily from highly soluble, non-sorbing radionuclides.

  13. Siting Study for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Joan Connolly; Lance Peterson; Brennon Orr; Bob Starr

    2010-10-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy has identified a mission need for continued disposal capacity for remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). An alternatives analysis that was conducted to evaluate strategies to achieve this mission need identified two broad options for disposal of INL generated remote-handled LLW: (1) offsite disposal and (2) onsite disposal. The purpose of this study is to identify candidate sites or locations within INL boundaries for the alternative of an onsite remote handled LLW disposal facility and recommend the highest-ranked locations for consideration in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The study implements an evaluation based on consideration of five key elements: (1) regulations, (2) key assumptions, (3) conceptual design, (4) facility performance, and (5) previous INL siting study criteria, and uses a five-step process to identify, screen, evaluate, score, and rank 34 separate sites located across INL. The result of the evaluation is identification of two recommended alternative locations for siting an onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility. The two alternative locations that best meet the evaluation criteria are (1) near the Advanced Test Reactor Complex and (2) west of the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Disposal Facility.

  14. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process ENERGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Steps to SWEIS Development Notice of Intent to Prepare SWEIS Public Scoping Period Opportunities for Public Input Preparation of Draft SWEIS Notice of Availability for Draft SWEIS Public Comment Period Preparation of Final SWEIS Notice of Availability of Final SWEIS Published in the Federal Register 30-Day Waiting Period Record of Decision Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by

  15. PMA_WAPA_NEPA-APS-2013.pdf

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Western Area Power Administration P.O. Box 281213 Lakewood, CO 80228-8213 JAN 3 0 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY H. WOODS, GC-1 GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM: ANITA DECKER �=�= ( ACTING ADMINSTRATOR -. SUBJECT: Annual National Environmental Policy Act Platming Summary In accordance with my responsibilities under DOE Order 451.1 B, Section 4.d, attached please fnd Wester Area Power Administration's (Wester) Annual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Planning Summary

  16. WIPP Documents - National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Adoption of Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NM-P020-11-1414 Double Eagle Water System DOE/EA-1905 October 2011 This document examines the potential environmental impacts associated with providing DOE funding for the proposed improvements to the City of Carlsbad Double Eagle Water System Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste This Federal Register Notice

  17. Standardization of DOE Disposal Facilities Waste Acceptance Processes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shrader, T. A.; Macbeth, P. J.

    2002-02-26

    On February 25, 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS) for low-level and mixed low-level wastes (LLW/ MLLW) treatment and disposal. The ROD designated the disposal sites at Hanford and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to dispose of LLW/MLLW from sites without their own disposal facilities. DOE's Richland Operations Office (RL) and the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Operations Office (NV) have been charged with effectively implementing the ROD. To accomplish this task NV and RL, assisted by their operating contractors Bechtel Nevada (BN), Fluor Hanford (FH), and Bechtel Hanford (BH) assembled a task team to systematically map out and evaluate the current waste acceptance processes and develop an integrated, standardized process for the acceptance of LLW/MLLW. A structured, systematic, analytical process using the Six Sigma system identified dispos al process improvements and quantified the associated efficiency gains to guide changes to be implemented. The review concluded that a unified and integrated Hanford/NTS Waste Acceptance Process would be a benefit to the DOE Complex, particularly the waste generators. The Six Sigma review developed quantitative metrics to address waste acceptance process efficiency improvements, and provides an initial look at development of comparable waste disposal cost models between the two disposal sites to allow quantification of the proposed improvements.

  18. Techniques and guidelines for streamlining NEPA: Four ideas, nine tools

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dickerman, J.A.; Tolbert, V.R.; Salk, M.S.; Richmond, A.A.

    1993-12-31

    The Council on Environmental Quality`s (CEQ`S) principal aims in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are (1) to reduce paperwork, (2) to reduce delay, and (3) to produce better decisions. However, almost since the passage of NEPA, the quality and quantity of information typically found in NEPA documents have been criticized. The quality of NEPA documents could be greatly enhanced through improved planning and acquisition, organization, and presentation of information. The authors offer ideas for streamlining the NEPA process and documents for preparers of NEPA documents. These ideas address the issues of improved planning and information handling. Although most of these ideas are not new, stricter adherence to them would address many of the criticisms of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements.

  19. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide, Sandia National Laboratories

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P.

    1995-08-01

    This report contains a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide for the Sandia National Laboratories. It is based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508; the US Department of Energy (DOE) N-EPA implementing procedures in 10 CFR Part 102 1; DOE Order 5440.1E; the DOE ``Secretarial Policy Statement on the National Environmental Policy Act`` of June 1994- Sandia NEPA compliance procedures-, and other CEQ and DOE guidance. The Guide includes step-by-step procedures for preparation of Environmental Checklists/Action Descriptions Memoranda (ECL/ADMs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). It also includes sections on ``Dealing With NEPA Documentation Problems`` and ``Special N-EPA Compliance Issues.``

  20. Guidelines and techniques for improving the NEPA process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Salk, M.S.; Tolbert, V.R.; Dickerman, J.A.

    1999-05-01

    The Council on Environmental Quality`s (CEQ`s) principal aims in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are (1) to reduce paperwork, (2) to avoid delay, and most importantly (3) to produce better decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. This paper presents four strategies for improving the NEPA process along with tools that can be used to implement each strategy. The tools include guidelines for project management and problem definition, tips for acquiring existing information and identifying issues of public concern, worksheets on how to identify and analyze potential impacts on resources, ideas for enhancing NEPA documents, and a NEPA process checklist. The tools can be used at various stages of the NEPA process and provide a toolbox of guidelines and techniques to improve implementation of the NEPA process by focusing the pertinent information for decisionmakers and stakeholders.

  1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded Actions |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy NEPA » National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded Actions National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded Actions Categorical Exclusions (CX) - Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that DOE has determined, by regulation, do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is typically required. Title

  2. Guidance on NEPA Review for Corrective Actions under the Resource

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (DOE, 1997) | Department of Energy Review for Corrective Actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (DOE, 1997) Guidance on NEPA Review for Corrective Actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (DOE, 1997) This guidance results from the work of a Task Team formed by DOE's Environmental Management's NEPA Compliance Officer to study streamlining the NEPA process for RCRA corrective actions, in response to a

  3. GO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    GO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary GO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2009 Annual National Environmental Policy Act Planning Summary for the U.S. Department of Energy's Golden Field Office (GO). PDF icon GO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary More Documents & Publications 2010 Annual Planning Summary for Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Site Office (SLAC) 2012 Annual Planning Summary for SLAC Site Office 2010 Annual Planning Summary for Nevada Site

  4. Recommendations for Analyzing Accidents Under NEPA (DOE, 2002) | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy Analyzing Accidents Under NEPA (DOE, 2002) Recommendations for Analyzing Accidents Under NEPA (DOE, 2002) This DOE guidance clarifies and supplements "Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements." It focuses on principles of accident analyses under NEPA. PDF icon RECOMMENDATIONS for ANALYZING ACCIDENTS under the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT More Documents & Publications Recommendations for the Preparation

  5. Secretarial Memorandum on Integrating Project Management with NEPA

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Compliance to Improve Decision Making | Department of Energy Secretarial Memorandum on Integrating Project Management with NEPA Compliance to Improve Decision Making Secretarial Memorandum on Integrating Project Management with NEPA Compliance to Improve Decision Making June 12, 2012 - 4:14pm Addthis Declaring that "Compliance with [NEPA] is a pre-requisite to successful implementation of DOE programs and projects," the Secretary has signed a memorandum on "Improved Decision

  6. NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews (Draft)

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    | Department of Energy Draft) NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews (Draft) The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in collaboration with the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, issued on March 5, 2013, a draft handbook on integrating NEPA and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review processes. The guide provides practitioners with an overview of NEPA and CEQA as well as valuable suggestions for developing a single environmental

  7. Notice of Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Approach | Department of Energy Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance Approach Notice of Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance Approach Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion Facilities Project Notice of Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance Approach for the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion Facilities Project (4/28/03). The purpose of this Notice is to inform the public of the change in the approach for the

  8. Energy Department Revises NEPA Regulations to Improve Efficiency |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Revises NEPA Regulations to Improve Efficiency Energy Department Revises NEPA Regulations to Improve Efficiency October 3, 2011 - 12:39pm Addthis Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Energy will save time and money in its environmental reviews of many proposed energy projects under revised regulations approved September 27, 2011, to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The revisions focus on the Department's categorical exclusion provisions, and

  9. Los Alamos Field Office NEPA Documents | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration Los Alamos Field Office NEPA Documents NEPA Documents Below are links that provide NEPA documents which govern the Los Alamos National Laboratory operational envelope. This website is organized into three categories: Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), which includes Supplemental Analysis (SA); Environmental Assessments (EA) and Categorical Exclusions (CX). Under each of these sections, you will find a list of documents organized by document number, which is linked to an

  10. NEPA at 19: A Primer on an "Old" Law with Solutions to New Problems...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    She describes current issues in NEPA practice and policy, and observes that NEPA has continuing vitality in the context of a new generation of environmental concerns. PDF icon NEPA ...

  11. DOE NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index - Table of...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    DOE 1992 Amended Environmental Impact Statement Filing System Guidance EPA 2012 Analysis of Impacts ... DOE 2012 DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) DOE 2012 ...

  12. Microsoft Word - NEPA Fact Sheet Oct 17 2011

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major federal actions ... agencies, including procedures for preparing EISs (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). ...

  13. NEPA Implementation Procedures: Appendices I, II, and III | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Implementation Procedures: Appendices I, II, and III NEPA Implementation Procedures: ... agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the CEQ's regulations. ...

  14. CEQ Issues Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    of programmatic National Environmental Policy Act reviews on December 18, 2014. The ... The goal of the guidance is to encourage a more consistent approach to programmatic NEPA ...

  15. Template for Expedited NEPA Review of Certain | Department of...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    This document provides an optional approach that a State may use to help the Department of Energy (DOE) expedite National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of certain Energy ...

  16. Property:NEPA OtherDocuments | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEPA OtherDocuments Property Type Page Description Additional supporting documents (e.g. biological assessment, cultural, completion reports, etc.) that don't fit any other...

  17. Bureau of Land Management - NEPA Handbook | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: Bureau of Land Management - NEPA HandbookPermittingRegulatory GuidanceGuideHandbook Abstract The purpose of...

  18. Title 40 CFR 1505 - NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and Agency DecisionmakingLegal Abstract This section mandates that agencies shall set forth procedures to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with NEPA, that agencies...

  19. NEPA Process Transparency and Openness (DOE, 2009) | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Process Transparency and Openness (DOE, 2009) This memorandum describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) policy for posting online the categorical exclusion ...

  20. Deputy General Counsel Highlights Role of Environmental Justice in NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Kedric L. Payne, DOE Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Compliance, described the evolution of environmental justice (EJ) in NEPA practice at the inaugural National Civil Rights Conference...

  1. Property:NEPA CategoricalExclusion | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    CategoricalExclusion Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA CategoricalExclusion Property Type Page Description Files documenting Categorical Exclusion Environmental Review...

  2. DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures: Final Rule (61 Fed Reg 64603...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DOE amended its regulations governing compliance with the National Environmental Policy ... NEPA requirements by reducing costs and preparation time, while maintaining ...

  3. Scoping Guidance: Memorandum for General Counsels, NEPA Liaisons...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    and Participants in Scoping (CEQ, 1981) Scoping Guidance: Memorandum for General Counsels, NEPA Liaisons, and Participants in Scoping (CEQ, 1981) This Council on Environmental ...

  4. Revised DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (DOE, 2014) Revised DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas ...

  5. Notice of Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    (DUF6) Conversion Facilities Project Notice of Change in National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Compliance Approach for the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion ...

  6. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Secondary Legal SourceSecondary Legal Source: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR 1500 - 1518Legal Author CEQ...

  7. NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Author White House Council on Environmental Quality; California Governor's Office of Planning and Research...

  8. RAPID/Best Practices/NEPA Timelines | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Permitting Information Desktop Toolkit BETA About Bulk Transmission Geothermal Hydropower Solar Tools Contribute Contact Us Best Practice: NEPA Timelines This best practice...

  9. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and NEPA: CEQ...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    reviews for Recovery Act funded projects and activities. The President assigned this reporting responsibility to CEQ. Reports to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA reviews ...

  10. NEPA litigation 1988-1995: A detailed statistical analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reinke, D.C.; Robitaille, P.

    1997-08-01

    The intent of this study was to identify trends and lessons learned from litigated NEPA documents and to compare and contrast these trends among Federal agencies. More than 350 NEPA cases were collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Of the NEPA cases reviewed, more than 170 were appeals or Supreme Court cases, mostly from the late 1980s through 1995. For this time period, the sampled documents represent the majority of the appeals court cases and all the Supreme Court cases. Additionally, over 170 district court cases were also examined as a representative sample of district court decisions on NEPA. Cases on agency actions found to need NEPA documentation (but that had no documentation) and cases on NEPA documents that were found to be inadequate were pooled and examined to determine the factors that were responsible for these findings. The inadequate documents were specifically examined to determine if there were any general trends. The results are shown in detailed statistical terms. Generally, when a Federal agency has some type of NEPA documentation (e.g., CX, EA, or EIS) and at least covers the basic NEPA procedural requirements, the agency typically wins the litigation. NEPA documents that lose generally have serious errors of omission. An awareness and understanding of the errors of omission can help Federal agencies to ensure that they produce winner a greater percentage of the time.

  11. Title 36 CFR 220 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    0 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title...

  12. Using the NEPA Process to Further the Department's Mission and...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    DOE's Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health regarding ways to use the NEPA process to help accomplish the Department's mission, consistent with environmental...

  13. Property:NEPA Extraordinary Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Extraordinary Url Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA Extraordinary Url Property Type URL Description URLs that document extraordinary circumstances checklist or...

  14. Transmission/Resource Library/NEPA | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Library Jump to: navigation, search ResourceLibraryHeader.png Planning Public Involvement GIS Tools and Maps Environmental Resources and Mitigation NEPA MOUs General...

  15. DOE Annual NEPA Planning Summary report templates 2011

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    use","Estimated Cost","Estimated Schedule (NEPA Milestones)",,"Description" "Sand Hills Wind Project, Wyoming, DOEEA-1581",,"Applicant Funded","EA Determination...

  16. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    The Department of Energy regulations that implement NEPA require OE to determine whether a proposal requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an ...

  17. Statement of Work-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Statement of Work-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support Services Acquisition: Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, ...

  18. Special Topics in NEPA Documentation | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    It focuses on principles of accident analyses under NEPA. July 1, 2002 A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment (DOE, 2002) This resource handbook was compiled for ...

  19. Managing NEPA at the Department of Energy (DOE, 1998) | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Managing NEPA at the Department of Energy (DOE, 1998) Managing NEPA at the Department of Energy (DOE, 1998) A report, by the National Academy of Public Administration, on the management of NEPA within the Department of Energy. PDF icon G-Oth-Managing_NEPA_DOE.pdf More Documents & Publications NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (DOE, 1996) Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, December 1996

  20. Microsoft PowerPoint - FNC NEPA GHG Climate Slides -- 16Jan2015...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    GAS EMISSIONS AND THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ... Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews NEPA.GOV ...

  1. The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation (CEQ, 2003)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report presents the results of research and consultations by the National Environmental Policy Task Force concerning the implementation of the environmental impact analysis requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The task force interviewed federal agencies; reviewed public comments, literature, reports, and case studies; and spoke with individuals and representatives from federal, state, and local governments, tribes, and interest groups.

  2. Low-level waste inventory, characteristics, generation, and facility assessment for treatment, storage, and disposal alternatives considered in the US Department of Energy waste management programmatic environmental impact statement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goyette, M.L.; Dolak, D.A.

    1996-12-01

    This report provides technical support information for use in analyzing environmental impacts associated with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) management alternatives in the Waste-Management (WM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Waste loads treated and disposed of for each of the LLW alternatives considered in the DOE WM PEIS are presented. Waste loads are presented for DOE Waste Management (WM) wastes, which are generated from routine operations. Radioactivity concentrations and waste quantities for treatment and disposal under the different LLW alternatives are described for WM waste. 76 refs., 14 figs., 42 tabs.

  3. Reasons and strategies for more effective NEPA implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ensminger, J.T. ); McLean, R.B. )

    1993-01-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) calls for an integrated approach to planning by federal agencies, with environmental issues being emphasized along with other types of planning concerns (i.e., financial, technical, and political). Because of NEPA, federal agencies have become more aware that environmental concerns must be addressed in their planning processes. However, a recent survey of NEPA practitioners indicated that many members of this group believe that deficiencies exist in the NEPA implementation processes of some federal agencies. According to the survey responses, the principal deficiencies are: (1) the tendency to use environmental impact statements as decision-implementation rather than decision-making documents; (2) the lack of effective planning and follow-up concerning mitigation measures identified by the NEPA process; and (3) NEPA overkill, particularly in the preparation of extensively detailed environmental assessments. As a result, NEPA may be addressed only cursorily as an afterthought, or the procedural aspects of NEPA document preparation may be overemphasized. Neither approach is conducive to serious planning and follow-up for impact mitigation measures. The results of the survey are discussed, as are the causes and possible solutions of these problems.

  4. NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration: Policy vs. practice

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P. ); Wolff, T.A. )

    1993-01-01

    Overwhelmed with environmental protection documentation requirements, a number of Federal agencies are grappling with the complexities of attempting to integrate'' the documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While there is some overlap between the general environmental policy objectives of NEPA, and the much more specific waste cleanup objectives of CERCLA and RCRA, there are also major differences and outright conflicts. This paper identifies both problems and opportunities associated with implementing emerging and evolving Federal agency policy regarding integration of the procedural and documentation requirements of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA. The emphasis is on NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration policy and practice at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The paper provides a comparative analysis of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA processes and discusses special integration issues including scoping, development and analysis of alternatives, risk assessment, tiering, scheduling, and the controversy surrounding applicability of NEPA to CERCLA or RCRA cleanup activities. Several NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration strategy options are evaluated and an annotated outline of an integrated NEPA/CERCLA document is included.

  5. Microsoft Word - NEPA18_Final.doc

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    6415 Rev. 18 Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization J. P. Duncan, Editor K. W. Burk M. A. Chamness R. A. Fowler B. G. Fritz P. L. Hendrickson E. P. Kennedy G. V. Last T. M. Poston M. R. Sackschewsky M. J. Scott S. F. Snyder M. D. Sweeney P. D. Thorne September 2007 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the

  6. LLW Forum meeting report, April 25--27, 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-12-31

    The Low-Level radioactive Waste Forum is an association of representatives of states and compacts established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies. LLW Forum participants include representatives from regional compacts, designated host states, unaffiliated states, and states with currently-operating low-level radioactive waste facilities. This quarterly meeting was held April 25-27, 1994 and activities during the first quarter of 1994 are detailed..

  7. LLW Forum meeting report, October 20--22, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-12-31

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum met in Annapolis, Maryland, on October 20--22, 1997. Twenty-six Forum Participants, Alternate Forum Participants, and meeting designees representing 22 compacts and states participated. A report on the meeting is given under the following subtitles: New developments in states and compacts; Discussion with NRC Commissioner McGaffigan; Regulatory issues session; Executive session; LLW forum business session; DOE low-level waste management program; Transportation of radioactive waste; Environmental equity: Title VI; Congressional studies on Ward Valley Site; Implementation of DOE`s strategy for waste management; Relicensing Envirocare; Draft agreement for uniform application of manifesting procedures; CRCPD report; Panel: Future of low-level radioactive waste management; Agenda planning: February 1998; Resolutions; and Attendance.

  8. Oak Ridge National Laboratory's philosophy and approach to NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Van Hook, R.I.; Braunstein, H.M.; Sigal, L.L.; Trettin, C.C.

    1991-01-01

    At Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the overall responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) resides with Environmental Review and Documentations Section that is within the Office of Environmental Compliance and Documentation (OECD). Organizationally, OECD is a line-management division reporting to the Director for Environmental, Safety and Health Compliance. The cornerstone for NEPA compliance at ORNL is the Internal Environmental Assessment (IEA), which is designed to provide a basis for NEPA review and documentation. The Standard Operating Procedures provide for evaluation and documentation records management and training, and auditing. The IEA provides a project description and a review of environmental, health and safety issues. The completed IEA is used to make recommendations to DOE regarding the appropriate level of NEPA documentation required for the action. NEPA documents which may be prepared include the Categorical Exclusion, Abbreviated Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Assessment; actions requiring Environmental Impact Statements are prepared by US Department of Energy (US DOE). The relatively recent DOE initiative for agency-wide compliance with NEPA has created areas in which ORNL has found itself lacking adequate resources and expertise. These are discussed in this paper. Throughout ORNL, there is strong management support for compliance with NEPA which has resulted in enhanced awareness and implementation of the NEPA requirements. Guidance is being provided and Laboratory divisions are factoring early integration of NEPA into their project planning with the goal of ensuring that their activities are carried out in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of NEPA and the other environmental statutes and regulations.

  9. Application of Probabilistic Performance Assessment Modeling for Optimization of Maintenance Studies for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crowe, B.; Yucel, V.; Rawlinson, S.; Black, P.; Carilli, J.; DiSanza, F.

    2002-02-25

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration of the Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) operates and maintains two active facilities on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) that dispose defense-generated low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed radioactive waste, and ''classified waste'' in shallow trenches and pits. The operation and maintenance of the LLW disposal sites are self-regulated by the DOE under DOE Order 435.1. This Order requires formal review of a performance assessment (PA) and composite analysis (CA; assessment of all interacting radiological sources) for each LLW disposal system followed by an active maintenance program that extends through and beyond the site closure program. The Nevada disposal facilities continue to receive NTS-generated LLW and defense-generated LLW from across the DOE complex. The PA/CAs for the sites have been conditionally approved and the facilities are now under a formal maintenance program that requires testing of conceptual models, quantifying and attempting to reduce uncertainty, and implementing confirmatory and long-term background monitoring, all leading to eventual closure of the disposal sites. To streamline and reduce the cost of the maintenance program, the NNSA/NV is converting the deterministic PA/CAs to probabilistic models using GoldSim, a probabilistic simulation computer code. The output of probabilistic models will provide expanded information supporting long-term decision objectives of the NTS disposal sites.

  10. NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40 Years of Transparency and Open Government

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40 Years of Transparency and Open Government, Environmental Law Institute, 2010.

  11. Justification Of The Use Of Boreholes For Disposal Of Sealed Radiological Sources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zarling, John [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Johnson, Peter [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2008-01-01

    Soon there will be only 14 states in two compacts that are able to dispose of Low Level Waste (LLW): the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compact with disposal options in Richland, Washington, and the Atlantic compact with disposal options in Barnwell, South Carolina. How do states not in one of the two compacts dispose of their LLW? The Off-Site Source Recovery Project can take possession and dispose of some of the unwanted transuranic sources at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). However, there will be no path forward for states outside of the two compacts for disposal of their non-transuranic LLW. A solution that has been much discussed, debated and researched, but has not been put into wide scale practice, is the borehole disposal concept. It is the author's position that companies that drill and explore for oil have been disposing of sources in borehole-like structures for years. It should be noted that these companies are not purposely disposing of these sources, but the sources are irretrievable and must be abandoned. Additionally, there are Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations that must be followed to seal the well that contains the lost and abandoned source. According to the NRC Event Notification Reports database, there were a minimum of 29 reports of lost and abandoned sources in oil wells between December 1999 and October 2006. The sources were lost at depths between 2,018-18,887 feet, or 600-5,750 meters. The companies that are performing explorations with the aid of sealed radiological sources must follow regulation 10 CFR Part 39. Subsection 15 outlines the procedures that must be followed if sources are determined to be irretrievable and abandoned in place. If the NRC allows and has regulations in place for oil companies, why can't states and/or companies be allowed to dispose of LLW in a similar fashion?

  12. NEPA mitigation and monitoring activities on Army installations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reinke, D.C.; Robitaille, P.

    1995-12-01

    The Army National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation regulation AR 200-2 (Army Regulation) requires only mitigation measures that can reasonably be accompanied as part of a proposed alternative be identified in the NEPA document. Failure of the identified mitigation actions to be executed or to perform as expected leads to a required reevaluation of the project and the significance of its impacts. The USAEC has undertaken a study of mitigation and monitoring actions listed in Army NEPA documents. As part of the USAEC NEPA program the study has outlined three major tasks (1) collection of a significant sample of Army NEPA documents, (2) review environmental documentation management and retention, and (3) review in detail a subsample of documents and follow-up with site visits. Some 242 Army NEPA documents, Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were collected and evaluated for mitigation requirements. Ninety seven of the 242 NEPA documents committed to one or more mitigation actions. While a wide array of mitigating activities have been identified in these documents, the four most common are (1) management plans and practices, (2) training actions, (3) revegetation actions, and (4) construction practices. Site visits to selected Army installations showed that mitigation practices were for the most part being done, but were poorly documented. No installation visited had a mitigation monitoring plan in place as required by AR 200-2.

  13. Making NEPA more effective and economical for the new millennium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HANSEN,ROGER P.; WOLFF,THEODORE A.

    2000-03-08

    This paper focuses on a ten-element strategy for streamlining the NEPA process in order to achieve the Act's objectives while easing the considerable burden on agencies, the public, and the judicial system. In other words, this paper proposes a strategy for making NEPA work better and cost less. How these ten elements are timed and implemented is critical to any successful streamlining. The strategy elements discussed in this paper, in no particular order of priority, are as follows: (1) integrate the NEPA process with other environmental compliance and review procedures; (2) accelerate the decision time for determining the appropriate level of NEPA documentation; (3) conduct early and thorough internal EIS (or EA) scoping before public scoping or other public participation begins; (4) organize and implement public scoping processes that are more participatory than confrontational; (5) maintain an up-to-date compendium of environmental baseline information; (6) prepare more comprehensive, broad-scope umbrella EISs that can be used effectively for tiering; (7) encourage preparation of annotated outlines with detailed guidance that serve as a road map for preparation of each EIS or EA; (8) decrease the length and complexity of highly technical portions of NEPA documents; (9) increase and systematize NEPA compliance outreach, training, and organizational support; and (10) work diligently to influence the preparation of better organized, shorter, and more readable NEPA documents.

  14. Design and operational considerations of United States commercial near-surface low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Birk, S.M.

    1997-10-01

    In accordance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, states are responsible for providing for disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive waste (LLW) within their borders. LLW in the US is defined as all radioactive waste that is not classified as spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, or by-product material resulting from the extraction of uranium from ore. Commercial waste includes LLW generated by hospitals, universities, industry, pharmaceutical companies, and power utilities. LLW generated by the country`s defense operations is the responsibility of the Federal government and its agency, the Department of Energy. The commercial LLRW disposal sites discussed in this report are located near: Sheffield, Illinois (closed); Maxey Flats, Kentucky (closed); Beatty, Nevada (closed); West Valley, New York (closed); Barnwell, South Carolina (operating); Richland, Washington (operating); Ward Valley, California, (proposed); Sierra Blanca, Texas (proposed); Wake County, North Carolina (proposed); and Boyd County, Nebraska (proposed). While some comparisons between the sites described in this report are appropriate, this must be done with caution. In addition to differences in climate and geology between sites, LLW facilities in the past were not designed and operated to today`s standards. This report summarizes each site`s design and operational considerations for near-surface disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The report includes: a description of waste characteristics; design and operational features; post closure measures and plans; cost and duration of site characterization, construction, and operation; recent related R and D activities for LLW treatment and disposal; and the status of the LLW system in the US.

  15. Looking in from the outside: The citizen and the NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schock, S.; Norte, M.

    1995-12-01

    The original intent of the NEPA was to open the decisionmaking process and the information on which it is based and to enable greater, more effective examination, assessment, scrutiny, and input by both public officials and citizens. NEPA procedures must insure environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. The NEPA is clearly one of the broadest and subtly comprehensive pieces of legislation in history and its very breadth has also made it one of the most extensively studied, argued, and litigated laws in history. Yet, much of the decisionmaking process and the NEPA itself remain relatively foreign, closed inaccessible, and enigmatic to the majority of the public at large and to many public officials, even including many who have environmental or public lands management responsibilities. The majority of both public officials and citizens alike remain spectators, rather than participants, and the NEPA remains an arcane battleground, increasingly populated by lawyers, special interests, environmental activists, and haggard agency specialists. Prepared by laypersons with virtually no vested interest in the NEPA itself, this paper examines several recent implementations of the NEPA Process with the goal of looking past the specific environmental issues involved and focusing on our experience with the actual procedural implementation of the NEPA. Attempting to adhere to an objective examination of the process in the spirit of Total Quality Management, the paper seeks to assess process level problems and, through root cause analysis, begin to identify possible process level solutions.

  16. NEPA scoping averts agency funds from blowing in the wind: A NEPA success story

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wade, M.C.; Van Dyke, J.; Crew, J.

    1998-06-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has been successful without the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has used early application of the NEPA process to make an informed decision and thus avoid negative ecological and financial results. The NEPA process was initiated to assess the potential impacts of constructing and operating a 6--9 megawatt wind turbine farm. The farm was to consist of up to 18 turbines to be placed along the spine of Plum Island which lies in the Atlantic Ocean off the shore of eastern Long Island. The rationale for the proposal was to provide an alternative energy source and thus avoid the expenditure of more than one million dollars per year on electricity and the dependency on the mainland public utility companies. A sufficient wind resource is readily available on Plum Island. Complicating the issue was a window of opportunity to obtain federal production tax credits if the wind energy system could become operational before July 1, 1999.

  17. Improving (NEPA) the National Environmental Policy Act through ISO 14001

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wilkinson, C H

    1999-02-25

    Federal application of ISO 14001 and / or the EPA Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) could substantially improve the mitigation and monitoring aspects of the NEPA process. In addition, application of those management systems could also enhance fulfillment of Section 101 goals of NEPA. An ISO 14001 Environmental Management System would provide for a plan to continually address and improve environmental aspects and impacts. The strong feedback and improvement loops in both CEMP and ISO 14001 would help strengthen this weakness of NEPA by providing a mechanism to foster excellent environmental action, not just more dusty paperwork.

  18. Using the NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    the NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index Step 2: Entering a Search Term or Phrase 1. Locate the downloaded file, right click on it, select "Extract all", extract it to any location on your computer or USB drive. 2. Locate and Open the extracted folder "NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index". 3. Locate and Open the .PDX file titled "Search - NEPA Requirements and Guidance" to open search form. Step 1: Download and Set Up Please Note: the search form

  19. DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures: Final Rule (61 Fed Reg 36222)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    DOE amended its existing regulations governing compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The amendments incorporate changes that improve DOE’s efficiency in implementing NEPA requirements by reducing costs and preparation time while maintaining quality, consistent with the DOE Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA issued in June 1994. These amendments also incorporate changes necessary to conform to recent changes in DOE’s missions, programs, and policies that have evolved in response to changing national priorities since the current regulations were issued in 1992.

  20. NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews (Final)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CEQ and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) have jointly prepared the handbook “NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews.” The handbook provides practitioners with an overview of NEPA and CEQA as well as suggestions for developing a single environmental review process that can meet the requirements of both statutes. The handbook also provides a framework for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between two or more agencies entering into a joint NEPA/ CEQA review process, and addresses the California Energy Commission licensing process, which takes the place of the CEQA process for certain power plants

  1. Gas generation from low-level radioactive waste: Concerns for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siskind, B.

    1992-01-01

    The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reexamine the topic of hydrogen gas generation from low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in closed spaces to ensure that the slow buildup of hydrogen from water-bearing wastes in sealed containers does not become a problem for long-term safe disposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has prepared a report, summarized in this paper, for the NRC to respond to these concerns. The paper discusses the range of values for G(H{sub 2}) reported for materials of relevance to LLW disposal; most of these values are in the range of 0.1 to 0.6. Most studies of radiolytic hydrogen generation indicate a leveling off of pressurization, probably because of chemical kinetics involving, in many cases, the radiolysis of water within the waste. Even if no leveling off occurs, realistic gas leakage rates (indicating poor closure by gaskets on drums and liners) will result in adequate relief of pressure for radiolytic gas generation from the majority of commercial sector LLW packages. Biodegradative gas generation, however, could pose a pressurization hazard even at realistic gas leakage rates. Recommendations include passive vents on LLW containers (as already specified for high integrity containers) and upper limits to the G values and/or the specific activity of the LLW.

  2. Gas generation from low-level radioactive waste: Concerns for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siskind, B.

    1992-04-01

    The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reexamine the topic of hydrogen gas generation from low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in closed spaces to ensure that the slow buildup of hydrogen from water-bearing wastes in sealed containers does not become a problem for long-term safe disposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has prepared a report, summarized in this paper, for the NRC to respond to these concerns. The paper discusses the range of values for G(H{sub 2}) reported for materials of relevance to LLW disposal; most of these values are in the range of 0.1 to 0.6. Most studies of radiolytic hydrogen generation indicate a leveling off of pressurization, probably because of chemical kinetics involving, in many cases, the radiolysis of water within the waste. Even if no leveling off occurs, realistic gas leakage rates (indicating poor closure by gaskets on drums and liners) will result in adequate relief of pressure for radiolytic gas generation from the majority of commercial sector LLW packages. Biodegradative gas generation, however, could pose a pressurization hazard even at realistic gas leakage rates. Recommendations include passive vents on LLW containers (as already specified for high integrity containers) and upper limits to the G values and/or the specific activity of the LLW.

  3. DOE Selects Two Contractors for Multiple-Award Waste Disposal Contract

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Cincinnati – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded two fixed price unit rate Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) multiple-award contracts for the permanent disposal of Low-Level Waste (LLW) and Mixed-Low Level Waste (MLLW) today to EnergySolutions, LLC and Waste Control Specialists, LLC.

  4. EPA's Section 309 Review: The Clean Air Act and NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This document discusses Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to review certain proposed actions of other federal agencies in accordance with NEPA and make those reviews public.

  5. NEPA Determination: LM-05-12 Amendment | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    5-12 Amendment NEPA Determination: LM-05-12 Amendment Obtain Access Agreement to Sample Homestake Mining Company Groundwater Monitoring Well HMC-951 Amendment CX(s) Applied: B3.1...

  6. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, Staff Directory

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, Staff Directory including phone number and areas of responsibility for the  Energy and Waste Management Unit, Western Energy and Waste Management Unit, and the...

  7. Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Site-wide reviews can aid the Department of Energy (DOE) in meeting its goals to streamline the NEPA process, to make that process more useful to decision makers and thepublic,...

  8. Property:NEPA DecisionDocumentDate | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    DecisionDocumentDate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA DecisionDocumentDate Property Type Date This is a property of type Date. Subproperties This property has the...

  9. Questions and Answers about National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Questions and answers about National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for state and local projects funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) State Energy Program (SEP) in the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

  10. Directory of Potential Stakeholders for DOE Actions under NEPA

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    DOE Offices are encouraged to be inclusive in providing potentially interested parties with opportunities to review NEPA documents.  This Directory of Potential Stakeholders for DOE Actions under...

  11. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 & NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Section 1609(c) requires a report to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA reviews for Recovery Act funded projects and activities. The President has assigned reporting responsibility to CEQ

  12. DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures: Final Rule (57 Fed Reg 15122)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    DOE revised the existing rule at 10 CFR part 1021, titled "Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act," to incorporate revised provision of DOE's Guidelines for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

  13. Glossary of Terms Used in DOE NEPA Documents (DOE, 1998)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Glossary is provided as a resource for preparing technical glossaries and related explanatory material (such as text-box explanations of technical concepts) for DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

  14. Council on Environmental Quality - A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: Council on Environmental Quality -...

  15. Memorandum for General Counsels, NEPA Liaisons and Participants in Scoping

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As part of its continuing oversight of the implementation of the NEPA regulations, the Council on Environmental Quality has been investigating agency experience with scoping. This is the process by...

  16. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 10

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, D.A.; Fosmire, C.J.; Fowler, R.A.

    1998-09-01

    This document describes the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Site environment and is numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in Hanford Site NEPA related documents. The document is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many NEPA documents that are being prepared by contractors. The two chapters in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered this way to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Site-related NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes the Hanford Site environment, and includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes applicable federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site.

  17. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DEI...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DEI'ER1IllNATION Page I of3 RECIPIENT:Verdant Power, ... publication and distribution, and classroom training and informational programs), ...

  18. Glossary of Terms Used in DOE NEPA Documents

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Glossary is provided as a resource for preparing technical glossaries and related explanatory material (such as text-box explanations of technical concepts) for DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

  19. United States Forest Service - Forest Service NEPA Procedures...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and Guidance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: United States Forest Service - Forest Service NEPA Procedures and Guidance Abstract This...

  20. Golden Reading Room: NEPA Categorical Exclusions | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NEPA Categorical Exclusions Golden Reading Room: NEPA Categorical Exclusions Categorical Exclusion Determinations issued by Golden Field Office. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD May 10, 2016 CX-100608 Categorical Exclusion Determination Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products RIN 1904-AD15 CX(s) Applied: B5.1 EERE-Buildings Technology Program Date: 05/10/2016 Location(s): Nationwide Office(s): Golden Field

  1. Attempts to avoid NEPA: Is it bad faith?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tuckfield, D.J.

    1995-12-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) imposes procedural requirements on federal agencies that undertake {open_quotes}major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.{close_quotes} Determining whether a project is a major federal action, subject to NEPA, is not always an easy task. When a determination is made that a project is not subject to NEPA, opponents of the project and environmental organizations occasionally cry foul. Often there are allegations that the federal agency of the project proponent (or both) acted in bad faith to avoid NEPA. The question of whether bad faith is relevant in NEPA inquiries has been the subject litigation for many of years. In that time, courts have addressed a number of bad faith questions. A common question is whether it is appropriate for a non-federal project proponent to structure a project to maintain eligibility for federal funding, but at the last minute withdraw the project from eligibility for the sole purpose of avoiding NEPA. More difficult questions arise when the federal government allocates some federal money to the project for preliminary design work before the project is withdrawn from eligibility for additional federal construction funds. Still other questions arise with respect to whether project proponents must reimburse the federal government for funds allocated to a project before the determination is made that it will not be a federal project. This paper will trace the evolution of the courts` struggle with bad faith NEPA claims. It will then show how courts have recently begun to develop a workable and appropriate test for determining when bad faith is an issue in NEPA litigation. This issue is important for project proponents and federal agency officials so they will not unwittingly take steps others might construe as bad faith. It is important for members of environmental organizations so they may recognize and properly assert bad faith claims when appropriate.

  2. Guidance Regarding Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process:

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Interim Actions (DOE, 2003) | Department of Energy Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process: Interim Actions (DOE, 2003) Guidance Regarding Actions That May Proceed During the NEPA Process: Interim Actions (DOE, 2003) DOE guidance to provide assistance in determining whether an action within the scope of an EIS may be taken before a record of decision is issued. The guidance reviews applicable requirements, gives examples of the types of actions that may proceed as interim actions,

  3. Guidance on NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determinations (DOE, 1998) |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Categorical Exclusion Determinations (DOE, 1998) Guidance on NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determinations (DOE, 1998) This memorandum provides a reminder of the requirements for applying categorical exclusions pursuant to the Department of Energy's (DOE's) NEPA regulations and guidance for simple recordkeeping of such determinations. PDF icon G-DOE-CXDeterminations.pdf More Documents & Publications Implementation Guidance for the DOE Policy on Documentation and Online

  4. Golden Reading Room: NREL Environmental and NEPA Documents | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy NREL Environmental and NEPA Documents Golden Reading Room: NREL Environmental and NEPA Documents Below are electronic versions of Golden Field Office Reading Room documents that were created after November 1, 1996, per the requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendment of 1996. Most documents are available in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF). NREL Annual Environmental Performance Reports (Annual Site Environmental Reports) Every year NREL prepares an

  5. Sandia Field Office NEPA Documents and Categorical Exclusion Determinations

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    | National Nuclear Security Administration Sandia Field Office NEPA Documents and Categorical Exclusion Determinations NEPA Documents Date Title Document # June 2010 Draft Environmental Assessment for Removal Actions at the Technical Area III Classified Waste Landfill at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico DOE/EA-1729 January 2003 Final Site-Wide Environmental Assessment of the Sandia National Laboratories/California DOE/EA-1422 Categorical Exclusion Determinations Date Document #

  6. NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Guidance and Requirements - Search Index NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index The NEPA Guidance and Requirements - Search Index is a one-stop solution providing you with DOE's Guidance and Requirements documents combined into one file for easy download and use. The compressed (.zip) file contains all of these documents in their optimized and machine-readable format. The file also contains a "search index" that can be used to search for keywords and phrases in all the documents

  7. Overview of Nevada Test Site Radioactive and Mixed Waste Disposal Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.T. Carilli; S.K. Krenzien; R.G. Geisinger; S.J. Gordon; B. Quinn

    2009-03-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Environmental Management Program is responsible for carrying out the disposal of on-site and off-site generated low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and low-level radioactive mixed waste (MW) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Core elements of this mission are ensuring safe and cost-effective disposal while protecting workers, the public, and the environment. This paper focuses on the impacts of new policies, processes, and opportunities at the NTS related to LLW and MW. Covered topics include: the first year of direct funding for NTS waste disposal operations; zero tolerance policy for non-compliant packages; the suspension of mixed waste disposal; waste acceptance changes; DOE Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP) auditing; the 92-Acre Area closure plan; new eligibility requirements for generators; and operational successes with unusual waste streams.

  8. Geothermal NEPA Database on OpenEI (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Young, K. R.; Levine, A.

    2014-09-01

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed the Geothermal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Database as a platform for government agencies and industry to access and maintain information related to geothermal NEPA documents. The data were collected to inform analyses of NEPA timelines, and the collected data were made publically available via this tool in case others might find the data useful. NREL staff and contractors collected documents from agency websites, during visits to the two busiest Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices for geothermal development, and through email and phone call requests from other BLM field offices. They then entered the information into the database, hosted by Open Energy Information (http://en.openei.org/wiki/RAPID/NEPA). The long-term success of the project will depend on the willingness of federal agencies, industry, and others to populate the database with NEPA and related documents, and to use the data for their own analyses. As the information and capabilities of the database expand, developers and agencies can save time on new NEPA reports by accessing a single location to research related activities, their potential impacts, and previously proposed and imposed mitigation measures. NREL used a wiki platform to allow industry and agencies to maintain the content in the future so that it continues to provide relevant and accurate information to users.

  9. A systematic interdisciplinary approach to NEPA compliance programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    March, F. )

    1993-01-01

    NEPA calls for a systematic interdisciplinary approach'', but no substantive guidance is provided by the law or the regulations on how to implement such an approach. A review of the literature on the impact assessment methods (most of which were written in the 1970s) reveals a variety of valid approaches, but is largely useful within a specific program context. This paper presents and illustrates a more general theory for a systematic interdisciplinary approach. The logic for this approach is rigorously grounded on statements in NEPA itself and in CEQ's regulations. The results have provided a part of the theoretical framework for a NEPA expert system and have proven useful in training project managers in implementing NEPA. The paper first summarizes NEPA and CEQ's specific statements relating to a systematic interdisciplinary approach. It distinguishes between the procedural vs substantive aspects of an approach. The procedural approach is first presented in the form of a logic diagram cross-referenced in detail to requirements or guidance in the CEQ regulations. This provides the framework for an expert system approach to procedural compliance, and for a NEPA program management plan.

  10. NEPA and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) experience

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMillen, M.C. )

    1993-01-01

    In an effort to streamline the US military and make the structure of forces consistent with base structure, the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure was created in 1988, and was charged with the task of conducting an independent study of the domestic military base structure and to recommend installations for realignment and closure. The resulting round of base closure and realignment recommendations was termed BRAC 91. To facilitate the BRAC 91 process, Congress passed Public Law 101-510 which includes the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Title XXIX). The closing and realigning of a military installation is considered a major Federal action'' subject to the environmental review process established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA process proved to be more than the BRAC process was capable of handling in a reasonable and practicable manner. This paper examines the exact nature of the changes made to the NEPA process under BRAC 91, and what effect these changes have on the process itself. To illustrate the effects of the BRAC 91 changes on the NEPA process and subsequent documents prepared under BRAC, case examples will be used. The paper will identify for the NEPA practitioner what works, and what needs to be avoided when preparing NEPA documents under such circumstances.

  11. Socio-economic impact analysis in the NEPA process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karnovitz, A.; McQueen, S.

    1997-08-01

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require environmental impact statements to assess direct and indirect effects on a number of different environmental resource categories, including economic and social effects. However, NEPA regulations do not dictate the scope of the socio-economic analyses or specify which analytical procedures must be employed. As a result, socio-economic impact analyses vary considerably across NEPA documents in both the methodology of analysis and in the models used to quantify impacts. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of socio-economic analyses in NEPA documents and present strategies for ensuring that the socio-economic analyses are focused on the most relevant socio-economic indicators, while still conforming to the full intent of NEPA. This paper will provide guidance on what factors should be considered when identifying the economic indicators to be assessed. The paper will also describe and discuss various types of models currently used to quantify economic impacts in NEPA documents, and the comparative advantages and disadvantages of these models. In addition, the definition of the appropriate Return On Investment in relation to the model used and the analysis performed will be discussed. The offices of the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Food and Drug Administration present real world examples of innovative approaches to socio-economic impact analysis.

  12. The relationship of ecosystem management to NEPA and its goals

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phillips, C.G.; Randolph, J.

    2000-07-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was intended to promote a systematic, comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to planning and decision making, including the integration of the natural and social sciences and the design arts. NEPA critics have cited three key shortcomings in its implementation: (1) a lack of engagement with the NEPA process early in the planning process through interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) a lack of rigorous science and the incorporation of ecological principles and techniques; and (3) a lack of emphasis on the Act's substantive goals and objectives. In recent years and independent of NEPA, a policy of ecosystem management has been developed, which represents a fundamental change from a fragmented, incremental planning and management approach to a holistic, comprehensive, interdisciplinary land and resource management effort. The authors postulate that by incorporating ecosystem management principles in their planning and decisionmaking, federal agencies can address the shortcomings in NEPA implementation and move closes to NEPA's intent. A case analysis of EISs prepared by the USDA Forest Service before and after adopting an ecosystem management approach supports their hypothesis.

  13. Equity of commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal fees. Report to Congress

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-02-01

    In the Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1997 Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare a study of the costs of operating a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility such as the one at Barnwell, South Carolina, and to determine whether LLW generators are paying equitable disposal fees. The disposal costs of four facilities are reviewed in this report, two operating facilities and two planned facilities. The operating facilities are located at Barnwell, South Carolina, and Richland, Washington. They are operated by Chem-Nuclear, LLC, (Chem-Nuclear), and US Ecology, Inc., (US Ecology), respectively. The planned facilities are expected to be built at Ward Valley, California, and Sierra Blanca, Texas. They will be operated by US Ecology and the State of Texas, respectively. This report found that disposal fees vary significantly among facilities for a variety of reasons. However, the information suggests that at each disposal facility, LLW generators pay equitable disposal fees.

  14. A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Michael D. . E-mail: michael.smith@humboldt.edu

    2007-03-15

    According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the analysis and comparison of alternatives is considered the 'heart' of the NEPA process. Although over 20 years have passed since the original mandate appeared to construct and assess a 'reasonable range' of alternatives contained in the CEQ Regulations, there is a perception that there is still a significant amount of confusion about what exactly constitutes a legally-compliant alternatives analysis. One manifestation of this confusion is the increasing amount of litigation over the alternatives analysis in NEPA documents. This study examined decisions on challenges to alternative analyses contained in federal agency NEPA documents in federal Courts of Appeals for the ten-year period 1996-2005. The results show that federal agencies are overwhelmingly successful against such challenges - winning 30 of the 37 cases. The most common challenge was that federal agencies had not included a full reasonable range of alternatives, while the second most frequent was that agencies had improperly constructed their purpose and need for their projects. Brief descriptions of several of the key court decisions are provided that illustrate the main factors that led to agencies being successful, as well as being unsuccessful, in their court challenges. The results provide little support for recent calls to amend the NEPA Statute and the CEQ Regulations to better clarify the requirements for alternatives analysis. The conclusion to the study focuses on practical steps NEPA practitioners can take to prepare their alternatives analyses in a manner that fulfills the requirements of the NEPA Statute and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations and makes them less vulnerable to an unfavorable court decision if legally challenged.

  15. Managing the analysis of air quality impacts under NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weber, Y.B.; Leslie, A.C.D.

    1995-12-31

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) mandates the analysis and evaluation of potential impacts of major Federal actions having the potential to affect the environment. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 identify an array of new air quality issues appropriate for analysis in compliance with NEPA. An example is emissions of the 189 hazardous air pollutants identified in Title III. The utility industry estimates that more than 2.4 billion pounds of toxic pollutants were emitted to the atmosphere in 1988, with the potential for resultant adverse health impacts such as cancer, reproductive effects, birth defects, and respiratory illness. The US Department of Energy (DOE) provides Federal funds for projects that utilize coal as the primary fuel, including the approximately 45 projects funded over the past ten years under the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program. Provision of Federal funds brings these projects under NEPA review. While electric steam generating units greater than 25 MW are currently excluded from regulatory review for the 189 air toxics listed in Title III, they are not, due to their potential impacts, excluded from NEPA review when Federally funded, in whole or in part. The authors will discuss their experiences drawn from NEPA evaluations of coal-fired power projects, the differences between regulatory requirements and NEPA requirements, source categories, major and area sources, conformity, maximum achievable control technology, mandatory licensing, radionuclides, visibility, toxics found to be emitted from coal combustion, public involvement, citizen suits, the bounty system, and how NEPA review can result in beneficial changes to proposed projects through mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts.

  16. Composite analysis E-area vaults and saltstone disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1997-09-01

    This report documents the Composite Analysis (CA) performed on the two active Savannah River Site (SRS) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults (EAV) Disposal Facility. The analysis calculated potential releases to the environment from all sources of residual radioactive material expected to remain in the General Separations Area (GSA). The GSA is the central part of SRS and contains all of the waste disposal facilities, chemical separations facilities and associated high-level waste storage facilities as well as numerous other sources of radioactive material. The analysis considered 114 potential sources of radioactive material containing 115 radionuclides. The results of the CA clearly indicate that continued disposal of low-level waste in the saltstone and EAV facilities, consistent with their respective radiological performance assessments, will have no adverse impact on future members of the public.

  17. 12/2000 Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report Version 2 | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy Services » Waste Management » Waste Disposition » 12/2000 Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report Version 2 12/2000 Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report Version 2 The purpose of this Report is to assess whether U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) disposal facilities have sufficient volumetric and radiological capacity to accommodate the low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) that the Department expects to dispose at these facilities. PDF icon

  18. The NEPA threshold question revisited: Proposed'' actions and continuing'' activities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wolff, T.A. ); Hansen, R.P. )

    1993-01-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to include a detailed statement'' in every recommendation or report on proposals'' for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' Unless the three elements of a proposal are present (major, federal, and action), preparation of a detailed statement is not required. This paper addresses the practical decision-making dilemma that attends determinations of what types of Federal activities meet the NEPA threshold test under what kinds of varying circumstances. The authors' experience with the US Dept. of Energy (DOE) NEPA documentation is used to discuss how decisions may be made to determine whether a proposed action qualifies for a categorical exclusion'' or whether it requires preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The concept of new'' actions versus continuing'' actions which may be bounded'' by previous NEPA documentation is also discussed. A dichotomous key for separating or combining Federal action'' candidates for different levels of NEPA documentation is provided. Leading court opinions on the threshold question and related issues are discussed in lay terms.

  19. Application of NEPA requirements to CERCLA remedial actions. Master's thesis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Strobbe, C.L.

    1994-06-01

    This study investigated the application of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) actions. Similarities in the documentation and public participation requirements of NEPA and CERCLA include identification and evaluation of alternatives and public participation. Differences include document contents and timing of public participation. This study presented four options for ensuring NEPA compliance at CERCLA sites. Option one included a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) with subsequent combined FS/EIS report for each subunit. Option two eliminated the PEIS, but retained a stand-alone NEPA document for each CERCLA subunit. Option three included a PEIS with a subsequent combined FS/EIS report for each subunit. Option four eliminated the PEIS but retained a combined FS/EIS report for each subunit. The model presented in this study can be used at any installation to determine the optimal approach for the site. The model's goal is to comply with NEPA and CERCLA while maintaining a balance between cost, schedule, and public acceptance.

  20. DOE Order 451.1B: NEPA Compliance Program (DOE, 2012) | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DOE Order 451.1B: NEPA Compliance Program (DOE, 2012) DOE Order 451.1B: NEPA Compliance Program (DOE, 2012) The purpose of this Order is to establish DOE internal requirements and ...

  1. File:09-FD-g - USFS NEPA Process.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    g - USFS NEPA Process.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Metadata File:09-FD-g - USFS NEPA Process.pdf Size of this preview: 463 599 pixels. Other...

  2. The cost effectiveness of NEPA: Are the benefits worth the costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mangi, J.I. )

    1993-01-01

    NEPA is much loved, and much hated; too often ignored, and even more often ill-used. NEPA's framers intended the Act to have some substantive effects on Government actions, but they did not foresee the regulatory process and organizational structures that have accreted around the Act. Compliance with NEPA and its regulations may cost the US taxpayer, directly and indirectly, on the order of $1 billion a year. The benefits of NEPA compliance are obvious in some cases, not so in others. NEPA has success stories, but also boondoggles in its current and recent practice. Yet the taxpayer is entitled to know whether NEPA's non-trivial costs yield sufficient benefit to make compliance efforts a worthwhile investment. This paper will analyze the issue of the costs of NEPA compliance, and the issue of its benefits, and will suggest an answer as to the question of NEPA's cost effectiveness.

  3. A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    the need for a Citizen's Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Participants in NEPA Regional Roundtables held in 2003-2004 clearly voiced the need for an ...

  4. Property:NEPA LeadAgencyDocNumber | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    LeadAgencyDocNumber Jump to: navigation, search Property Name NEPA LeadAgencyDocNumber Property Type String This is a property of type String. Pages using the property "NEPA...

  5. File:09-FD-e - DOE NEPA Process.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    9-FD-e - DOE NEPA Process.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Metadata File:09-FD-e - DOE NEPA Process.pdf Size of this preview: 463 599 pixels. Other...

  6. EPA's Section 309 Review: The Clean Air Act and NEPA | Department...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    NEPA EPA's Section 309 Review: The Clean Air Act and NEPA The Clean Air Act, a law to prevent pollution of a single environmental medium, contains an unusual provision. That ...

  7. The people problems of NEPA: Social impact assessment and the role of public involvement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carnes, S.A.

    1989-12-31

    This Chapter of the book `` The Scientific Challenges of NEPA`` discusses the people problems of NEPA and social impact assessment and the role of public involvement in NEPA. When Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, there was little guidance on the preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS) and the role of the public in the NEPA process. Excepting the statutory language of NEPA, which referred to impacts on the human environment, nowhere was this more evident than with respect to people. Questions such as what impacts on people should be assessed, how impacts on people should be assessed, and how people, including but not limited to those persons potentially impacted, should be involved in the assessment itself as well as NEPA`s associated administrative processes, were simply not addressed.

  8. Title 40 CFR 1501 NEPA and Agency Planning | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    1 NEPA and Agency Planning Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 1501 NEPA and...

  9. DOE Policy on NEPA Process Transparency and Openness | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Policy on NEPA Process Transparency and Openness DOE Policy on NEPA Process Transparency and Openness Under the new policy, each Program and Field Office (including the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Power Marketing Administrations) will document and post online all categorical exclusion determinations involving classes of actions listed in Appendix B of the Department's NEPA implementing procedures, 10 C.F.R. Part 1021. PDF icon DOE Policy on NEPA Process Transparency and

  10. Questions and Answers on the Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA (DOE,

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    1994) | Department of Energy Questions and Answers on the Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA (DOE, 1994) Questions and Answers on the Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA (DOE, 1994) Questions and Answers on the DOE Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA. PDF icon QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS on the SECRETARIAL POLICY STATEMENT on the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT More Documents & Publications "Frequently Asked Questions" on the Department of Energy's NEPA Regulations (DOE, 1998)

  11. Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (DOE,

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    1994) | Department of Energy Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (DOE, 1994) Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (DOE, 1994) The purpose of this guidance memorandum is to describe potential benefits of conducting a site-wide NEPA review (environmental impact statement orenvironmental assessment). Site-wide reviews can aid the Department of Energy (DOE) in meeting its goals to streamline the NEPA process, to make that process

  12. Hanford Advisory Board Handout U.S. Department of Energy NEPA vs. CERCLA Process

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Handout U.S. Department of Energy NEPA vs. CERCLA Process 2/7/2013 NEPA Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS Scoping -Public Comment Period Draft EIS Public Comment Period Final EIS Issued NEPA ROD(s) Issued NEPA Mitigation Action Plan (USDOE) RCRA Permitting Process with Opportunity for Public Comment CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Proposed Plan Issued - Notice Issued Public Comment Period CERCLA ROD Issued CERCLA Work Plan CERCLA 5-Year Review

  13. Attainment of the spirit of NEPA: A case study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bergstrom, D.J. ); Kott, F.J. )

    1993-01-01

    Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company recently undertook a major expansion of their interstate natural gas pipeline system. The environmental permitting process for this large (460 mile), multi-state construction project exemplified the pervasiveness of the spirit of NEPA in dozens of federal, state, and local jurisdictional agencies, as well as associated organizations which lacked permitting authority but which took an active interest in the permitting process. Additionally, approvals from watershed districts, county zoning offices, and military preserves were obtained. Permit applications and agency consultations were complex and extremely labor-intensive. Overlapping jurisdictional authority turned permit acquisition into a labyrinth for which progress needed to be tracked weekly, and interagency logjams proved to be problematic. One specific example involved an archaeological site at the edge of a wetland under an eagle's nest. While the efficiency of multiple agencies administering NEPA is questionable, there seems little doubt as to the efficacy of the spirit of NEPA in this geographic region.

  14. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 9

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, D.A.; Bjornstad, B.N.; Fosmire, C.J.

    1997-08-01

    This ninth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. Not all of the sections have been updated for this revision. The following lists the updated sections: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); culture, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; all of Chapter 6.

  15. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.

    1992-12-01

    This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

  16. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization. Revision 5

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.

    1992-12-01

    This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

  17. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-level Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, Karen Nina; Seitz, Roger Ray

    2002-09-01

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  18. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, K.A.; Seitz, R.R.

    2002-09-26

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  19. The following data/assumptions will better address the LLW differences between t

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    data/assumptions will better address the LLW differences between the LEU option and the LEU/Th option of Alternative 1. 1. There is 397 kg fissile ( 233 U and 235 U) in the HTGR fuel. 2. Based on past experience of LLW to Nevada National Security Site, it is expected that the maximum quantity of fissile in a Type B shipping container (CASTOR cask) will be restricted to 1 kg. To protect a 1 kg maximum, it is assumed that 900 grams would be the maximum in a CASTOR cask. Therefore, from a fissile

  20. Examples of Benefits from the NEPA process for ARRA funded activities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Efforts to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) include ensuring, and reporting on, timely NEPA reviews prepared in support of projects and activities funded under major provisions of ARRA. In addition to reporting on the status of the NEPA environmental reviews, agencies also report on the benefits of NEPA.

  1. Pollution Prevention- Environmental Impact Reduction Checklists for NEPA/309 Reviewers (EPA, 1995)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides a valuable opportunity for Federal agency NEPA/309 reviewers to incorporate pollution prevention and environmental impact reduction into actions (or projects). This Environmental Protection Agency guidance was prepared to assist NEPA/309 reviewers in incorporating pollution prevention into each step of the environmental review process, including scoping, mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement.

  2. OFFICE OF NEPA POLICY AND COMPLIANCE - STAFF DIRECTORY | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy OFFICE OF NEPA POLICY AND COMPLIANCE - STAFF DIRECTORY OFFICE OF NEPA POLICY AND COMPLIANCE - STAFF DIRECTORY Carol Borgstrom, Director 202-586-4600 Carol.Borgstrom@hq.doe.gov Lettie Wormley, Secretary 202-586-4610 Lettie.Wormley@hq.doe.gov ENERGY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT Brian Costner, Unit Leader 202-586-9924 Brian.Costner@hq.doe.gov Carrie Moeller Abravanel 202-586-8397 Carrie.Abravanel@hq.doe.gov - Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Transmission Line Projects -

  3. Consideration Of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review of NEPA Documents

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents in providing accurate, realistic, and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative impacts. The guidance focuses on specific issues that are critical in EPA's review of NEPA documents under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The guidance offers information on what issues to look for in the analysis, what practical considerations should be kept in mind when reviewing the analysis, and what should be said in EPA comments concerning the adequacy of the analysis.

  4. A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (CEQ, 2007) |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (CEQ, 2007) A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (CEQ, 2007) This guide is based on research and consultations undertaken by the Council on Environmental Quality concerning the need for a Citizen's Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Participants in NEPA Regional Roundtables held in 2003-2004 clearly voiced the need for an guide that provides an explanation of NEPA, how it is

  5. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Eschbach, Tara O.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Goodwin, Shannon M.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Rohay, Alan C.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2002-09-01

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

  6. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, Duane A.; Antonio, Ernest J.; Eschbach, Tara O.; Fowler, Richard A.; Goodwin, Shannon M.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast, Ellen L.; Rohay, Alan C.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2001-09-01

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

  7. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Rohay, Alan C.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2004-09-22

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the sixteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the seventeenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety and health, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

  8. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, Revision 15

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Burk, Kenneth W.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.; Woody, Dave M.

    2003-09-01

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

  9. DOE Advances Innovative CCS Polygeneration Plant Through NEPA Process

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission are working together to advance an innovative carbon capture and storage plant simultaneously through the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and a complementary California Energy Quality Act process.

  10. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.

    1988-09-01

    This document describes the Hanford Site environment (Chapter 4) and contains data in Chapter 5 and 6 which will guide users in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related documents. Many NEPA compliance documents have been prepared and are being prepared by site contractors for the US Department of Energy, and examination of these documents reveals inconsistencies in the amount of detail presented and the method of presentation. Thus, it seemed necessary to prepare a consistent description of the Hanford environment to be used in preparing Chapter 4 of environmental impact statements and other site-related NEPA documentation. The material in Chapter 5 is a guide to the models used, including critical assumptions incorporated in these models, in previous Hanford NEPA documents. The users will have to select those models appropriate for the proposed action. Chapter 6 is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6, which describes the applicable laws, regulations, and DOE and state orders. In this document, a complete description of the environment is presented in Chapter 4 without excessive tabular data. For these data, sources are provided. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information where it is available on the 100, 200, 300, and other Areas. This division will allow a person requiring information to go immediately to those sections of particular interest. However, site-specific information on each of these separate areas is not always complete or available. In this case, the general Hanford Site description should be used. 131 refs., 19 figs., 32 tabs.

  11. Advanced Burner Reactor Preliminary NEPA Data Study.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Briggs, L. L.; Cahalan, J. E.; Deitrich, L. W.; Fanning, T. H.; Grandy, C.; Kellogg, R.; Kim, T. K.; Yang, W. S.; Nuclear Engineering Division

    2007-10-15

    The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is a new nuclear fuel cycle paradigm with the goals of expanding the use of nuclear power both domestically and internationally, addressing nuclear waste management concerns, and promoting nonproliferation. A key aspect of this program is fast reactor transmutation, in which transuranics recovered from light water reactor spent fuel are to be recycled to create fast reactor transmutation fuels. The benefits of these fuels are to be demonstrated in an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR), which will provide a representative environment for recycle fuel testing, safety testing, and modern fast reactor design and safeguard features. Because the GNEP programs will require facilities which may have an impact upon the environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for GNEP is being undertaken by Tetra Tech, Inc. The PEIS will include a section on the ABR. In support of the PEIS, the Nuclear Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory has been asked to provide a description of the ABR alternative, including graphics, plus estimates of construction and operations data for an ABR plant. The compilation of this information is presented in the remainder of this report. Currently, DOE has started the process of engaging industry on the design of an Advanced Burner Reactor. Therefore, there is no specific, current, vendor-produced ABR design that could be used for this PEIS datacall package. In addition, candidate sites for the ABR vary widely as to available water, geography, etc. Therefore, ANL has based its estimates for construction and operations data largely on generalization of available information from existing plants and from the environmental report assembled for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) design [CRBRP, 1977]. The CRBRP environmental report was chosen as a resource because it thoroughly documents the extensive evaluation which was performed on the anticipated environmental impacts of that plant. This source can be referenced in the open literature and is publicly available. The CRBRP design was also of a commercial demonstration plant size - 975 MWth - which falls in the middle of the range of ABR plant sizes being considered (250 MWth to 2000 MWth). At the time the project was cancelled, the CRBRP had progressed to the point of having completed the licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and was in the process of receiving NRC approval. Therefore, it was felt that [CRBRP, 1977] provides some of the best available data and information as input to the GNEP PEIS work. CRBRP was not the source of all the information in this document. It is also expected that the CRBRP data will be bounding from the standpoint of commodity usage because fast reactor vendors will develop designs which will focus on commodity and footprint reduction to reduce the overall cost per kilowatt electric compared with the CRBR plant. Other sources used for this datacall information package are explained throughout this document and in Appendix A. In particular, see Table A.1 for a summary of the data sources used to generate the datacall information.

  12. Applying value engineering and modern assessment tools in managing NEPA: Improving effectiveness of the NEPA scoping and planning process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ECCLESTON, C.H.

    1998-09-03

    While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations focus on describing ''What'' must be done, they provide surprisingly little direction on ''how'' such requirements are to be implemented. Specific implementation of these requirements has largely been left to the discretion of individual agencies. More than a quarter of a century after NEPA's enactment, few rigorous tools, techniques, or methodologies have been developed or widely adopted for implementing the regulatory requirements. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, agencies are required to conduct a public scoping process to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts that will be investigated. Determining the proper scope of analysis is an element essential in the successful planning and implementation of future agency actions. Lack of rigorous tools and methodologies can lead to project delays, cost escalation, and increased risk that the scoping process may not adequately capture the scope of decisions that eventually might need to be considered. Recently, selected Value Engineering (VE) techniques were successfully used in managing a prescoping effort. A new strategy is advanced for conducting a pre-scoping/scoping effort that combines NEPA with VE. Consisting of five distinct phases, this approach has potentially wide-spread implications in the way NEPA, and scoping in particular, is practiced.

  13. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rohay, A.C.; Fosmire, C.J.; Neitzel, D.A.; Hoitink, D.J.; Harvey, D.W.; Antonio, E.J.; Wright, M.K.; Thorne, P.D.; Hendrickson, P.L.; Fowler, R.A.; Goodwin, S.M.; Poston, T.M.

    1999-09-28

    This document describes the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many NEPA documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No conclusions or recommendations are provided. This year's report is the eleventh revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the 12th revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA; SEPA and CERCLA documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Site-related NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomic; occupational safety, and noise. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100,200,300, and other Areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6.0, which describes applicable federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. People preparing environmental assessments and EISs should also be cognizant of the document entitled ''Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements'' published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) staff prepared individual sections of this document, with input from other Site contractors. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. The following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through June 1999: Climate and Meteorology; Ecology; Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources; Socioeconomics; and All of Chapter 6.

  14. NEPA and the Clean Air Act: Complementary approaches to maintaining air quality

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, R.L.; McCold, L.N.

    1991-01-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was established to prevent or eliminate damage to the environmental and biosphere from federal actions and stimulate the public health and welfare. An intertwined focus of NEPA has been to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act (CAA) and amendments are the basis for regulating emission of air pollutants and otherwise maintaining or enhancing air quality to protect public health and welfare throughout the United States. Because the CAA is to comprehensive, a frequently asked question concerns the usefulness of NEPA from an air quality perspective: What can NEPA accomplish for federal actions that is not already accomplished by the CAA This paper contends that NEPA plays an important role in identifying and informing federal decision-makers of potential air quality impacts of federal actions. NEPA encompasses a broader scope and provides an independent analysis of CAA requirements for federal actions. NEPA ensures that spectrum of potential environmental effects is examined, rather than air quality alone. In some cases, NEPA analyses involve evaluating trade-offs of beneficial and adverse effects among different environmental media, such as air emissions vs solid waste. NEPA air quality analyses sometimes encompass potential concerns that are beyond those required for compliance with the CAA. Also, the environmental consequences of alternative actions are assessed to assist federal decision-makers in selecting a preferred alternative. Finally, proposed federal programs are evaluated under NEPA for their potential effects. 8 refs.

  15. Performance assessment for the disposal of low-level waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, M.I.; Khaleel, R.; Rittmann, P.D.; Lu, A.H.; Finfrock, S.H.; DeLorenzo, T.H. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Serne, R.J.; Cantrell, K.J. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1995-06-01

    This document reports the findings of a performance assessment (PA) analysis for the disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in the 200 West Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBG) in the northwest corner of the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site. This PA analysis is required by US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A (DOE 1988a) to demonstrate that a given disposal practice is in compliance with a set of performance objectives quantified in the order. These performance objectives are applicable to the disposal of DOE-generated LLW at any DOE-operated site after the finalization of the order in September 1988. At the Hanford Site, DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) has issued a site-specific supplement to DOE Order 5820.2A, DOE-RL 5820.2A (DOE 1993), which provides additiona I ce objectives that must be satisfied.

  16. Low level tank waste disposal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mullally, J.A.

    1994-09-29

    Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) contracted a team consisting of Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), British Nuclear Fuel Laboratories (BNFL), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and TRW through the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Technical Support Contract to conduct a study on several areas concerning vitrification and disposal of low-level-waste (LLW). The purpose of the study was to investigate how several parameters could be specified to achieve full compliance with regulations. The most restrictive regulation governing this disposal activity is the National Primary Drinking Water Act which sets the limits of exposure to 4 mrem per year for a person drinking two liters of ground water daily. To fully comply, this constraint would be met independently of the passage of time. In addition, another key factor in the investigation was the capability to retrieve the disposed waste during the first 50 years as specified in Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A. The objective of the project was to develop a strategy for effective long-term disposal of the low-level waste at the Hanford site.

  17. Operating Experience and Lessons Learned in the Use of Soft-Sided Packaging for Transportation and Disposal of Low Activity Radioactive Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kapoor, A.; Gordon, S.; Goldston, W.

    2013-07-08

    This paper describes the operating experience and lessons learned at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites as a result of an evaluation of potential trailer contamination and soft-sided packaging integrity issues related to the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level (LLW/MLLW) radioactive waste shipments. Nearly 4.3 million cubic meters of LLW/MLLW will have been generated and disposed of during fiscal year (FY) 2010 to FY 2015either at commercial disposal sites or disposal sites owned by DOE. The LLW/MLLW is packaged in several different types of regulatory compliant packaging and transported via highway or rail to disposal sites safely and efficiently in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and DOE orders. In 1999, DOE supported the development of LLW containers that are more volumetrically efficient, more cost effective, and easier to use as compared to metal or wooden containers that existed at that time. The DOE Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), working in conjunction with the plastic industry, tested several types of soft-sided waste packaging systems that meet U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for transport of low specific activity and surface contaminated objects. Since then, soft-sided packaging of various capacities have been used successfully by the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) projects to package, transport, and dispose D&D wastes throughout the DOE complex. The joint team of experts assembled by the Energy Facility Contractors Group from DOE waste generating sites, DOE and commercial waste disposal facilities, and soft-sided packaging suppliers conducted the review of soft-sided packaging operations and transportation of these packages to the disposal sites. As a result of this evaluation, the team developed several recommendations and best practices to prevent or minimize the recurrences of equipment contamination issues and proper use of soft-sided packaging for transport and disposal of waste.

  18. An approach to defining significance under NEPA: A practitioner's perspective

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMillen, M.C. )

    1993-01-01

    The term significant impact'' has a specific meaning and intent when used in documents prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Often the word significant is avoided because of the implications related to its use. Significant adverse impacts discovered in the analysis performed for an EA can trigger the next level of NEPA scrutiny, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This paper looks at using methodologies with a prescribed set of criteria that measure factors including the magnitude, extent, duration and frequency, and likelihood of impacts related to a proposed action. Examples of this approach, and a rationale for placing an emphasis on developing the criteria for certain factors will be presented. The paper will also demonstrate the pragmatism of using a structured methodology versus professional opinion'' in the determination of significance.

  19. WRAP low level waste restricted waste management (LLW RWM) glovebox acceptance test report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leist, K.J.

    1997-11-24

    On April 22, 1997, the Low Level Waste Restricted Waste Management (LLW RWM) glovebox was tested using acceptance test procedure 13027A-87. Mr. Robert L. Warmenhoven served as test director, Mr. Kendrick Leist acted as test operator and test witness, and Michael Lane provided miscellaneous software support. The primary focus of the glovebox acceptance test was to examine glovebox control system interlocks, operator Interface Unit (OIU) menus, alarms, and messages. Basic drum port and lift table control sequences were demonstrated. OIU menus, messages, and alarm sequences were examined, with few exceptions noted. Barcode testing was bypassed, due to the lack of installed equipment as well as the switch from basic reliance on fixed bar code readers to the enhanced use of portable bar code readers. Bar code testing was completed during performance of the LLW RWM OTP. Mechanical and control deficiencies were documented as Test Exceptions during performance of this Acceptance Test. These items are attached as Appendix A to this report.

  20. Test Plan: Phase 1, Hanford LLW melter tests, GTS Duratek, Inc.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eaton, W.C.

    1995-06-14

    This document provides a test plan for the conduct of vitrification testing by a vendor in support of the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Low-Level Waste (LLW) Vitrification Program. The vendor providing this test plan and conducting the work detailed within it [one of seven selected for glass melter testing under Purchase Order MMI-SVV-384215] is GTS Duratek, Inc., Columbia, Maryland. The GTS Duratek project manager for this work is J. Ruller. This test plan is for Phase I activities described in the above Purchase Order. Test conduct includes melting of glass with Hanford LLW Double-Shell Slurry Feed waste simulant in a DuraMelter{trademark} vitrification system.

  1. Use of comprehensive NEPA documents to reduce program risk

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wolff, T.A.; Hansen, R.P.

    1994-04-01

    Sandia National Laboratories operates DOE`s Kauai Test Facility (KTF) on the western coast of the Hawaiian island of Kauai. In July 1992, DOE approved a comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) covering ongoing and future rocket launches of experimental payloads. The KTF EA fulfilled two basic objectives: Consideration of environmental values early in the planning and decision making process; and public disclosure. These objectives can also be considered to be benefits of preparing comprehensive NEPA documents. However, proponents of an action are not as dedicated to these twin NEPA objectives as they are motivated by NEPA`s ability to reduce program risks. Once the KTF environmental assessment was underway, it was apparent that reducing risks to the program, budget, and schedule was the main incentive for successful completion of the EA. The comprehensive or ``omnibus`` environmental assessment prepared for the KTF is a de facto ``detailed statement,`` and it is also a good example of a ``mitigated FONSI,`` i.e., mitigation measures are essential to render some potential impacts not significant. Because the KTF EA is a broad scope, umbrella-like, site-wide assessment, it ``bounds`` the impacts of continuing and proposed future actions. The successful completion of this document eliminated the need to review, document, and gain approval individually for numerous related actions. Also, because it supported a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) after identifying appropriate mitigation, it also eliminated the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS). This paper discusses seven specific ways in which the KTF EA reduced program risks and supported budget and schedule objectives.

  2. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies determine the impact of their actions on the natural and human environments and disclose those impacts to the public Requested by stakeholders in 2008 Driven by current missions and proposed changes in Nevada National Security Site activities Updates the environmental baseline Log No. 2011-308 Prepare DRAFT SWEIS Prepare Final SWEIS Public Comment Period Public Comment Period Minimum 30-day Waiting Period Record of Decision No ce of

  3. NEPA Determination: LM-08-12 Amendment | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    8-12 Amendment NEPA Determination: LM-08-12 Amendment Grazing Agreement Amendment, Acid Pond, Spook, Wyoming CX(s) Applied: B1.24 Date: 09/12/2012 Location(s): Spook, WY Offices(s): Legacy Management PDF icon LM-08-12 Amendment More Documents & Publications CX-009239: Categorical Exclusion Determination CX-008762: Categorical Exclusion Determination CX-009264: Categorical Exclusion Determination

  4. Substantive scientific and technical guidance for NEPA analysis: Pitfalls in the real world

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dickerson, W. . Office of Federal Activities); Montgomery, J. . Environmental Programs Branch)

    1993-01-01

    The issue of how to improve the science in environmental impact statements (EISs) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has been receiving increased attention during the last decade. Based on review of several studies on prediction in NEPA reviews and their own professional experience, the authors conclude that the NEPA process is reasonably effective in producing useful predictions of impact. However, the federal government could take steps to upgrade the quality of scientific analysis in the NEPA process, particularly in addressing issues where the state of scientific knowledge is uncertain. These steps include increased peer review of NEPA documents, more oversight of NEPA implementation, and refinement and development of various methodologies and technical guidance.

  5. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 7

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. ed.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A. and others

    1995-09-01

    This seventh revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, environmental monitoring, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. Chapter 5.0 was not updated from the sixth revision (1994). It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE Orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

  6. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, D.A.; Bjornstad, B.N.; Fosmire, C.J.; Fowler, R.A.

    1996-08-01

    This eighth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, historical, archaeological and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. The following sections were updated in this revision: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); historical; archaeological and cultural resources; and all of chapter 6. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

  7. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A.

    1994-08-01

    This sixth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors; Chapter 5.0 has been significantly updated from the fifth revision. It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions; The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be utilized directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

  8. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Ames Site Office (AMSO) AMSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Ames Site Office U.S. Department of Energy 9800 S. Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 P: (630) 252-6167 F: (630) 252-2855 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related

  9. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Argonne Site Office (ASO) ASO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Argonne Site Office U.S. Department of Energy 9800 South Cass Avenue Building 201 Argonne, IL 60439 P: (630) 252-8637 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related

  10. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Brookhaven Site Office (BHSO) BHSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Brookhaven Site Office U.S. Department of Energy PO Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973 P: (631) 344-3425 E: Email Us National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related Links

  11. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Berkeley Site Office (BSO) BSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Berkeley Site Office U.S. Department of Energy One Cyclotron Road Berkeley, CA 94720 P: (510) 486-5784 E: Email Us National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related

  12. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Fermi Site Office (FSO) FSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Fermi Site Office U.S. Department of Energy MS 118 P.O. Box 2000 Kirk Road and Pine Street Batavia, IL 60510 P: (630) 840-3281 F: (630) 840-3285 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A

  13. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Office (OSO) OSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Contact Information Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Office U.S. Department of Energy Post Office Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6269 P: (865) 576-0710 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A

  14. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) PNSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Pacific Northwest Site Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 350, MS K9-42 Richland, WA 99352 P: (509) 372-4005 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare

  15. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Princeton Site Office (PSO) PSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Contact Information Princeton Site Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 102 Princeton, NJ 08543 P: (609) 243-3700 F: (609) 243-2032 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related Links

  16. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents SLAC Site Office (SSO) SSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Contact Information SLAC Site Office U.S. Department of Energy Bldg 41, M/S 08A 2575 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 P: (650) 926-2505 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare Page Related Links

  17. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Thomas Jefferson Site Office (TJSO) TJSO Home About Projects Contract Management NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Resources Contact Information Thomas Jefferson Site Office U.S. Department of Energy 12000 Jefferson Avenue Newport News, VA 23606 P: (757) 269-7140 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Print Text Size: A A A FeedbackShare

  18. Application of NEPA to CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Actions (DOE, 2002) |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Application of NEPA to CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Actions (DOE, 2002) Application of NEPA to CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Actions (DOE, 2002) The document clarifies DOE policies to streamline the environmental review of actions to be taken under CERCLA and RCRA. PDF icon DOE Policies on Application of NEPA to CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Actions More Documents & Publications Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements

  19. DOE Proposes First Revision to its NEPA Rules in More than a Decade |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Proposes First Revision to its NEPA Rules in More than a Decade DOE Proposes First Revision to its NEPA Rules in More than a Decade December 20, 2010 - 5:22pm Addthis Today, the Department of Energy issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend its regulations governing compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposals focus primarily on the Department's categorical exclusion provisions, and reflect the first update to these provisions in

  20. Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Part 1021 | Department of Energy Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR Part 1021 Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR Part 1021 Public Comment Received on Proposed Revisions to DOE's NEPA Rule: 10 CFR Part 1021 PDF icon CX rulemaking files More Documents & Publications Proposed rule: re-opening of public comment period Notice of Final Rulemaking Notice of proposed rulemaking and public hearing

  1. Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (EJ IWG, 2016) |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (EJ IWG, 2016) Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (EJ IWG, 2016) The Environmental Justice (EJ) Interagency Working Group (IWG) Promising Practices report is a compilation of approaches that the NEPA Committee gleaned from an almost 4-year review of agency practices. The report consists of nine sections: Meaningful Engagement, Scoping Process, Defining the Affected Environment, Developing and

  2. Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents (CEQ, 2006)

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    | Department of Energy Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents (CEQ, 2006) Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA Documents (CEQ, 2006) DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, including environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs), should explicitly address potential environmental consequences of intentional destructive acts (i.e., acts of sabotage or terrorism). PDF icon Need to Consider Intentional

  3. Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (1994)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance memorandum is to describe potential benefits of conducting a site-wide NEPA review (environmental impact statement orenvironmental assessment). Site-wide reviews can aid the Department of Energy (DOE) in meeting its goals to streamline the NEPA process, to make that process more useful to decision makers and thepublic, and to reduce the time and cost required to prepare NEPA documents.

  4. Current practices for maintaining occupational exposures ALARA at low-level waste disposal sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadlock, D.E.; Herrington, W.N.; Hooker, C.D.; Murphy, D.W.; Gilchrist, R.L.

    1983-12-01

    The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission contracted with Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) to provide technical assistance in establishing operational guidelines, with respect to radiation control programs and methods of minimizing occupational radiation exposure, at Low-Level Waste (LLW) disposal sites. The PNL, through site visits, evaluated operations at LLW disposal sites to determine the adequacy of current practices in maintaining occupational exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The data sought included the specifics of: ALARA programs, training programs, external exposure control, internal exposure control, respiratory protection, surveillance, radioactive waste management, facilities and equipment, and external dose analysis. The results of the study indicated the following: The Radiation Protection and ALARA programs at the three commercial LLW disposal sites were observed to be adequate in scope and content compared to similar programs at other types of nuclear facilities. However, it should be noted that there were many areas that could be improved upon to help ensure the health and safety of occupationally exposed individuals.

  5. DOE Order 451.1B: NEPA Compliance Program (DOE, 2012)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this Order is to establish DOE internal requirements and responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality...

  6. CEQ Issues Revised Draft NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions and Climate Change

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    | Department of Energy Revised Draft NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions and Climate Change CEQ Issues Revised Draft NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions and Climate Change March 3, 2015 - 10:37am Addthis CEQ Issues Revised Draft NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions and Climate Change What are the key facts? CEQ issued revised draft guidance in December to "provide Federal agencies direction on when and how to consider the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change" in NEPA

  7. GAO Report-- National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A report by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the costs, time frames, and benefits of the NEPA process.

  8. CEQ Guidance on the Application of NEPA to Proposed Federal Actions...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    States with Transboundary Effects CEQ Guidance on the Application of NEPA to Proposed Federal Actions in the United States with Transboundary Effects CEQ Guidance on the ...

  9. u.s. DEPARTl\\IENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DEPARTlIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERllJNAIION RECIPIENT:City of Philip and Philip Health Services PROJECf TITLE: Philip Health Services Geothermal ...

  10. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT:Midwest Renewable Energy ... instructors together to develop classroom resources and an instructor discussion group. ...

  11. Annotated bibliography National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for Sandia National Laboratories

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harris, J.M.

    1995-04-01

    The following annotated bibliography lists documents prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE), and predecessor agencies, to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for activities and facilities at Sandia National Laboratories sites. For each NEPA document summary information and a brief discussion of content is provided. This information may be used to reduce the amount of time or cost associated with NEPA compliance for future Sandia National Laboratories projects. This summary may be used to identify model documents, documents to use as sources of information, or documents from which to tier additional NEPA documents.

  12. RL-721 REV? I. Project Title: NEPA REVIEW SCREENING FORM Document...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Subpart D, Appendix B) for categorically excluding actions under the provisions of the NEPA regulations. There shall be no extraordinary circumstances where normally excluded...

  13. Formal guidance for the use of science in EIA: Analysis of agency procedures for implementing NEPA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Malik, M.; Bartlett, R.V. . Dept. of Political Science)

    1993-01-01

    The authors undertake here an analysis and evaluation of official department and agency procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They assess the extent to which these procedures provide implementing guidance, beyond that provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations themselves, for those provisions of NEPA and the regulations pertaining to scientific integrity, content, and methodology. They analyze and evaluate content using criteria explicit or implicit in NEPA and the regulations, finding that many federal agencies still require little attention to scientific precepts and methodology in the implementation of NEPA. The substantive guidance provided by agencies on conceptual and methodological questions is general and, with few exceptions, minimal.

  14. RL-721 REV7 I. Project Title: NEPA REVIEW SCREENING FORM Document...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Subpart D, Appendix B) for categorically excluding actions under the provisions of the NEPA regulations. There shall be no extraordinary circumstances where normally excluded...

  15. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Duncan, Joanne P.; Burk, Kenneth W.; Chamness, Mickie A.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Kennedy, Ellen P.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Sackschewsky, Michael R.; Scott, Michael J.; Snyder, Sandra F.; Sweeney, Mark D.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2007-09-27

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site for the many environmental documents being prepared by DOE contractors concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No statements regarding significance or environmental consequences are provided. This years report is the eighteen revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the nineteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. Two chapters are included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6), numbered to correspond to chapters typically presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology; air quality; geology; hydrology; ecology; cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; noise; and occupational health and safety. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. When possible, subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, for the 100, 200, 300 and other areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities. Information in Chapter 6 can be adapted and supplemented with specific information covering statutory and regulatory requirements for use in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. When preparing environmental assessments and EISs, authors should consult Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight (DOE 2004). Additional direction and guidance on the preparation of DOE NEPA documents can be found at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/guidance.html. Individuals seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities may also use the information contained in this document to evaluate projected activities and their impacts. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) staff prepared individual sections of this document, with input from other Hanford Site contractors with the best available information through May 2007. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. For this 2007 revision, the following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through May 2005: Climate and Meteorology Air Quality Geology Seismicity section only Hydrology Flow charts for the Columbia and Yakima rivers only Ecology Threatened and Endangered Species subsection only Socioeconomics Occupational Safety All of Chapter 6.

  16. Disposal rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, L.C.; Trammell, D.R.

    1983-10-12

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  17. Disposable rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, Leroy C.; Trammell, David R.

    1986-01-01

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  18. From rags to riches in the world of NEPA: The Hanford Site experience in applying the Department of Energy`s NEPA program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Guzzetta, D.J.

    1995-12-01

    The Department of Energy`s procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have undergone significant changes since February 5, 1990 when the then Secretary of Energy, Admiral James Watkins, issued Secretary of Energy Notice 15 (SEN-15). This notice directed all DOE elements to integrate NEPA into their decision making processes and temporarily centralized NEPA decision making for all level of NEPA documents (categorical exclusions, environmental assessments (EA), and environmental impact statements) at DOE Headquarters. Since 1990 most of the responsibilities for NEPA have been returned to DOE field elements. However, in the intervening five years, there have been significant changes at all levels of DOE regarding the role NEPA will play in DOE decision making. DOE`s new NEPA regulations were published on April 24, 1992 and required greater state and Native American involvement in the preparation of EAs. Delegation of EA authority to the DOE field offices followed the current Secretary of Energy`s letter of June 13, 1994. In order for delegation to take place each DOE field element provided a plan that included internal scoping and public participation in the EA process. Since the Manhattan Project the Hanford Site has been a crucial component of the nation`s nuclear weapons program. Since the late 1980s Hanford`s mission has changed from the production of defense nuclear materials to environmental clean-up. This paper will provide an overview of NEPA at the Hanford Site since 1990 and how the application of NEPA has changed in the five years since SEN-15. Of particular interest will be the EA process at Hanford. This EA process strongly parallels the procedural requirements for an EIS. It includes notification of states, Native Americans, and the public, internal scoping, preparation and circulation of a draft EA, and creation of a panel for making recommendations regarding the significance of the proposed action.

  19. Standardization of DOE Disposal Facilities Waste Acceptance Process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SHRADER, T.; MACBETH, P.

    2002-01-01

    On February 25, 2000, the US. Department of Energy (DOE) issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS) for low-level and mixed low-level wastes (LLW/ MLLW) treatment and disposal. The ROD designated the disposal sites at Hanford and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to dispose of LLWMLLW from sites without their own disposal facilities. DOE's Richland Operations Office (RL) and the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Operations Office (NV) have been charged with effectively implementing the ROD. To accomplish this task NV and RL, assisted by their operating contractors Bechtel Nevada (BN), Fluor Hanford (FH), and Bechtel Hanford (BH) assembled a task team to systematically map out and evaluate the current waste acceptance processes and develop an integrated, standardized process for the acceptance of LLWMLLW. A structured, systematic, analytical process using the Six Sigma system identified disposal process improvements and quantified the associated efficiency gains to guide changes to be implemented. The review concluded that a unified and integrated Hanford/NTS Waste Acceptance Process would be a benefit to the DOE Complex, particularly the waste generators. The Six Sigma review developed quantitative metrics to address waste acceptance process efficiency improvements, and provides an initial look at development of comparable waste disposal cost models between the two disposal sites to allow quantification of the proposed improvements.

  20. Assessment of Potential Flood Events and Impacts at INL's Proposed Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    A. Jeff Sondrup; Annette L. Schafter

    2010-09-01

    Rates, depths, erosion potential, increased subsurface transport rates, and annual exceedance probability for potential flooding scenarios have been evaluated for the on-site alternatives of Idaho National Laboratorys proposed remote handled low-level waste disposal facility. The on-site disposal facility is being evaluated in anticipation of the closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the INL. An assessment of flood impacts are required to meet the Department of Energys Low-Level Waste requirements (DOE-O 435.1), its natural phenomena hazards assessment criteria (DOE-STD-1023-95), and the Radioactive Waste Management Manual (DOE M 435.1-1) guidance in addition to being required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment (EA). Potential sources of water evaluated include those arising from (1) local precipitation events, (2) precipitation events occurring off of the INL (off-site precipitation), and (3) increased flows in the Big Lost River in the event of a Mackay Dam failure. On-site precipitation events include potential snow-melt and rainfall. Extreme rainfall events were evaluated for the potential to create local erosion, particularly of the barrier placed over the disposal facility. Off-site precipitation carried onto the INL by the Big Lost River channel was evaluated for overland migration of water away from the river channel. Off-site precipitation sources evaluated were those occurring in the drainage basin above Mackay Reservoir. In the worst-case scenarios, precipitation occurring above Mackay Dam could exceed the dams capacity, leading to overtopping, and eventually complete dam failure. Mackay Dam could also fail during a seismic event or as a result of mechanical piping. Some of the water released during dam failure, and contributing precipitation, has the potential of being carried onto the INL in the Big Lost River channel. Resulting overland flows from these flood sources were evaluated for their erosion potential, ability to overflow the proposed disposal facility, and for their ability to increase migration of contaminants from the facility. The assessment of available literature suggests that the likelihood of detrimental flood water impacting the proposed RH-LLW facility is extremely low. The annual exceedance probability associated with uncontrolled flows in the Big Lost River impacting either of the proposed sites is 1x10-5, with return interval (RI) of 10,000yrs. The most probable dam failure scenario has an annual exceedance probability of 6.3x10-6 (1.6x105 yr RI). In any of the scenarios generating possible on-site water, the duration is expected to be quite short, water depths are not expected to exceed 0.5 m, and the erosion potential can easily be mitigated by emplacement of a berm (operational period), and an engineered cover (post closure period). Subsurface mobilization of radionuclides was evaluated for a very conservative flooding scenario resulting in 50 cm deep, 30.5 day on-site water. The annual exceedance probability for which is much smaller than 3.6x10-7 (2.8x106 yr RI). For the purposes of illustration, the facility was assumed to flood every 500 years. The periodically recurring flood waters were predicted to marginally increase peak radionuclide fluxes into the aquifer by at most by a factor of three for non-sorbing radionuclides, and to have limited impact on peak radionuclide fluxes into the aquifer for contaminants that do sorb.

  1. Performance assessment for a hypothetical low-level waste disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, C.S.; Rohe, M.J.; Ritter, P.D.

    1997-01-01

    Disposing of low-level waste (LLW) is a concern for many states throughout the United States. A common disposal method is below-grade concrete vaults. Performance assessment analyses make predictions of contaminant release, transport, ingestion, inhalation, or other routes of exposure, and the resulting doses for various disposal methods such as the below-grade concrete vaults. Numerous assumptions are required to simplify the processes associated with the disposal facility to make predictions feasible. In general, these assumptions are made conservatively so as to underestimate the performance of the facility. The objective of this report is to describe the methodology used in conducting a performance assessment for a hypothetical waste facility located in the northeastern United States using real data as much as possible. This report consists of the following: (a) a description of the disposal facility and site, (b) methods used to analyze performance of the facility, (c) the results of the analysis, and (d) the conclusions of this study.

  2. Disposal concepts and characteristics of existing and potential low-waste repositories - 9076

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, Peter J [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Zarling, John C [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2009-01-01

    The closure of the Barnwell low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility to non-Atlantic Compact users poses significant problems for organizations seeking to remove waste material from public circulation. Beta-gamma sources such as {sup 137}Cs and {sup 90}Sr in particular create problems because in 36 states no path forward exists for disposal. Furthermore, several other countries are considering disposition of sealed sources in a variety of facilities. Like much of the United States, many of these countries currently have no means of disposal. Consequently, there is a greater tendency for sources to be misplaced or stored in insufficient facilities, resulting in an increased likelihood of unwitting exposure of nearby people to radioactive materials. This paper provides an overview of the various disposal concepts that have been employed or attempted in the United States. From these concepts, a general overview of characteristics necessary for long-term disposal is synthesized.

  3. Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    3 G Approved: XX-XX-XX IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE for use with DOE M 435.1-1 Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE G 435.1-3 i DRAFT XX-XX-XX LLW Closure Plan Format and Content Guide Revision 0, XX-XX-XX Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans CONTENTS PART A: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  4. Developing guidelines for improved assessment of risk to environmental receptors in NEPA documents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cunningham, M.; Abbott, L.; Berger, J.

    1995-12-01

    NAEP`s NEPA Practice Committee has formed several subcommittees to develop guidelines, and ultimately standards, for conducting various analyses to meet the letter and spirit of NEPA. The authors comprise the Ecological Risk Assessment Subcommittee, and our purpose is to identify those aspects of ecological risk assessment of potentially greatest use in analyses for NEPA documents and to make this information available to NAEP members and other NEPA practioners. Our task is to identify procedures and techniques commonly used in ecological risk assessment for CERCLA and RCRA compliance that are useful directly, or in modified form, to improve the estimation of risk to environmental receptors in NEPA analyses. Environmental receptors include biota and media such as air and water. Our approach is to focus first on the practical aspects of environmental assessment for NEPA that we identify as needing improvement. These include: (1) knowing when a quantitative risk assessment is warranted; (2) assigning significance of potential harm; (3) how to assess cumulative risk; (4) how to cope with missing information and knowing when surrogate information is available and appropriate to use; (5) efficiency in analysis - lack of explicit screening steps; and (6) biodiversity-related effects assessment. Specific steps to help environmental professionals prepare NEPA documents to address these issues will be presented, including references to NEPA documents that employ explicit risk estimation.

  5. Procedural vs. substantive in the NEPA law: Cutting the Gordian knot

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boggs, J.P. . Dept. of Anthropology)

    1993-01-01

    The debate whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is procedural or substantive has become central both to agency implementation of the act and to court review of agency compliance. While NEPA mandates both procedural and substantive reform as a means to improve environmental quality, NEPA also focuses on cognitive reform--the improved utilization of knowledge in public affairs. Choices about what knowledge to base public decisions on, and how that knowledge will be used, build the social realities that shape lives. Thus, NEPA's mandates for the creation and use of public knowledge activate fundamentally conflicting values and visions of social order. However, debate about the procedural and substantive provisions of NEPA cannot resolve the conflict about values that actually motivates the debate, and this constrictive debate impoverishes public discussion about NEPA implementation and judicial review. This paper links the present debate with the values issues that underlie it, suggesting a more direct language for characterizing NEPA and a broader framework of legal theory for debating the issues it raises. This paper also finds that environmental and social science practitioners are strategically positioned to contribute materially to the issues raised by a NEPA properly understood as law that mandates knowledge utilization.

  6. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into Environmental Impact Analysis Under NEPA (CEQ, 1993)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) report is intended to provide background on the emerging, complex subject of biodiversity, outline some general concepts that underlie biological diversity analysis and management, describe how the issue is currently addressed in NEPA analyses, and provide options for agencies undertaking NEPA analyses that consider biodiversity.

  7. NEPA DETERMINATION: LM-01-13 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    DETERMINATION: LM-01-13 NEPA DETERMINATION: LM-01-13 Current and Future Actions Related to Installation, Sampling, Abandonment, and Repair of Monitoring Wells at the Pinellas County, Florida Site CX(s) Applied: B1.3, B3.3, and B6.1 Date: 03/06/2013 Location: Pinellas County, Florida Office: Legacy Management PDF icon LM-01-13.pdf More Documents & Publications LM 07-14 CX-010142: Categorical Exclusion Determination CX-010143: Categorical Exclusion Determination

  8. Integrating a life-cycle assessment with NEPA: Does it make sense?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ECCLESTON, C.H.

    1998-09-03

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the basic national charter for protection of the environment in the US. Today NEPA has provided an environmental policy model which has been emulated by nations around the world. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness and under what conditions it makes sense to combine the preparation of a NEPA analysis with the International Organization for Stnadardization (ISO) - 14000 Standards for Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). This paper advantages a decision making tool consisting of six discrete criteria which can be employed by a user in reaching a decision regarding the integration of NEPA analysis and LCA. Properly applied, this tool should reduce the risk that a LCA may be inappropriately prepared and integrated with a NEPA analysis.

  9. Defining the no action alternative for NEPA document of continuing actions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCold, L.N.; Saulsbury, J.W.

    1995-12-01

    Environmental professionals today must address many issues that might not have been foreseen by developers of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) or the President`s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. One issue is the definition of the no action alternative for NEPA documentation of continuing actions. The CEQ regulations do not define the no action alternative, but merely state that NEPA analyses shall {open_quotes}include the alternative of no action{close_quotes}. For NEPA analyses of newly proposed actions, the practical definition of the no action alternative is clear (i.e., the agency will not implement the proposed action or alternative actions). However, the practical definition for NEPA analyses of continuing actions is not so clear. To clarify the definition of the no action alternative for continuing actions, particularly those that involve agency decisions about relicensing existing projects or continuing to operate existing programs or facilities. In trying to clarify the definition of the no action alternative for continuing actions, this paper examines the function of the no action alternative for NEPA analyses in general. Pertinent issues include how the definition of the no action alternative affects the selection of the baseline for environmental analysis and whether inclusion of the no action alternative really forces agencies to consider no action as a realistic alternative. To address these issues, this paper begins with a discussion of relevant legal decisions involving the no action alternative in NEPA analyses. The paper then examines some agency NEPA regulations and recent NEPA documents to provide examples of how some agencies address the no action alternative for continuing actions. Finally, the paper suggests definitions of the no action alternative for continuing actions and methods for addressing no action as a realistic alternative.

  10. Lessons Learned from Raw Treatment in the Slovak Republic - Minimization for Final Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hanusik, V.; Hladky, E.; Krajc, T.; Pekar, A.; Stubna, M.; Urbanec, M. [Milan Zatkulak, VUJE, a.s., Trnava (Slovakia); Ehn, L.; Kover, M.; Remias, V.; Slezak, M. [JAVYS, a.s., Bohunice (Slovakia)

    2008-07-01

    This paper is referring about the utilization of technologies for the treatment and conditioning of low and intermediate level RAW from operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities in Slovakia. This experience represents more than 116 reactor years of NPP operation, mainly of NPPs equipped with VVER 440 reactors, 30 years of decommissioning activities, 27 years of development and operation of technologies for the treatment and conditioning of RAW and 7 years of LLW and ILW final repository operation. These technologies are located in two localities: Jaslovske Bohunice and Mochovce. The complex treatment and conditioning center (cementation, bituminization, incineration, vitrification, fragmentation and compacting) for almost all types of radioactive waste is located in Jaslovske Bohunice NPP site. The treatment and conditioning center for liquid radioactive waste (cementation and bituminization) and the surface type repository for LLW and ILW final disposal are located in Mochovce area. The treated waste forms are disposed to repository in cubical Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) containers. The experience from the phase of technology development and the phase of technology modifications for various types of RAW, the experience from long term operation of technologies and the experience from transportation of original and packed wastes are described in this paper. The method of optimally combined technology utilization in order to maximize the radionuclide inventory at the same time with respect of disposal safety limitations of repository is described, too. The significant RAW volume reduction for final disposal was achieved through mediation of the combination of treatment and conditioning technologies. The disposal of treated RAW in cubic FRC containers allowed the optimal utilization of volume and radiological capacity of LLW and ILW repository in Mochovce and the fulfillment of determined safety requirements at the same time. (authors)

  11. Hanford Site National Evnironmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.

    1991-12-01

    This fourth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

  12. Hanford Site National Evnironmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E.

    1991-12-01

    This fourth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

  13. Evaluation of Low-Level Waste Disposal Receipt Data for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Robert [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-04-17

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational or institutional waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research. Environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requires that radioactive waste be managed in a manner that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare and maintain site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on-site and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The accuracy of the performance assessment and composite analysis depends upon the validity of the data used and assumptions made in conducting the analyses. If changes in these data and assumptions are significant, they may invalidate or call into question certain aspects of the analyses. For example, if the volumes and activities of waste disposed of during the remainder of the disposal facility's lifetime differ significantly from those projected, the doses projected by the analyses may no longer apply. DOE field sites are required to implement a performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program. The purpose of this program is to ensure the continued applicability of the analyses through incremental improvement of the level of understanding of the disposal site and facility. Site personnel are required to conduct field and experimental work to reduce the uncertainty in the data and models used in the assessments. Furthermore, they are required to conduct periodic reviews of waste receipts, comparing them to projected waste disposal rates. The radiological inventory for Area G was updated in conjunction with Revision 4 of the performance assessment and composite analysis (Shuman, 2008). That effort used disposal records and other sources of information to estimate the quantities of radioactive waste that have been disposed of at Area G from 1959, the year the facility started receiving waste on a routine basis, through 2007. It also estimated the quantities of LLW that will require disposal from 2008 through 2044, the year in which it is assumed that disposal operations at Area G will cease. This report documents the fourth review of Area G disposal receipts since the inventory was updated and examines information for waste placed in the ground during fiscal years (FY) 2008 through 2011. The primary objective of the disposal receipt review is to ensure that the future waste inventory projections developed for the performance assessment and composite analysis are consistent with the actual types and quantities of waste being disposed of at Area G. Toward this end, the disposal data that are the subject of this review are used to update the future waste inventory projections for the disposal facility. These projections are compared to the future inventory projections that were develope

  14. A NEPA compliance strategy plan for providing programmatic coverage to agency problems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eccleston, C.H.

    1994-04-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, requires that all federal actions be reviewed before making a final decision to pursue a proposed action or one of its reasonable alternatives. The NEPA process is expected to begin early in the planning process. This paper discusses an approach for providing efficient and comprehensive NEPA coverage to large-scale programs. Particular emphasis has been given to determining bottlenecks and developing workarounds to such problems. Specifically, the strategy is designed to meet four specific goals: (1) provide comprehensive coverage, (2) reduce compliance cost/time, (3) prevent project delays, and (4) reduce document obsolescence.

  15. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wolff, T.A.; Hansen, R.P.

    1998-08-01

    This report on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) chronicles past and current compliance activities and includes a recommended strategy that can be implemented for continued improvement. This report provides a list of important references. Attachment 1 contains the table of contents for SAND95-1648, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide Sandia National Laboratories (Hansen, 1995). Attachment 2 contains a list of published environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by SNL/NM. Attachment 3 contains abstracts of NEPA compliance papers authored by SNL/NM and its contractors.

  16. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2011 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2011-09-29

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 x 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of glass (Certa and Wells 2010). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 8.9 x 10{sup 14} Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally {sup 99}Tc (t{sub 1/2} = 2.1 x 10{sup 5}), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2011 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses.

  17. NEPA strategy for the Bonneville Power Administration energy resource acquisition

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, K.S.; Alton, C.C.; Linehan, A.O.

    1995-12-01

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has a statutory obligation to supply cost-effective electric power to its customers. BPA must also be consistent with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, which requires consideration of the Northwest Power Planning Council`s Conservation and Electric Power Plan and Fish and Wildlife Program. The challenge is to operate effectively within an increasingly competitive and dynamic electric utility market while continuing its commitment to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BPA developed a tiered approach to its environmental analyses associated with energy resource planning and acquisition. The Resource Programs Environmental Impact Statement (RPEIS) is a programmatic document designed to support energy resource decisions for several years. The RPEIS includes a description of the environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures for various energy resources-including conservation, efficiency improvements, renewable resources, cogeneration, combustion turbines, nuclear, and coal. Information was also provided on fuel switching, load management, and emerging technologies. After analyzing the environmental trade-offs among resources, the RPEIS focuses on the cumulative effects of adding these resources to the existing power system. The Record of Decision documents that BPA`s resource acquisitions will include all cost-effective conservation and efficiency improvements, supplemented by a mix of renewables and thermal resources. Subsequent site-specific documents have been prepared on individual resource acquisitions. By focusing environmental reviews on the actual issues ripe for decision and by providing timely environmental information to the public and to the decisionmakers, this tiered approach led to better decisionmaking. BPA was able to operate in a more business-like manner while assuring NEPA compliance.

  18. Hazard Classification of the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2012-05-01

    The Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is constructing a new facility to replace remote-handled low-level radioactive waste disposal capability for INL and Naval Reactors Facility operations. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) will continue until the facility is full or closed for remediation (estimated at approximately fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility is the highest ranked alternative and will provide RH-LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate RH-LLW for the foreseeable future. As a part of establishing a safety basis for facility operations, the facility will be categorized according to DOE-STD-1027-92. This classification is important in determining the scope of analyses performed in the safety basis and will also dictate operational requirements of the completed facility. This paper discusses the issues affecting hazard classification in this nuclear facility and impacts of the final hazard categorization.

  19. Project report for the commercial disposal of mixed low-level waste debris

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrews, G.; Balls, V.; Shea, T.; Thiesen, T.

    1994-05-01

    This report summarizes the basis for the commercial disposal of Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) mixed low-level waste (MLLW) debris and the associated activities. Mixed waste is radioactive waste plus hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The critical factors for this project were DOE 5820.2A exemption, contracting mechanism, NEPA documentation, sampling and analysis, time limitation and transportation of waste. This report also will provide a guide or a starting place for future use of Envirocare of Utah or other private sector disposal/treatment facilities, and the lessons learned during this project.

  20. Operational Strategies for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site in Egypt - 13513

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mohamed, Yasser T.

    2013-07-01

    The ultimate aims of treatment and conditioning is to prepare waste for disposal by ensuring that the waste will meet the waste acceptance criteria of a disposal facility. Hence the purpose of low-level waste disposal is to isolate the waste from both people and the environment. The radioactive particles in low-level waste emit the same types of radiation that everyone receives from nature. Most low-level waste fades away to natural background levels of radioactivity in months or years. Virtually all of it diminishes to natural levels in less than 300 years. In Egypt, The Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center has been established since 1983, as a waste management facility for LLW and ILW and the disposal site licensed for preoperational in 2005. The site accepts the low level waste generated on site and off site and unwanted radioactive sealed sources with half-life less than 30 years for disposal and all types of sources for interim storage prior to the final disposal. Operational requirements at the low-level (LLRW) disposal site are listed in the National Center for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Control NCNSRC guidelines. Additional procedures are listed in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Standards Manual. The following describes the current operations at the LLRW disposal site. (authors)

  1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and NEPA: CEQ Reports to Congress

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Section 1609(c) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a report to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA reviews for Recovery Act funded projects and activities...

  2. Department of Energy Extends Comment Period on Proposed Revisions to its NEPA Rules

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Department of Energy today announced that,  in response to requests from a number of parties, it has re-opened the public comment period on its proposed revisions to the Department’s NEPA rules...

  3. NEPA audits at the Bonneville Power Administration's office of energy sources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Baechler, M. )

    1993-01-01

    Since 1984, the Bonneville Power Administration has evaluated the environmental performance of its energy resource acquisition programs. To date, these programs have mostly comprised conservation activities in residential and commercial buildings. In its NEPA documentation for these programs, the agency has established a set of mitigation measures that ensure against adverse environmental impacts. The agency uses the environmental audits to evaluate the programs' performance in meeting the NEPA promises, as well as addressing how well NEPA documents meet the programs' needs and how effectively environmental and program staff interact. The audits are inexpensive and unobtrusive, thus they can be repeated as needed and can be used as a tool to facilitate communication rather than simply to meet administrative rules. As Bonneville moves to an aggressive energy resource acquisition mode, these audits will serve as a model for the ongoing evaluation of environmental performance and may be adopted agency-wide to address regulations beyond NEPA.

  4. BLM and NEPA: Lets`s get back to the future

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meridith, D.P.

    1995-12-01

    This talk is a personalized account of the relationship between The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the challenges the BLM faces in the future.

  5. USACE ER 200-2-2 Procedures for Implementing NEPA | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ER 200-2-2 Procedures for Implementing NEPA Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: USACE ER 200-2-2...

  6. Handbook Issued on NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) jointly issued a new handbook, NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State...

  7. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, EPA Office of Federal Activities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents in providing accurate, realistic, and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative impacts. The guidance focuses on...

  8. Reflecting the Revised PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in NEPA Evaluations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This letter, from the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Activities, outlines EPA's position as to how the revised National Air Quality Standard should be reflected in NEPA evaluations of proposed actions.

  9. DEPARTlIiIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MAN AG EMENT CENTER NEPA...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    lAUIl) u.s. DEPARTlIiIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MAN AG EMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT:Ocean Engineering and Energy Systems Intemational, Inc. (OCEES) Page lof3 STATE: ...

  10. File:09-FD-f - DOD NEPA Process (2).pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (2).pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Metadata File:09-FD-f - DOD NEPA Process (2).pdf Size of this preview: 463 599 pixels. Other resolution:...

  11. EPA's Section 309 Review: The Clean Air Act and NEPA (EPA, 1999)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This document discusses Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to review certain proposed actions of other federal agencies in accordance with NEPA and make those reviews public.

  12. Department of Energy - DOE, NEPA and You - A Guide to Public...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    DOE, NEPA and You - A Guide to Public Participation Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - GuideHandbook: Department...

  13. 516 DM Chapter 12 Managing the NEPA Process National Park Service...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    12 Managing the NEPA Process National Park Service Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: 516 DM Chapter 12 Managing the...

  14. 516 DM Chapter 8 Managing the NEPA Process U.S. Fish and Wildlife...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8 Managing the NEPA Process U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: 516 DM Chapter 8 Managing...

  15. Directory of Potential Stakeholders for DOE Actions under NEPA (DOE, 2015)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    DOE Offices are encouraged to be inclusive in providing potentially interested parties with opportunities to review NEPA documents.  This Directory of Potential Stakeholders for DOE Actions under...

  16. Title 40 CFR 1506.1 Limitations On Actions During NEPA Process...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    .1 Limitations On Actions During NEPA Process Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR...

  17. Title 40 CFR 1506 Other Requirements of NEPA | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Other Requirements of NEPA Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 1506 Other...

  18. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents Integrated Support Center (ISC) ISC Home About Services Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Privacy Act NEPA Documents ISC-Chicago Office Categorical Exclusion Determinations ISC-Oak Ridge Office Categorical Exclusion Determinations ISC-Chicago Office Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements ISC-Oak Ridge Office Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Contact Information Integrated

  19. Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of Certain State Energy Program Projects

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Enclosure 2 Template for Expedited NEPA Review of Certain State Energy Program Projects Purpose: This document provides an optional approach/Template that a State may use to help the Department of Energy (DOE) expedite National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of certain activities (Projects) contained in the State's energy and conservation plan for which the State requests State Energy Program (SEP) funding. This optional approach/Template builds on the August 21, 2009, draft guidance

  20. The Application of NEPA to CERCLA Cleanups (Department of Justice, 1995) |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy The Application of NEPA to CERCLA Cleanups (Department of Justice, 1995) The Application of NEPA to CERCLA Cleanups (Department of Justice, 1995) On March 31, 1994, officials from the Departrnent of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) met with then Acting Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer and other representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discuss the issue of the relationship of the

  1. Streamlining the process: A strategy for making NEPA work better and cost less

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P.; Hansen, J.D.; Wolff, T.A.

    1998-05-01

    When the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted in 1969, neither Congress nor the Federal Agencies affected anticipated that implementation of the NEPA process would result in the intolerable delays, inefficiencies, duplication of effort, commitments of excessive financial and personnel resources, and bureaucratic gridlock that have become institutionalized. The 1975 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which were intended to make the NEPA process more efficient and more useful to decision makers and the public, have either been largely ignored or unintentionally subverted. Agency policy mandates, like those of former Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O`Leary, to ``make NEPA work better and cost less`` have, so far, been disappointingly ineffectual. Federal Agencies have reached the point where almost every constituent of the NEPA process must be subjected to crisis management. This paper focuses on a ten-point strategy for streamlining the NEPA process in order to achieve the Act`s objectives while easing the considerable burden on agencies, the public, and the judicial system. How the ten points are timed and implemented is critical to any successful streamlining.

  2. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 139: Waste Disposal Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2009-07-31

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 139 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as 'Waste Disposal Sites' and consists of the following seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the Nevada Test Site: CAS 03-35-01, Burn Pit; CAS 04-08-02, Waste Disposal Site; CAS 04-99-01, Contaminated Surface Debris; CAS 06-19-02, Waste Disposal Site/Burn Pit; CAS 06-19-03, Waste Disposal Trenches; CAS 09-23-01, Area 9 Gravel Gertie; and CAS 09-34-01, Underground Detection Station. Closure activities were conducted from December 2008 to April 2009 according to the FFACO (1996, as amended February 2008) and the Corrective Action Plan for CAU 139 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007b). The corrective action alternatives included No Further Action, Clean Closure, and Closure in Place with Administrative Controls. Closure activities are summarized. CAU 139, 'Waste Disposal Sites,' consists of seven CASs in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the NTS. The closure alternatives included No Further Action, Clean Closure, and Closure in Place with Administrative Controls. This CR provides a summary of completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and confirmation that remediation goals were met. The following site closure activities were performed at CAU 139 as documented in this CR: (1) At CAS 03-35-01, Burn Pit, soil and debris were removed and disposed as LLW, and debris was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. (2) At CAS 04-08-02, Waste Disposal Site, an administrative UR was implemented. No postings or post-closure monitoring are required. (3) At CAS 04-99-01, Contaminated Surface Debris, soil and debris were removed and disposed as LLW, and debris was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. (4) At CAS 06-19-02, Waste Disposal Site/Burn Pit, no work was performed. (5) At CAS 06-19-03, Waste Disposal Trenches, a native soil cover was installed, and a UR was implemented. (6) At CAS 09-23-01, Area 9 Gravel Gertie, a UR was implemented. (7) At CAS 09-34-01, Underground Detection Station, no work was performed.

  3. Hydrologic evaluation methodology for estimating water movement through the unsaturated zone at commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meyer, P.D.; Rockhold, M.L.; Nichols, W.E.; Gee, G.W. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1996-01-01

    This report identifies key technical issues related to hydrologic assessment of water flow in the unsaturated zone at low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. In addition, a methodology for incorporating these issues in the performance assessment of proposed LLW disposal facilities is identified and evaluated. The issues discussed fall into four areas: estimating the water balance at a site (i.e., infiltration, runoff, water storage, evapotranspiration, and recharge); analyzing the hydrologic performance of engineered components of a facility; evaluating the application of models to the prediction of facility performance; and estimating the uncertainty in predicted facility performance. To illustrate the application of the methodology, two examples are presented. The first example is of a below ground vault located in a humid environment. The second example looks at a shallow land burial facility located in an arid environment. The examples utilize actual site-specific data and realistic facility designs. The two examples illustrate the issues unique to humid and arid sites as well as the issues common to all LLW sites. Strategies for addressing the analytical difficulties arising in any complex hydrologic evaluation of the unsaturated zone are demonstrated.

  4. Ocean-current measurements at the Farallon Islands Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, 1977-1978. Includes appendix. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-06-01

    The report discusses the results of ocean bottom current measurements obtain from the Farallon Islands Low-Level Waste Disposal Site off the California coast, near San Francisco. The report includes a discussion of the velocity of the currents over the time period and area measured relative to large-scale currents off the California coast, and the possibility for shoreward transport of LLW Materials from the Farallon Islands Site.

  5. NEPA at 19: A Primer on an "Old" Law with Solutions to New Problems (CEQ,

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    1989) | Department of Energy at 19: A Primer on an "Old" Law with Solutions to New Problems (CEQ, 1989) NEPA at 19: A Primer on an "Old" Law with Solutions to New Problems (CEQ, 1989) In this article, the former General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality, outlines NEPA's purposes, scope, and implementation procedures. She describes current issues in NEPA practice and policy, and observes that NEPA has continuing vitality in the context of a new generation of

  6. The National Environmental Policy Act net (NEPAnet) and DOE NEPA Web: What they bring to environmental impact assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jessee, L.

    1998-01-01

    The US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure integrated use of natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and decision-making. Numerous environmental analyses have been prepared that contain valuable information about regions and ecosystems, but these data were not stored in a retrievable manner. In 1993 and 1994, agency-specific NEPA and related datasets were consolidated into the US Department of Energy NEPA Web and NEPAnet. These improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment/NEPA process in the US.

  7. Defense-in-Depth, How Department of Energy Implements Radiation Protection in Low Level Waste Disposal

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Defense-in-Depth, How Department of Energy Implements Radiation Protection in Low Level Waste Disposal Linda Suttora*, U.S. Department of Energy ; Andrew Wallo, U.S. Department of Energy Abstract: The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted an integrated protection system for the safety of radioactive waste disposal similar to the concept of a safety case that is used internationally. This approach has evolved and been continuously improved as a result of many years of experience managing low-level waste (LLW) and mixed LLW from on-going operations, decommissioning and environmental restoration activities at 29 sites around the United States. The integrated protection system is implemented using a defense-in-depth approach taking into account the combination of natural and engineered barriers, performance objectives, long-term risk assessments, maintenance of those assessments based on the most recent information to ascertain continued compliance, site-specific waste acceptance criteria based on the risk assessment and a commitment to continuous improvement. There is also a strong component of stakeholder involvement. The integrated protection system approach will be discussed to demonstrate the commitment to safety for US DOE disposal.

  8. Determining if a change to a proposal requires additional NEPA documentation: the Smithsonian Solution

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ECCLESTON, C.H.

    1999-02-23

    Proposed actions tend to evolve over time. Once National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is completed, agencies are at risk that subsequent changes may not be adequately covered or that existing NEPA documentation maybe completely invalidated. Neither NEPA nor its subsequent regulations provide sufficient direction for determining the degree to which a proposed action may change before preparation of new or supplemental documentation is necessary. Yet, decisionmakers are routinely involved in determining if a change to a proposed action departs, to such an extent, from the description presented in the NEPA document that additional documentation is necessary. Experience demonstrates that no two decisionmakers will completely agree, one decisionmaker might believe that a particular change would not require additional documentation, while the other concludes the exact opposite. Lacking definitive direction, decisionmakers and critics alike may point to a universe of potential considerations as the basis for defending their claim that a change in an action does or does not require new or additional NEPA documentation. Assertions are often based on equivocal opinions that can be neither proved nor disproved. Moreover, decisionmakers are frequently placed in an arduous dilemma of justifying a decision, for which there is no generally accepted methodology on which to base the decision. Lack of definitive direction can prolong the decisionmaking process, resulting in project delays. This can also lead to inappropriate levels of NEPA documentation, inconsistencies in decisionmaking, and increased risk of a legal challenge because of insufficient documentation. Clearly, a more systematic and less subjective approach is needed, A tool for streamlining the NEPA process, by reducing this degree of subjectivity, is presented in this paper.

  9. Preliminary Project Execution Plan for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Duncan

    2011-05-01

    This preliminary project execution plan (PEP) defines U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) project objectives, roles and responsibilities of project participants, project organization, and controls to effectively manage acquisition of capital funds for construction of a proposed remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The plan addresses the policies, requirements, and critical decision (CD) responsibilities identified in DOE Order 413.3B, 'Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.' This plan is intended to be a 'living document' that will be periodically updated as the project progresses through the CD process to construction and turnover for operation.

  10. Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (GTCC LLW)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In February 2016, DOE publicly issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste (DOE/EIS-0375)(Final...

  11. Appendix K Disposal Cell Groundwater Monitoring Plan

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Disposal Cell Groundwater Monitoring Plan

  12. Microsoft Word - EM-2_HEC_LLW and GTCC Testimony_10_28_2015-FINAL

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Before the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy House Energy and Commerce Committee Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Greater-Than-Class C Waste October 28, 2015 Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss the Office of Environmental Management's (EM) activities to safely and properly dispose of Department of Energy

  13. The potential for criticality following disposal of uranium at low-level waste facilities: Uranium blended with soil

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toran, L.E.; Hopper, C.M.; Naney, M.T.

    1997-06-01

    The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether or not fissile uranium in low-level-waste (LLW) facilities can be concentrated by hydrogeochemical processes to permit nuclear criticality. A team of experts in hydrology, geology, geochemistry, soil chemistry, and criticality safety was formed to develop achievable scenarios for hydrogeochemical increases in concentration of special nuclear material (SNM), and to use these scenarios to aid in evaluating the potential for nuclear criticality. The team`s approach was to perform simultaneous hydrogeochemical and nuclear criticality studies to (1) identify some achievable scenarios for uranium migration and concentration increase at LLW disposal facilities, (2) model groundwater transport and subsequent concentration increase via sorption or precipitation of uranium, and (3) evaluate the potential for nuclear criticality resulting from potential increases in uranium concentration over disposal limits. The analysis of SNM was restricted to {sup 235}U in the present scope of work. The outcome of the work indicates that criticality is possible given established regulatory limits on SNM disposal. However, a review based on actual disposal records of an existing site operation indicates that the potential for criticality is not a concern under current burial practices.

  14. Disposal Information - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    About Us Hanford Site Wide Programs Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Program Tools Disposal Information About Us Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Program What's New Acceptance Criteria Acceptance Process Tools Approved High Integrity Containers Approved Sorbents, Stabilizers, and Void Fillers Disposal Information Points of Contact Disposal Information Email Email Page | Print Print Page |Text Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Disposal of Radioactive Waste at Hanford The Hanford Site

  15. Estimation of natural ground water recharge for the performance assessment of a low-level waste disposal facility at the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rockhold, M.L.; Fayer, M.J.; Kincaid, C.T.; Gee, G.W.

    1995-03-01

    In 1994, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) initiated the Recharge Task, under the PNL Vitrification Technology Development (PVTD) project, to assist Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) in designing and assessing the performance of a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The Recharge Task was established to address the issue of ground water recharge in and around the LLW facility and throughout the Hanford Site as it affects the unconfined aquifer under the facility. The objectives of this report are to summarize the current knowledge of natural ground water recharge at the Hanford Site and to outline the work that must be completed in order to provide defensible estimates of recharge for use in the performance assessment of this LLW disposal facility. Recharge studies at the Hanford Site indicate that recharge rates are highly variable, ranging from nearly zero to greater than 100 mm/yr depending on precipitation, vegetative cover, and soil types. Coarse-textured soils without plants yielded the greatest recharge. Finer-textured soils, with or without plants, yielded the least. Lysimeters provided accurate, short-term measurements of recharge as well as water-balance data for the soil-atmosphere interface and root zone. Tracers provided estimates of longer-term average recharge rates in undisturbed settings. Numerical models demonstrated the sensitivity of recharge rates to different processes and forecast recharge rates for different conditions. All of these tools (lysimetry, tracers, and numerical models) are considered vital to the development of defensible estimates of natural ground water recharge rates for the performance assessment of a LLW disposal facility at the Hanford Site.

  16. Consideration Of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review of NEPA Documents (EPA, 1999)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents in providing accurate, realistic, and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative impacts. The guidance focuses on specific issues that are critical in EPA's review of NEPA documents under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The guidance offers information on what issues to look for in the analysis, what practical considerations should be kept in mind when reviewing the analysis, and what should be said in EPA comments concerning the adequacy of the analysis.

  17. Caustic Recycling Pilot Unit to Separate Sodium from LLW at Hanford Site - 12279

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pendleton, Justin; Bhavaraju, Sai; Priday, George; Desai, Aditya; Duffey, Kean; Balagopal, Shekar [Ceramatec Inc., Salt Lake City, UT 84119 (United States)

    2012-07-01

    As part of the Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored Advanced Remediation Technologies initiative, a scheme was developed to combine Continuous Sludge Leaching (CSL), Near-Tank Cesium Removal (NTCR), and Caustic Recycling Unit (CRU) using Ceramatec technology, into a single system known as the Pilot Near-Tank Treatment System (PNTTS). The Cesium (Cs) decontaminated effluent from the NTCR process will be sent to the caustic recycle process for recovery of the caustic which will be reused in another cycle of caustic leaching in the CSL process. Such an integrated mobile technology demonstration will give DOE the option to insert this process for sodium management at various sites in Hanford, and will minimize the addition of further sodium into the waste tanks. This allows for recycling of the caustic used to remove aluminum during sludge washing as a pretreatment step in the vitrification of radioactive waste which will decrease the Low Level Waste (LLW) volume by as much as 39%. The CRU pilot process was designed to recycle sodium in the form of pure sodium hydroxide. The basis for the design of the 1/4 scale pilot caustic recycling unit was to demonstrate the efficient operation of a larger scale system to recycle caustic from the NTCR effluent stream from the Parsons process. The CRU was designed to process 0.28 liter/minute of NTCR effluent, and generate 10 M concentration of 'usable' sodium hydroxide. The proposed process operates at 40 deg. C to provide additional aluminum solubility and then recover the sodium hydroxide to the point where the aluminum is saturated at 40 deg. C. A system was developed to safely separate and vent the gases generated during operation of the CRU with the production of 10 M sodium hydroxide. Caustic was produced at a rate between 1.9 to 9.3 kg/hr. The CRU was located inside an ISO container to allow for moving of the unit close to tank locations to process the LLW stream. Actual tests were conducted with the NTCR effluent simulant from the Parsons process in the CRU. The modular CRU is easily scalable as a standalone system for caustic recycling, or for NTTS integration or for use as an In-Tank Treatment System to process sodium bearing waste to meet LLW processing needs at the Hanford site. The standalone pilot operation of the CRU to recycle sodium from NTCR effluent places the technology demonstration at TRL level 6. Multiple operations were performed with the CRU to process up to 500 gallons of the NTCR effluent and demonstrate an efficient separation of up to 70 % of the sodium without solids precipitation while producing 10 M caustic. Batch mode operation was conducted to study the effects of chemistry variation, establish the processing rate, and optimize the process operating conditions to recycle caustic from the NTCR effluent. The performance of the CRU was monitored by tracking the density parameter to control the concentration of caustic produced. Different levels of sodium were separated in tests from the effluent at a fixed operating current density and temperature. The voltage of the modules remained stable during the unit operation which demonstrated steady operation to separate sodium from the NTCR effluent. The sodium transfer current efficiency was measured in testing based on the concentration of caustic produced. Measurements showed a current efficiency of 99.8% for sodium transfer from the NTCR effluent to make sodium hydroxide. The sodium and hydroxide contents of the anolyte (NTCR feed) and catholyte (caustic product) were measured before and after each batch test. In two separate batch tests, samples were taken at different levels of sodium separation and analyzed to determine the stability of the NTCR effluent after sodium separation. The stability characteristics and changes in physical and chemical properties of the NTCR effluent chemistry after separation of sodium hydroxide as a function of storage time were evaluated. Parameters such as level of precipitated alumina, total alkalinity, analysis of Al, Na, K, Cs, Fe, OH, nitrate, nitrite, total dissolved and

  18. Using FEP's List and a PA Methodology for Evaluating Suitable Areas for the LLW Repository in Italy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Risoluti, P.; Ciabatti, P.; Mingrone, G.

    2002-02-26

    In Italy following a referendum held in 1987, nuclear energy has been phased out. Since 1998, a general site selection process covering the whole Italian territory has been under way. A GIS (Geographic Information System) methodology was implemented in three steps using the ESRI Arc/Info and Arc/View platforms. The screening identified approximately 0.8% of the Italian territory as suitable for locating the LLW Repository. 200 areas have been identified as suitable for the location of the LLW Repository, using a multiple exclusion criteria procedure (1:500,000), regional scale (1:100.000) and local scale (1:25,000-1:10,000). A methodology for evaluating these areas has been developed allowing, along with the evaluation of the long term efficiency of the engineered barrier system (EBS), the characterization of the selected areas in terms of physical and safety factors and planning factors. The first step was to identify, on a referenced FEPs list, a group of geomorphological, geological, hydrogeological, climatic and human behavior caused process and/or events, which were considered of importance for the site evaluation, taking into account the Italian situation. A site evaluation system was established ascribing weighted scores to each of these processes and events, which were identified as parameters of the new evaluation system. The score of each parameter is ranging from 1 (low suitability) to 3 (high suitability). The corresponding weight is calculated considering the effect of the parameter in terms of total dose to the critical group, using an upgraded AMBER model for PA calculation. At the end of the process an index obtained by a score weighted sum gives the degree of suitability of the selected areas for the LLW Repository location. The application of the methodology to two selected sites is given in the paper.

  19. NEPA and the Endangered Species Act: Complementary approaches or regulatory excess

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Salk, M.S.; McCold, L.N.

    1991-01-01

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, provides a broad mandate requiring protection of human health and the natural environmental, while the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, has a much narrower mandate. NEPA's purpose is to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere{hor ellipsis},'' while the ESA's is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved'' and a a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species{hor ellipsis}'' NEPA's current role in improving the quality of decision making by federal agencies with respect to environmental matters is a matter of some debate. This paper discusses several ways in which NEPA provides protection for rare species beyond that provided by the ESA including public involvement, consideration of rare plant species, consideration of species which are not federally listed, consideration of incremental actions of federal agencies, and discussion of alternative means to accomplish the goal of a projected action. 3 refs.

  20. NEPA audits at the Bonneville Power Administration`s office of energy resources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beachler, M.C.; Patton, J.E.; Alton, C.C.

    1993-05-01

    Since 1984, the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) has evaluated the environmental performance of its energy resource acquisition programs. To date, these programs have mostly comprised conservation activities in residential and commercial buildings. In the environmental documentation for these programs under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the agency has established a set of mitigation measures that ensure against adverse environmental impacts. The agency uses environmental audits to evaluate the programs` performance in meeting the NEPA promises, and how well NEPA documents meet the programs needs and how effectively environmental and program staff interact. Since 1984 the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) has conducted 22 of the audits for Bonneville. The audits are inexpensive and unobstrusive; thus they can be repeated as needed and can be used as a tool to facilitate communication rather than simply to meet administrative rules. As Bonneville moves into an aggressive energy resource acquisition mode, these audits will serve as a model for the ongoing evaluation of environmental performance and may be adopted agency-wide to address regulations beyond NEPA.

  1. Effective early planning and integration of NEPA into the decision-making process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hannon, W.C.; Gensler, J.D. )

    1993-01-01

    This paper covers several key challenges and lessons learned in a federal agency assignment to educate the decision makers in NEPA and then to effectuate decisions early in the decision-making process based on the information derived from the NEPA process participants and documentation. Many of the key challenges faced by these federal decision makers stem, in part, from unfamiliarity with NEPA requirements and the benefits that can be derived by utilizing the process to support making an informed decision. Secondly, federal managers, at times believe that the process is a hindrance to accomplishing their mission. Lastly, there was a genuine belief that the public and other organizations within the agency should have no part in evaluating or commenting on the proposed action. Using the knowledge gained from drafting and reviewing EISs and EAs, Booz, Allen devised a systematic process that effectively: educated management on NEPA requirements; developed a management tool to guide and integrate the process; and encouraged the early and effective use of environmental and social information into all decision-making processes.

  2. Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stern, Marc J.; Blahna, Dale J.; Cerveny, Lee K.; Mortimer, Michael J.

    2009-07-15

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is incorporated into the planning and decision-making culture of all natural resource agencies in the U.S. Yet, we know little about how the attitudes and internal interactions of interdisciplinary (ID) teams engaged in NEPA processes influence process outcomes. We conducted a web-based survey of 106 ID team leaders involved with environmental analyses (EA) or environmental impact statements (EIS) for projects dealing with recreation and travel management on national forests. We explore how they define success in these processes and identify factors most powerfully associated with perceptions of positive outcomes. The survey revealed a tremendous diversity in definitions of success. Strong correlations between the perceived importance of particular indicators of success and their achievement suggest that pre-conceived notions may often help to shape process outcomes. Regression analyses revealed the following factors as the best predictors of ID team leaders' perception of an 'excellent outcome': achievement of the agency mission, whether compromise had taken place between the interested parties, team satisfaction and harmony, timely process completion, and project implementation. Yet, respondents consistently ranked compromise with interested parties and team member satisfaction among the least important measures of successful NEPA processes. Results suggest that clarifying appropriate measures of success in NEPA processes across the agency could make ID team performance more consistent. The research also suggests that greater attention to ID team interactions, both internally and between teams and interested publics, could result in better outcomes.

  3. Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies: Emergencies and NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    With this Memorandum, the Council on Environmental Quality reiterates its previous guidance on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review of proposed emergency response actions.This memorandum clarifies that the previous guidance remains applicable to current situations and provides guidance on required agency environmental review.

  4. Radiological performance assessment for the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.; Fowler, J.R.

    1992-12-18

    This radiological performance assessment (RPA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter III of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. The Order specifies that an RPA should provide reasonable assurance that a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility will comply with the performance objectives of the Order. The performance objectives require that: (1) exposures of the general public to radioactivity in the waste or released from the waste will not result in an effective dose equivalent of 25 mrem per year; (2) releases to the atmosphere will meet the requirements of 40 CFR 61; (3) inadvertent intruders will not be committed to an excess of an effective dose equivalent of 100 mrem per year from chronic exposure, or 500 mrem from a single acute exposure; and (4) groundwater resources will be protected in accordance with Federal, State and local requirements.

  5. Vitrification treatment options for disposal of greater-than-Class-C low-level waste in a deep geologic repository

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fullmer, K.S.; Fish, L.W.; Fischer, D.K.

    1994-11-01

    The Department of Energy (DOE), in keeping with their responsibility under Public Law 99-240, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, is investigating several disposal options for greater-than-Class C low-level waste (GTCC LLW), including emplacement in a deep geologic repository. At the present time vitrification, namely borosilicate glass, is the standard waste form assumed for high-level waste accepted into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. This report supports DOE`s investigation of the deep geologic disposal option by comparing the vitrification treatments that are able to convert those GTCC LLWs that are inherently migratory into stable waste forms acceptable for disposal in a deep geologic repository. Eight vitrification treatments that utilize glass, glass ceramic, or basalt waste form matrices are identified. Six of these are discussed in detail, stating the advantages and limitations of each relative to their ability to immobilize GTCC LLW. The report concludes that the waste form most likely to provide the best composite of performance characteristics for GTCC process waste is Iron Enriched Basalt 4 (IEB4).

  6. National Environmental Policy Act Support for EIS and Environmental Assessments in Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Administration Home National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The NNSA Office of General Counsel's Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (PA/FOIA and NEPA) Division provides NEPA services to the Office of the Administrator, including all organizations within NNSA. The PA/FOIA and NEPA Division provides guidance on matters of policy and execution throughout the NNSA complex. NEPA Compliance Officer Support In addition to providing direct NEPA Compliance

  7. disposal_cell.cdr

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    The disposal cell was constructed in the area formerly occupied by the Weldon Spring Uranium Feed Materials Plant production buildings. The cell provides long-term isolation and ...

  8. Performance assessment for the class L-II disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-03-01

    This draft radiological performance assessment (PA) for the proposed Class L-II Disposal Facility (CIIDF) on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. This PA considers the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) over the operating life of the facility and the long-term performance of the facility in providing protection to public health and the environment. The performance objectives contained in the order require that the facility be managed to accomplish the following: (1) Protect public health and safety in accordance with standards specified in environmental health orders and other DOE orders. (2) Ensure that external exposure to the waste and concentrations of radioactive material that may be released into surface water, groundwater, soil, plants, and animals results in an effective dose equivalent (EDE) that does not exceed 25 mrem/year to a member of the public. Releases to the atmosphere shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR Pt. 61. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as reasonably achievable. (1) Ensure that the committed EDEs received by individual who inadvertently may intrude into the facility after the loss of active institutional control (100 years) will not exceed 100 mrem/year for continuous exposure of 500 mrem for a single acute exposure. (4) Protect groundwater resources, consistent with federal, state, and local requirements.

  9. Reflecting the Revised PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in NEPA Evaluations (EPA, 2007)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This letter, from the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Activities, outlines EPA's position as to how the revised National Air Quality Standard should be reflected in NEPA evaluations of proposed actions.

  10. CEQ Issues Revised Draft Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued revised draft guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effects of climate change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews on December 18, 2014

  11. Microsoft PowerPoint - Benson GM Service Life in LLW Facilities

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Predicting Service Life of Geomembranes in Low-Level and Mixed- Waste Disposal Facilities Craig H. Benson, PhD, PE, NAE CRESP/University of Virginia chbenson@virginia.edu Webinar Performance & Risk Assessment Community of Practice 16 May 2016 Professional Development Credit If you would like 1.5 PDH credits for this webinar, please send an email request to me (chbenson@virginia.edu) with the following: - Name (as you wish to appear on certificate) - Agency or Organization - Email address 2

  12. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents | U.S. DOE Office of

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science (SC) Documents Safety and Security Policy (SSP) SSP Home About Frequently Used Resources NEPA Documents Categorical Exclusion Determinations Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Continuity of Operations (COOP) Implementation Plan Contact Information Safety and Security Policy U.S. Department of Energy SC-31/Germantown Building 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 P: (301) 903-6800 F: (301) 903-7047 More Information » National Environmental Policy

  13. Microsoft PowerPoint - 1_FG2 scoping_DOE NEPA [Compatibility Mode]

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Office of Fossil Energy AGENDA Welcome - Cliff Whyte (DOE-NETL) Background and DOE's Role - Jeff Hoffmann (DOE-NETL) Ameren Project Overview - Mike Long (Ameren) FG Alliance Project Overview - Gordon Beeman (June 7, 8) (FG Alliance) - Ken Humphreys (June 9) (FG Alliance) NEPA Process - Cliff Whyte (DOE-NETL) Public Comments Office of Fossil Energy FutureGen 2.0 Program and the National Environmental Policy Act Public Scoping Meetings - June 7-9, 2011 3 Office of Fossil Energy National

  14. Proposed Columbia Wind Farm No. 1 : Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Joint NEPA/SEPA.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    United States. Bonneville Power Administration; Klickitat County

    1995-03-01

    This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the Columbia Wind Farm {number_sign}1 (Project) proposal for construction and operation of a 25 megawatt (MW) wind power project in the Columbia Hills area southeast of Goldendale in Klickitat County, Washington. The Project would be constructed on private land by Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) (the Applicant). An Environmental Impact Statement is required under both NEPA and SEPA guidelines and is issued under Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq and under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided by RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). Bonneville Power Administration is the NEPA lead agency; Klickitat County is the nominal SEPA lead agency and CARES is the SEPA co-lead agency for this DEIS. The Project site is approximately 395 hectares (975 acres) in size. The Proposed Action would include approximately 91 model AWT-26 wind turbines. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and existing grazing and agricultural activities on the site would continue.

  15. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report, Revision 17

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Rohay, Alan C.; Sackschewsky, Michael R.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2005-09-30

    This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many environmental documents being prepared by DOE contractors concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No statements about significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year’s report is the seventeenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the eighteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology; air quality; geology; hydrology; ecology; cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; noise; and occupational health and safety. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100, 200, 300, and other areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities. Information in Chapter 6 of this document can be adapted and supplemented with specific information for a chapter covering statutory and regulatory requirements in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. When preparing environmental assessments and EISs, authors should also be cognizant of the document titled Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight (DOE 2004). Additional guidance on preparing DOE NEPA documents can be found at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/guidance.html. Any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities may also use the information contained in this document to evaluate projected activities and their impacts. For this 2005 revision, the following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through May 2005: Climate and Meteorology Air Quality Geology – Seismicity section only Hydrology – Flow charts for the Columbia and Yakima rivers only Ecology – Threatened and Endangered Species subsection only Socioeconomics Occupational Safety All of Chapter 6.

  16. Radiological performance assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.; Hunt, P.D.

    1994-04-15

    The E-Area Vaults (EAVs) located on a 200 acre site immediately north of the current LLW burial site at Savannah River Site will provide a new disposal and storage site for solid, low-level, non-hazardous radioactive waste. The EAV Disposal Facility will contain several large concrete vaults divided into cells. Three types of structures will house four designated waste types. The Intermediate Level Non-Tritium Vaults will receive waste radiating greater than 200 mR/h at 5 cm from the outer disposal container. The Intermediate Level Tritium Vaults will receive waste with at least 10 Ci of tritium per package. These two vaults share a similar design, are adjacent, share waste handling equipment, and will be closed as one facility. The second type of structure is the Low Activity Waste Vaults which will receive waste radiating less than 200 mR/h at 5 cm from the outer disposal container and containing less than 10 Ci of tritium per package. The third facility, the Long Lived Waste Storage Building, provides covered, long term storage for waste containing long lived isotopes. Two additional types of disposal are proposed: (1) trench disposal of suspect soil, (2) naval reactor component disposal. To evaluate the long-term performance of the EAVs, site-specific conceptual models were developed to consider: (1) exposure pathways and scenarios of potential importance; (2) potential releases from the facility to the environment; (3) effects of degradation of engineered features; (4) transport in the environment; (5) potential doses received from radionuclides of interest in each vault type.

  17. Waste Disposal | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Disposal Waste Disposal Trucks transport debris from Oak Ridge’s cleanup sites to the onsite CERCLA disposal area, the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. Trucks transport debris from Oak Ridge's cleanup sites to the onsite CERCLA disposal area, the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. The low-level radiological and hazardous wastes generated from Oak Ridge's cleanup projects are disposed in the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF). The

  18. Teaching a new dog old tricks: the synergy of ISO 14000, NEPA, and integrated ES{ampersand}H management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wilkinson, C.H.

    1997-03-01

    For more than twenty-five years, federal agencies have wrestled with (and even learned from) the planning and decision making processes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Accordingly, agencies have developed established processes for environmental planning, impact assessment,and environmental-based decision making. Agencies are now faced with an opportunity to align existing environmental planning systems developed under NEPA with those of ISO 14001, the new international standard for environmental management systems. Through experience gained with NEPA, agencies may have an opportunity to assist the private sector through sharing of lessons learned in identification and mitigation of environmental aspects and impacts. However, agencies should also learn from the private sector how integrated environmental management includes integrating environment, safety, and health (ES&H) considerations in such away as to add direct value to the business. In times of continued and increasing federal agency downsizing, the government can streamline ES&H management planning by integrating ES&H values with business goals. The first synergy of NEPA and ISO 14001 is the identification and assessment of environmental impacts. Under IS0 14001,an organization must identify the `environmental aspects of its activities, products or services`. This is similar to the approach taken in NEPA where agencies must evaluate significant environmental impacts of its actions. The second synergy is the reduction and mitigation of the impacts. IS0 14001 requires a commitment to prevention of pollution and the NEPA process integrates pollution prevention with environmental planning. IS0 14001 requires checking and corrective action to monitor and measure progress toward environmental goals. NEPA applies mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts. Because agencies have been conducting NEPA impact assessment for more than twenty-five years, this body of impact assessment experience can provide valuable knowledge to the private sector where environmental impact analysis is a new approach for some industries. One of the IS0 14000 series of standards actually states that impact assessment is still in its infancy. Therefore, NEPA analysts may be able to provide established impact assessment techniques to industry. However, Federal ES&H managers must learn from the private sector by using the integrated environmental management system as a corporate tool to tie agency objectives with environmental goals. In a time of increasing federal downsizing,the ES&H professional must become smarter about how their service adds to the agency goals and makes the most of the taxpayer`s dollar. Integrating ES&H management in such a way that business goals are met is the way of the future in both the public and private sector.

  19. Compilation and Presentation of Existing Data on Oil and Gas Leasing Development in a Manner Useful to the NEPA Process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Amy Childers; Dave Cornue

    2008-11-30

    In recognition of our nation's increasing energy needs, the George W. Bush Administration's National Energy Policy Development Group report (May 2001) suggested that one way to increase domestic on-shore production of oil and gas is to increase access to undiscovered resources on federal lands. Also recognized is the need to protect and conserve natural resources, which often are located on and around federal lands. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was designed to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to the approval of any development activities. The NEPA scope is broad, with the process applicable to many situations from the building of highways, barge facilities and water outtake facilities, bridges, and watersheds to other less significant projects. The process often involves cooperation among multiple federal agencies, industry, scientists and consultants, and the surrounding community. The objective of the project, titled Compilation and Presentation of Existing Data on Oil and Gas Leasing and Development in a Manner Useful to the NEPA Process, is to facilitate faster and more comprehensive access to current oil and gas data by land management agencies and operators. This will enable key stakeholders in the NEPA process to make decisions that support access to federal resources while at the same time achieving a legitimate balance between environmental protection and appropriate levels of development.

  20. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada Test Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-09-14

    The NTS solid waste disposal sites must be permitted by the state of Nevada Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA). The SWMA for the NTS is the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities (NDEP/BFF). The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) as land manager (owner), and National Security Technologies (NSTec), as operator, will store, collect, process, and dispose all solid waste by means that do not create a health hazard, a public nuisance, or cause impairment of the environment. NTS disposal sites will not be included in the Nye County Solid Waste Management Plan. The NTS is located approximately 105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the federal lands management authority for the NTS, and NSTec is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NTS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NTS has signs posted along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NTS. The Area 5 RWMS is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NTS (Figure 2), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. A Notice of Intent to operate the disposal site as a Class III site was submitted to the state of Nevada on January 28, 1994, and was acknowledged as being received in a letter to the NNSA/NSO on August 30, 1994. Interim approval to operate a Class III SWDS for regulated asbestiform low-level waste (ALLW) was authorized on August 12, 1996 (in letter from Paul Liebendorfer to Runore Wycoff), with operations to be conducted in accordance with the ''Management Plan for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste with Regulated Asbestos Waste.'' A requirement of the authorization was that on or before October 9, 1999, a permit was required to be issued. Because of NDEP and NNSA/NSO review cycles, the final permit was issued on April 5, 2000, for the operation of the Area 5 Low-Level Waste Disposal Site, utilizing Pit 7 (P07) as the designated disposal cell. The original permit applied only to Pit 7, with a total design capacity of 5,831 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) (157,437 cubic feet [ft{sup 3}]). NNSA/NSO is expanding the SWDS to include the adjacent Upper Cell of Pit 6 (P06), with an additional capacity of 28,037 yd{sup 3} (756,999 ft{sup 3}) (Figure 3). The proposed total capacity of ALLW in Pit 7 and P06 will be approximately 33,870 yd{sup 3} (0.9 million ft{sup 3}). The site will be used for the disposal of regulated ALLW, small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. The only waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM). The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe this waste. Other TSCA waste (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) will not be accepted for disposal at the SWDS. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) 325, Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC, current revision). Approval will be given by NNSA/NSO to generators that have successfully demonstrated through process knowledge (PK) and/or sampling and analysis that the waste is low-level, contains asbestiform material, and does not contain prohibited waste materials. Each waste stream will be approved through the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP), which ensures that the waste meets acceptance requirements outlined in the NTS Class III Permit and the NTSWAC.

  1. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2010 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Serne, R Jeffrey; Mattigod, Shas V.

    2010-09-30

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 105 m3 of glass (Puigh 1999). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 0.89 1018 Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally 99Tc (t1/2 = 2.1 105), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessement (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2010 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses. The emphasis in FY2010 was the completing an evaluation of the most sensitive kinetic rate law parameters used to predict glass weathering, documented in Bacon and Pierce (2010), and transitioning from the use of the Subsurface Transport Over Reactive Multi-phases to Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases computer code for near-field calculations. The FY2010 activities also consisted of developing a Monte Carlo and Geochemical Modeling framework that links glass composition to alteration phase formation by 1) determining the structure of unreacted and reacted glasses for use as input information into Monte Carlo calculations, 2) compiling the solution data and alteration phases identified from accelerated weathering tests conducted with ILAW glass by PNNL and Viteous State Laboratory/Catholic University of America as well as other literature sources for use in geochemical modeling calculations, and 3) conducting several initial calculations on glasses that contain the four major components of ILAW-Al2O3, B2O3, Na2O, and SiO2.

  2. Special Analysis: Disposal Plan for Pit 38 at Technical Area 54, Area G

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Rob [URS Coporation

    2012-06-26

    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research; environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requires that radioactive waste be managed in a manner that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on- and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data, and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The Area G disposal facility consists of Material Disposal Area (MDA) G and the Zone 4 expansion area. To date, disposal operations have been confined to MDA G and are scheduled to continue in that region until MDA G undergoes final closure at the end of 2013. Given its impending closure, efforts have been made to utilize the remaining disposal capacity within MDA G to the greatest extent possible. One approach for doing this has been to dispose of low-activity waste from cleanup operations at LANL in the headspace of selected disposal pits. Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the material placed in the headspace of pits 15, 37, and 38 have been developed (LANL, 2010) and the impacts of placing waste in the headspace of these units has been evaluated (LANL, 2012a). The efforts to maximize disposal efficiency have taken on renewed importance because of the disposal demands placed on MDA G by the large volumes of waste that are being generated at LANL by cleanup efforts. For example, large quantities of waste were recently generated by the retrieval of waste formerly disposed of at TA-21, MDA B. A portion of this material has been disposed of in the headspace of pit 38 in compliance with the WAC developed for that disposal strategy; a large amount of waste has also been sent to off-site facilities for disposal. Nevertheless, large quantities of MDA B waste remain that require disposal. An extension of pit 38 was proposed to provide the disposal capacity that will be needed to dispose of institutional waste and MDA B waste through 2013. A special analysis was prepared to evaluate the impacts of the pit extension (LANL, 2012b). The analysis concluded that the disposal unit could be extended with modest increases in the exposures projected for the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis, as long as limits were placed on the radionuclide concentrations in the waste that is placed in the headspace of the pit. Based, in part, on the results of the special analysis, the extension of pit 38 was approved and excavation of the additional disposal capacity was started in May 2012. The special analysis presented here uses performance modeling to identify a disposal plan for the placement of waste in pit 38. The modeling uses a refined design of the disposal unit and updated radionuclide inventories to identify a disposal configuration that promotes efficie

  3. Radioactive waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lampe, Robert F. (Bethel Park, PA)

    1986-01-01

    A radioactive waste disposal package comprising a canister for containing vitrified radioactive waste material and a sealed outer shell encapsulating the canister. A solid block of filler material is supported in said shell and convertible into a liquid state for flow into the space between the canister and outer shell and subsequently hardened to form a solid, impervious layer occupying such space.

  4. Waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Smith, M.J.

    1985-06-19

    This is a claim for a waste disposal package including an inner or primary canister for containing hazardous and/or radioactive wastes. The primary canister is encapsulated by an outer or secondary barrier formed of a porous ceramic material to control ingress of water to the canister and the release rate of wastes upon breach on the canister. 4 figs.

  5. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Charley Yu*, Argonne National Laboratory ; Emmanuel Gnanapragasam, Argonne National Laboratory; Carlos Corredor, U.S. Department of Energy; W. Alexander Williams, U.S. Department of Energy Abstract: The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The primary contamination, which is the source of all releases modeled by the code, is assumed to be a layer of soil. The code considers the release of contamination from the source to the atmosphere, to surface runoff, and to groundwater. The radionuclide leaching was modeled as a first order (without transport) release using radionuclide distribution coefficient and infiltration rate calculated from water balance (precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, etc.). Recently, a new source term model was added the RESRAD-OFFSITE code so that it can be applied to the evaluation of Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment. This new improved source term model include (1) first order with transport, (2) equilibrium desorption (rinse) release, and (3) uniform release (constant dissolution). With these new source release options, it is possible to simulate both uncontainerized (soil) contamination and containerized (waste drums) contamination. A delay time in the source release was also added to the code. This allows modeling the LLW container degradation as a function of time. The RESRAD-OFFSITE code also allows linking to other codes using improved flux and concentration input options. Additional source release model such as diffusion release may be added later. In addition, radionuclide database with 1252 radionuclides (ICRP 107) and the corresponding dose coefficients (DCFPAK 3.02) and the Department of Energy’s new gender- and age-averaged Reference Person dose coefficients (DOE-STD-1196-2011) which is based on the US census data will be added to the next version of RESRAD-OFFSITE code.

  6. Oil field waste disposal costs at commercial disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.

    1997-10-01

    The exploration and production segment of the U.S. oil and gas industry generates millions of barrels of nonhazardous oil field wastes annually. In most cases, operators can dispose of their oil fields wastes at a lower cost on-site than off site and, thus, will choose on-site disposal. However, a significant quantity of oil field wastes are still sent to off-site commercial facilities for disposal. This paper provides information on the availability of commercial disposal companies in different states, the treatment and disposal methods they employ, and how much they charge. There appear to be two major off-site disposal trends. Numerous commercial disposal companies that handle oil field wastes exclusively are located in nine oil-and gas-producing states. They use the same disposal methods as those used for on-site disposal. In addition, the Railroad Commission of Texas has issued permits to allow several salt caverns to be used for disposal of oil field wastes. Twenty-two other oil- and gas-producing states contain few or no disposal companies dedicated to oil and gas industry waste. The only off-site commercial disposal companies available handle general industrial wastes or are sanitary landfills. In those states, operators needing to dispose of oil field wastes off-site must send them to a local landfill or out of state. The cost of off-site commercial disposal varies substantially, depending on the disposal method used, the state in which the disposal company is located, and the degree of competition in the area.

  7. CEQ Guidance on the Application of NEPA to Proposed Federal Actions in the United States with Transboundary Effects

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to proposed federal actions in the United States, including its territories and possessions, that may have transboundary effects extending across the border and affecting another country's environment. While the guidance arises in the context of negotiations undertaken with the governments of Mexico and Canada to develop an agreement on transboundary environmental impact assessment in North America, the guidance pertains to all federal agency actions that are normally subject to NEPA, whether covered by an international agreement or not.

  8. Portsmouth Waste Disposal | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Environmental Cleanup Portsmouth Waste Disposal Portsmouth Waste Disposal Preliminary design cross section of Planned On-site Disposal Cell Preliminary design cross section of ...

  9. The role of NEPA in the Clean Coal Technology Program of the US Department of Energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pell, J.

    1994-12-31

    The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program of the US Dept. of Energy (DOE) supports the demonstration of emerging advanced systems capable of reducing emissions of SO{sub 2}, NO{sub x}, and, through increased efficiency, CO{sub 2}. Along with four previous solicitations, a fifth, {open_quotes}Program Opportunity Notice{close_quotes} (PON), was released on 6 July 1992, and awarded on 4 May 1993. Together, these solicitations fulfill the commitment that was made to implement a five-year, $5 billion (cost shared), program for the demonstration of clean coal technologies. The fourth (1991) and fifth PONs incorporated several new environmental features. These latter $570 million and $568 million competitions were tailored to attract advanced coal technologies, expected to be used into the 21st century. Projects considered for funding support are subject to review in accordance with the NEPA requirements. DOE`s three step process to ensure Program compliance includes preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (November 1989), pre-selection project-specific environmental review, and post-selection site-specific documentation. Most CCT Environmental Assessments culminate in {open_quotes}Findings of No Significant Impacts.{close_quotes} During the course of the EIS process, NEPA prohibits the taking of any action that could {open_quotes}have an adverse environmental effect or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives{close_quotes} to the project.

  10. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Source Guide for the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JANSKY, M.T.

    2000-09-01

    This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to become more familiar with the environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities on the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODs, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

  11. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-10-04

    The Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) is located approximately 105 km (65 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is the federal lands management authority for the NNSS and National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NNSS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NNSS is posted with signs along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NNSS. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NNSS (Figure 1), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. The site will be used for the disposal of regulated Asbestiform Low-Level Waste (ALLW), small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. Waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM) and PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water. The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe RACM. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the DOE/NV-325, Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NNSSWAC, current revision). Approval will be given by NNSA/NSO to generators that have successfully demonstrated through process knowledge (PK) and/or sampling and analysis that the waste is low-level, contains asbestiform material, or contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, or small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste and does not contain prohibited waste materials. Each waste stream will be approved through the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP), which ensures that the waste meets acceptance requirements outlined in the NNSSWAC.

  12. Recommendation 223: Recommendations on Additional Waste Disposal...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    3: Recommendations on Additional Waste Disposal Capacity Recommendation 223: Recommendations on Additional Waste Disposal Capacity ORSSAB's recommendations encourage DOE to...

  13. Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance Specification: Revision 1 Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance Specification: Revision 1 ...

  14. Closure Strategy for a Waste Disposal Facility with Multiple Waste Types and Regulatory Drivers at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. Wieland, V. Yucel, L. Desotell, G. Shott, J. Wrapp

    2008-04-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) plans to close the waste and classified material storage cells in the southeast quadrant of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS), informally known as the '92-Acre Area', by 2011. The 25 shallow trenches and pits and the 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) borings contain various waste streams including low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), transuranic (TRU), mixed transuranic (MTRU), and high specific activity LLW. The cells are managed under several regulatory and permit programs by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Although the specific closure requirements for each cell vary, 37 closely spaced cells will be closed under a single integrated monolayer evapotranspirative (ET) final cover. One cell will be closed under a separate cover concurrently. The site setting and climate constrain transport pathways and are factors in the technical approach to closure and performance assessment. Successful implementation of the integrated closure plan requires excellent communication and coordination between NNSA/NSO and the regulators.

  15. Re-engineering the Federal planning process: A total Federal planning strategy, integrating NEPA with modern management tools

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eccleston, C.H.

    1997-09-05

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was established by Congress more than a quarter of a century ago, yet there is a surprising lack of specific tools, techniques, and methodologies for effectively implementing these regulatory requirements. Lack of professionally accepted techniques is a principal factor responsible for many inefficiencies. Often, decision makers do not fully appreciate or capitalize on the true potential which NEPA provides as a platform for planning future actions. New approaches and modem management tools must be adopted to fully achieve NEPA`s mandate. A new strategy, referred to as Total Federal Planning, is proposed for unifying large-scale federal planning efforts under a single, systematic, structured, and holistic process. Under this approach, the NEPA planning process provides a unifying framework for integrating all early environmental and nonenvironmental decision-making factors into a single comprehensive planning process. To promote effectiveness and efficiency, modem tools and principles from the disciplines of Value Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Total Quality Management are incorporated. Properly integrated and implemented, these planning tools provide the rigorous, structured, and disciplined framework essential in achieving effective planning. Ultimately, the goal of a Total Federal Planning strategy is to construct a unified and interdisciplinary framework that substantially improves decision-making, while reducing the time, cost, redundancy, and effort necessary to comply with environmental and other planning requirements. At a time when Congress is striving to re-engineer the governmental framework, apparatus, and process, a Total Federal Planning philosophy offers a systematic approach for uniting the disjointed and often convoluted planning process currently used by most federal agencies. Potentially this approach has widespread implications in the way federal planning is approached.

  16. Pioneering Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    PIONEERING NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL U.S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Area Office February 2000 DOE/CAO-00-3124 T h e W a s t e I s o l a t i o n P i l o t P l a n t ii Table of Contents Closing the Circle on Transuranic Waste 1 The Long Road to the WIPP 3 The need for the WIPP The National Academy of Sciences Community leaders suggest Carlsbad as the site for the WIPP Construction of the WIPP The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Certification by the EPA The National Environmental Policy Act The Resource

  17. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, Charles W.; Beahm, Edward C.; Parker, George W.

    1995-01-01

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide.

  18. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, C.W.; Beahm, E.C.; Parker, G.W.

    1995-10-24

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide. 3 figs.

  19. Stakeholder Engagement on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste -12565

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gelles, Christine; Joyce, James; Edelman, Arnold

    2012-07-01

    The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Disposal Operations is responsible for developing a permanent disposal capability for a small volume, but highly radioactive, class of commercial low-level radioactive waste, known as Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste. DOE has issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and will be completing a final EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that evaluates a range of disposal alternatives. Like other classes of radioactive waste, proposing and evaluating disposal options for GTCC waste is highly controversial, presents local and national impacts, and generates passionate views from stakeholders. Recent national and international events, such as the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, have heighten stakeholder awareness of everything nuclear, including disposal of radioactive waste. With these challenges, the Office of Disposal Operations recognizes that informed decision-making that will result from stakeholder engagement and participation is critical to the success of the GTCC EIS project. This paper discusses the approach used by the Office of Disposal Operations to engage stakeholders on the GTCC EIS project, provides advice based on our experiences, and proffers some ideas for future engagements in today's open, always connected cyber environment. (authors)

  20. Environmental waste disposal contracts awarded

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Environmental contracts awarded locally Environmental waste disposal contracts awarded locally Three small businesses with offices in Northern New Mexico awarded nuclear waste...