L.7.0 SCOPING, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND CONSULTATIONS
Comment Number 0012.19
ODOE
Comment Appendix J of Volume Five contains "Consultation Letters" to various regulatory agencies, States and Tribes. While perhaps complying technically with the legal requirements, the "Consultation Letters" do not meet what we believe is the intent of NEPA. That is to consult with and obtain the comments from agencies with regulatory authority or special expertise, States and Tribes. The letters were sent with little information and without discussion. Lacking detailed information, the recipients cannot make meaningful comment on USDOE's plans. Oregon did not have sufficient information until receipt of the draft EIS and was not invited to participate in the formulation of the EIS. NEPA requires cooperation of Federal Agencies in preparation of environmental analyses from inception to ensure good analyses are performed and good decisions are reached based on a through understanding of the potential problems and impacts. A letter near the end of the process which describes the purpose of the EIS in the broadest terms does not accomplish these goals and does not meet the intent of NEPA. Oregon expects to be included from the inception in future analyses and throughout environmental analyses of actions which may impact the Columbia River.
Response The consultation letters contained in Volume Five, Appendix J represent one of several forums for consultation with agencies and Tribal Nations that were provided in accordance with NEPA (i.e., 40 CFR 1501.2, 1501.5-7, 1502.25, 1503.1-4, and 1506.02) and SEPA (i.e., 197-11 WAC) regulations. DOE and Ecology value the input from stakeholders, Tribal Nations, and State and Federal agencies and believe that the intent and spirit of NEPA and SEPA regarding consultation and public involvement during the NEPA process have been met.
The consultation process formally began with the publication of the Notice of Intent Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on January 28, 1994 (FR 4052). At that time, DOE announced its intent to prepare the TWRS EIS and invited all interested parties, including the public, State and Federal Agencies and Tribal Nations, to comment on the scope of the TWRS EIS, as well as significant issues that DOE should consider when preparing the EIS. The Notice of Intent provided background on the scope of the EIS, information on the TWRS program, information on the purpose and need for agency action, alternatives that would be considered in the EIS, and the regulatory framework for the EIS. The Notice of Intent also announced a scoping period of 45 days during which DOE would accept written comments. Further, during the scoping period, DOE conducted five public meetings at which oral and written comments were accepted. Two hearings were held in the State of Oregon. During the scoping period, several state and Federal agencies submitted comments to DOE that were used to define the scope of the EIS, alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and areas of impact analysis to be included in the EIS.
Subsequent to the public scoping process and prior to the publication of the Draft EIS on April 12, 1996, DOE and Ecology held meetings with stakeholders, the Hanford Advisory Board, the Hanford Natural Resources Trustee Council, Tribal Nations, and various state and Federal agencies regarding the preparation of the EIS. Many of these meetings were initiated by DOE or Ecology to solicit input regarding specific issues to be addressed in the EIS or to receive input regarding emerging data relevant to the TWRS EIS. Other meetings were initiated by stakeholder organizations, Tribal Nations, or agencies to receive information from DOE and Ecology regarding the progress and content of the TWRS EIS.
In November 1995, to supplement the scoping process and other consultation activities following the scoping period, DOE and Ecology transmitted formal consultation letters to local, state and Federal Agencies, and Tribal Nations. In response, several state and Federal agencies, and Tribal Nations provided written information on issues considered important to address in the EIS or to request additional consultation meetings to discuss specific concerns.
The next step in the consultation process, as specified by NEPA, is to provide a copy of the Draft EIS to applicable local, state and Federal agencies, and Tribal Nations to obtain comment on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was distributed to more than 30 local, state and Federal agencies, and four Tribal Nations. This distribution also included Oregon Department of Energy, Oregon Hanford Waste Board, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Office of the Governor. A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1996, and April 15, 1996, and a public notice was published in the Portland and Hood River newspapers on April 12, 1996. These notices provided information regarding the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS and solicited written comments from interested agencies, Tribal Nations, and the public during the public comment period (April 12, 1996 to May 28, 1996). During the comment period, a public hearing was held in Portland, Oregon so that agencies and other interested parties could provide oral comments on the Draft EIS. Oregon Department of Energy participated in the planning and operation of the Portland hearing. Oregon Department of Energy also submitted oral comments at this meeting, as well as written comments on the Draft EIS.
Oregon Department of Energy and other agency comments were considered when preparing the Final EIS. Response to the Department's comments on the Draft EIS are provided in this appendix and changes to the EIS have been incorporated as indicated in the responses. DOE and Ecology value the Oregon Department of Energy's comments and believe these comments contributed to improving the EIS. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.149, 0072.252, 0072.53, and 0072.271 for a discussion of consultations with Tribal Nations.
Comment Number 0101.10
Yakama Indian Nation
Comment The Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) previously commented on the scope of the subject EIS in a letter of March 28, 1994 and on the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) functions and requirements document (DOE/RL-92-60) in a letter of March 23, 1995.
These letters, copies of which are attached to this letter, address issues, many of which remain unresolved with the TWRS Draft EIS. All of the issues addressed below have been previously identified in YIN ER/WM meetings with DOE and DOE contractor personnel working on the subject EIS.
Response DOE and Ecology considered the comments of the Yakama Indian Nation submitted on the scope of the TWRS EIS in developing the scope of the EIS, the alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and the areas of environmental impact analysis included in the EIS. The DOE and Ecology responses to the comments of the Yakama Indian Nation on the scope of the EIS are documented in the Implementation Plan for the Draft TWRS EIS (DOE 1995b). Among the comments incorporated into the EIS alternatives and/or impact analysis were 1) evaluation of an alternative involving the disposal of all wastes to an offsite repository (the Ex Situ No Separations alternative); 2) evaluation of an option that would calcine rather than vitrify the waste stream (calcination option to the Ex Situ No Separations alternative); 3) evaluation of retrieval storage of treated waste; 4) evaluation of railcars for transportation and storage of tank waste (addressed in the interim action SIS EIS [DOE 1995i]); 5) addressing of land-use restriction associated with each alternative; 6) addressing of impacts associated with leaks associated with retrieval; 7) management of gaseous waste streams; and 8) impacts to cultural and natural resources.
The issues addressed in the remainder of the comment letter on the Draft TWRS EIS are addressed elsewhere in this Appendix (please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0101.01 to 0101.09). As indicated in the comment, DOE and Ecology met with the Yakama Indian Nation and other affected Tribal Nations throughout the NEPA process for the TWRS EIS. These meetings and meetings following the publication of the Draft EIS for public comment have resulted in substantive changes to the Final EIS based on the advise and input of representatives of the Tribal Nations. For a discussion of the consultation process, please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.149. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.40, 0072.156, 0072.160, 0069.07, 0101.03, 0072.198, 0072.252, and 0072.225 for discussions of selected changes to the EIS based on comments by Tribal Nations. Because the information contained in the comment is addressed elsewhere (e.g., in the Implementation Plan for the EIS, in responses to other comments, or in the text to the Draft EIS), no modification to the document is warranted.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
