A key stakeholder in the Pacific Northwest has praised the DOE NEPA staff for "a job well done" in the preparation of the environmental impact statement for the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes. 

In a recent letter from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to John Wagoner, Manager, Richland Operations Office, and Mary Riveland, Director, Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the tribal organization commended the management of the Hanford tanks EIS process as an "excellent example" for others to follow. 

The EIS process differed from typical DOE NEPA planning processes, according to the tribal program manager, J.R. Wilkinson, in at least two regards: the EIS staff "actually changed the scope of their proposed project in response to criticism" from the public, and the EIS staff "made concrete, enforceable commitments to specific mitigation actions" in the Record of Decision. 

The enthusiastic stakeholder appreciation of the NEPA process for Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes is one feature of this successful case history, which provides important lessons on NEPA’s influence on decision-making, the benefits of full and open stakeholder participation, and practical aspects of managing the NEPA process. Moreover, as a result of reevaluations of the project in the course of the NEPA process, the Department has decided not to construct six new waste tanks, resulting in a savings of $435 million.

Carolyn Haass of the DOE Richland Operations Office and Geoff Tallent of Ecology managed a combined NEPA/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process in coordination with Paul Dunigan, Richland's NEPA Compliance Officer. Their staffs met an aggressive schedule for preparing a Final EIS, Record of Decision, and Mitigation Action Plan. They also addressed tribal and other stakeholder concerns, which resulted in DOE changing its preferred alternative in the Final EIS and making commitments in the Record of Decision to enforceable mitigation strategies.

NEPA’s Impact on Decision Making

When the Draft EIS was issued in July 1994, the preferred alternative was to construct up to six new high-level waste storage tanks. Political support for the alternative was strong, as speedy completion of the EIS would meet Tri-Party (DOE, Environmental Protection Agency, State of Washington) Agreement milestones, and the socioeconomic impacts of the $435 million proposal looked very beneficial. Dr. Don Alexander was the Richland NEPA Document Manager at that time, and, faced with public skepticism of a predetermined outcome and an analysis that did not support the preferred alternative, he and Ms. Haass championed a change in course. Through Dr. Alexander’s direction, reevaluations of waste volume projections and management practices led DOE to abandon its preferred alternative and pursue renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement. This change would save the Department hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and operations costs. Ms. Haass and Robert Lober, Project Manager, then developed the new preferred alternative for safe tank waste management, consisting of a replacement cross-site transfer system with continued use of mixer pumps in the hydrogen-generating tank SY-101. This became the preferred alternative presented in the Final EIS and chosen in the Record of Decision. 

Mitigation Commitments Reassure Stakeholders

State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies both acknowledged Richland Operations Office's cooperation in developing an effective Mitigation Action Plan. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the development of this plan to be a significant positive indication of DOE's increasing awareness and stewardship of the invaluable natural resources it manages at Hanford. . . . We commend the Safe Interim Storage project staff for their coordination efforts with natural resource agencies since the early phases of the project, and their responsiveness to our suggestions,” wrote Philip Laumeyer, Field Supervisor.

Tribal stakeholders, too, were reassured by the mitigation commitments. Mr. Wilkinson wrote that the staff "deserve recognition for demonstrating the integrity to make concrete, satisfactory commitments to mitigation in their NEPA Record of Decision."

Process Streamlining and Contracting Efficiency

The DOE and Ecology EIS Document Managers exploited opportunities to reduce process overlaps, saving both time and money:

  • Scoping meetings and Notices of Intent were combined for the Safe Interim Storage and the Tank Waste Remediation System EISs.
  • DOE and Ecology agreed to co-prepare a single EIS for Safe Interim Storage, satisfying both the NEPA and SEPA processes.
  • This EIS project established a Hanford resource library that will support the efficient preparation of future Hanford EISs. Preparers of the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant EIS are using this resource to reduce research costs and preparation time.

Cost and time savings were attributed to the use of a general support services contractor, with the following advantages:

  • The support services contractor had been selected through a competitive process before the start of this EIS, thus avoiding the delay and costs of a separate procurement process.
  • The NEPA support contractor did not have a steep learning curve because of its familiarity with the Hanford Site and its contractors, its expertise in NEPA, and its access to qualified local and national resources.