United States Government Department of Energy

memorandumu

DATE:

REPLY TOAllN OP:

SUSJECT

TO.

August 16, 1994

OfficeofNEPA Oversight:EH-25:Lichtman:500-401O

EnvironmentalAssessmentChecklkt

Secretarial Officers and Heads of Field Offices

This memorandum transmits a new Department of Energy (DOE) EnvironmentalAssessment Checklist, prepared by the OMCS of Environment, Safety and Health to assistDOE components in cartyingouttheirresponsibilitiesundertheNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). A draft of this checklist was distributed for review and comment at theNEPA Compliance Officers meeting in February 1994.

Although there is no requirement to use this checklist, we belleve it is a useful tool in thepreparationand reviewofDOE environmentalassessments.Nevertheless,a checklistapproachhas certaininherentlimitations,as discussed on page 1. Some NEPApractitioners may find this checklist has limited utiltty for the highly variable, analyticalprocess of environmental impact assessment. Other NEPA practhbners may find anenvironmental assessment checklist useful because it sewes to remind them, in aconsistent format, of various requirements and recommendations. When this checkilet isused, it should be onty one tool among many.

Practitioners may modify this checklist as they desire to suit partider needs. Accordingly,the OffIce of NEPA Oversight will shortty provide copies of this checklist in electronicformat to DOE NEPA Compliance Oflicers, who may distribute copies further as they seefit. In any modified versions, however, the discussion on page 1 should be retained as anintegral part of the checklist. We ask tirther that those who modify the checklist identifythemselves on the checklist to establish ownership and accountability.

Comments on this checklist may be directed to Stan Lkhtman, Director, Waste ActhdtiesDtision, Office of NEPA OversigM (2W) 5S6-461 O.

/

\

b~Tara 07 .D., M.P.H.Stant Se&tary

Environment, Safety and HeaJth

Attachment

cc: Distribution

w

ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENTCHECKLIST

w

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF NEPA OVERSIGHT

AUGUST 1994

w

DOE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

PREFACE

The attached checklist,developed by the Department of Energy (DOE)Officeof NEPA Oversight, is intended to aid in preparing and reviewing DOEEnvironmentalAssessments (EAs),prepared pursuant to the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). Checklist questions are based on NEPA, the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508),DOENEPARegulations (10 CFR Part 1021), the DOE Office of Environment, Safety andHealth’s “Reconanendationsfor the Preparation of EnvironmentalAssessments andEnvironmental Impact Statements” (“Reconwnendations”), other Counci1 and DOEguidance, and related federal environmental, safety, and health laws andregulations.

The checklist consists of two parts: List 1 -- General, and List 2 --Supplemental Topics. Abbreviations/acronymsand references can be found at theend of List 2. Generally, the questions in List 1 are applicable to all EAs;the questions in List 2 may be used as applicable, depending on the specificproposal. Both lists provide columns for “yes”, “no”, and nonapplicable (“N/An)responses. If desired, notes on document adequacy and other conanentscan also

w be entered. The questions are phrased so that a “yes” answer is preferable toa “no” answer. Not all questions will apply to all EAs; the checklist shouldbe adapted according to the particular circumstances. Consider also the use ofthe “sliding scale” approach (see “Reconwnendations”).

Modification of this checklist is encouraged to suit the needs of aparticular office or program. In particular, users may wish torevise or add tothe topical questions in List 2. In all modified versions, however, the titlepage discussion (page 1) should beretained asan integral part of the checklist.Further, those who modify the checklist should identify themselves on thechecklist to establish ownership and accountability.

w

DooumentTttle: Reviewed By:

Dooument Number: ‘ OffIce/Phone:

Document Date: Dam:

Attached is a checklist to aid in preparing and reviewing DOE EnvironmentalAssessments(EAs),preparedpursuanttotheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA). Likeanychecklist,ithas bothvalueand limits.

On one hand, a checklist may help EA preparers and reviewers to:

● avoid overlooking required or recommended items;● identify needed analyses and discussions;● provide a record of an internal review.

On the other hand, NEPA analysis does not reduce to a single formula or checklist. EachDOE proposal presents unique circumstances and potential impacts. This checklist shouldbe applied carefully because:

● no checklist can be universally comprehensive or complete;● it does not substitute for the original laws, regulations, and guidance;● it alone cannot ensure that the EA will be adequate under, and in full compliance with,

NEPA and associated federal laws and regulations;● addressing generic items on a checklist alone may not lead to a sufficiently rigorous

analysis of potential impaots of a proposed aotion;● checklist items are not always of equal importance or weight (e.g., if threatened and

endangered species are not addressed, an EA is generally inadequate; however,omitting beneficial impacts usually is not critical).

In short, a checklist should not be relied upon as the only way to build quality into a DOEEA. tt does not replace good judgment.

Finally, this EA checklist is not intended to promote the rote generation of standardizeddocumentation. It is not meant to encourage an ethic of minhnal compliancewithenvironmental,safety,and heatth standards.R cannot measure whether resources areappropriately allocated, or the extent to which DOE decisionmakers use NEPA information indecisions and whether those decisions improve protection of environmental quality. In thelong run, the focus should be on the ultimate “product” of the NEPA process: high qualitydecisions and sound environmental stewardship.

Office of NEPA Oversight, US. Oe~artrnent ofEnergy August 1994

1

DOE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST*

1 I 1 I 1 1List 1: Genorai Yee No WA Pago Adeqmoy Evduatlon ‘

●nd Comments

1.1.0 SUMMARY (Optional In DOE EAe)

1.1.1Does the summaryaddresstheentireEA [Recommendations,p.3]?t

1,1.2Isthesummaryconsistentwithinformationin the document[Recommendations, p.3]?

1.1.3 Does the summary highlight keydflerences among the alternative[Recommendations, p.3]?

1.1.4 Does the summary describa I I Illthe underlying purpose and need foragencyaction?

the proposed action?

each of the aiternathw?

the principal environmental issues andresults [Rammdakm, po3]?

1.20 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.2.1 Doesthe staternant ofpurpoaeandneeddefine thenesdfor~actbn [40CFR

717

1,2.< Does thestatementofpurposeandneed relate to the broad requirement ofdesire foragenoy action, andnottothenesdfor one specific proposal [Recom~p.4]?

1.24 DoestheettWrWK(Xfxqx)eeandneedidemif ytheproble moropportunitytowhkhtheagencyis~[Recommendations, P,5]?

● So@list of AbbmvaUorm/Aoronym8,p. 17.* lbtd MwonooO, pp. lW.

—

t rRooommorrddorw’1 mfor$to guiti ontttlod Wooommonddiono for U?. Propar@ion of Envlronmontal Acoc@smonfsandEnvlronmontalImpact Sfatomonts”(Issued by tho hobtant SOOrotaryfor Environment S@fctyurd Hoalttr,May 1SS3)

2

Ustl: General Yes No NIA Pago Adequacy Evaluationand Comments

1.3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

1.3,1 Is theproposedactiondescribedinsufficientdetailsothatpotentialimpactscanbe identified?Are all phases described (e.g.,construction, operation, maintenance anddecommissioning) [Recommendations, p.7]?

1.3.2 Are environmental releases associatedwith the proposed action quantified, includingbath the rates and durations[Recommendations, p.71?

1.3.3 As appropriate, are mitigationmeasuree inohcfed in the description of theproposed aotion [Recommendations, p.8]?

1.3,4 Is the project description writtenbroadly enough to enoompsss futuremodifications [Reoommendatbns, p.8]?

1.3,5 Does the proposed action excludedaments thatare moresppropriate tothestatement ofpurpoeeand need[Recommnddon% P.8]?

1.3.6 Is the propoad aotion described interrnsoftha ~action to betaksn (even apfivateaotionthathasbeenfederalized)[Reoommendatbns, p.8]?

1.3,7 Does tha EA address a range ofreasonable alternatives that satisfy theagency’s purpose and need, includingmaaonWe altarndves outside DOE’Sjurisdiion [Reoommendationrkp.9]?

1.3.8 tfthereareslt~ that sppearobvious or have bean WentMad by the public,butarenot analyzed, duusthe EAexplahwhy they were excludsd [Reoommemkiomp.9]?

1.3.9DoeatheEAhlcl@Othenosctbnattemative[10CFR 1021,321(c)]?

1.3.10Isthenodorlaltemaivadsaoribedinsufficientdetailsoth@ltsaoopOiaClOarandpotentialimpactscanbe ideM&d[Recommendatkxw%P.11]?

1.3.11Doeathenoactiondtm=iveidtiad&uaeion ofthelegalrsmiflCatiOnaOfnOaction,ifappropriate[Recommendations,poll]?

3

Uet 1: Qenoral Y* No NIA

I I I

1,3,12 Does the EA take into accountrelationships between the proposed actionand other actions to be taken by the agencyin order to avoid improper segmentation[Recommendations, p,12]?

1.3.13Does the proposed aotion comply wfihCEQ regulations for interimactions [40 CFR1!50s.11?

Pago Adequacy Evalustlonand Comments

1.4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

1,4.1 Does the EA ident~ either t~~Q of thO fdkwhg withint~ ar~ p%ntialty affected by the proposedaction and Slternauvm

floodplains [EO 1196& 10 CFR 1022]?

wetlands [EO 1199(1 10CFR 102Z40 CFR 1506.27(b)(3)]?

m~~, ~j w ~i~e~-w~rmmtiother special statue (e.g., state-listed)W=@J [16 ~ 1631; 40CFR1506.27(b)(3)]?

prime or unique fannlad [7USC 4201;7 CFR W, 40 CFR 160S,27(b)(3)]?

stateofnatknal~-Conservatkn areeqorothef areasofrecreational, eoologM, soenk, oraesttWc impwtance?

wildandscenicrtvem [16 USC 1271;40 CFR 1606.27(b)(3)]?

natural resource8 (e.g., timber, fWJ6,soits, minerals, fish, Wdlife, waterbodies, aquifers)?

~P=W ~ h=-, mhwmbgH, orarchitectural ~O@-n9sites onoreu@ble forthe Na!kXudRe@stertXHistodcPlaceeandtheNational Regieby d IWural ~)[16 USC4~ 36CFR SOQ40 CFR1506.27(b)(3)]?

Native Amerbns ‘ ooncerm [16 USC47042 USC1996]?

4

IW1* Cautu91 I Yn I No I N/A I Pm I AdoqQ Evalu8tlon I

(

Llet1: General Yes No NIA Pago Adequacy Evaluation●nd Comments

propeny of historic, archaeologi~, orarchitectural significance (includingsites on or eligibie for the NationalRegister of H&Xoric Places and theNational Registry of Natural Landmarks)[16 USC 470; 36 CFR 800;40 CFR1506.27(b)(3)]?

NativeAmericans’concerns[16USC470;42 USG 1996]?

minofltyand low-incomepopulations[EO 12898]?

1.5.2DoestheEA analyzetheproposedaction:

forbothshort-termand long-termeflecm[40CFR 1506.27(a)]?

forbothbeneficialand advecseimpacts[40CFR 1508.27(b)(l)]?

foreffecteonpubllchealthand~[40CFR 1508027(b)(2)]?

for d@oR&natety h~h and aduereehuman health ofenvironmentA effeCtSon minodty and low-incomecommunities [EO 12898]?

1.5.3 Do the discuasbm d environmentalimpacts include (as appro@Xe) humanhealth effects, effects d accidents, andtransponation effects [RecommeWMon%p.18]?

1.5.4 As appropflate, does the EA addressthedegreeto whicflthe poesibleeffectsmthe human environmern maybe highlyuncertain or involve unique of unknown risks[40 CFR 1506.27(b)(5)]?

1.5.5 Dothed&usions of WWonnmWimpacts identity posaibbindimctmdcumulative impacta [~sec. 6.1]?

1.5.6 Does the EA quardy environmmtdimpacts where possible [Recorn~p.18]?

6

List 1: Gonord Y- No N/A Page Adequaoy Evalu@lonand Comments

1.5,7 Are all potentially non-trhdalimpaots

identified? Are impacts anafyzed using agraded approach - i.e., propoflional to theirpotentml significance [Recommendations,p.16 and 17]?

1.5.8 Does the EA identify al reasonablyforeseeable impacts [40 CFR 1508.8]?

1.!5.9 If informationrelated to potentialimpacts is incomplete or unavailable, doesthe EA indioate that suoh informationislacki~ [40 CFR 1502.22]?

1.5.10 Are sufficientdata and referencespresented to allow review of the validity ofanatysis methods and results[Recommendatm p,19]?

1.6.0 OVERALLCONSIDERATIONS/iNCORPORATION OF NEPA VAIUES

10601 Seoause conclusions d overallsignilkxnce willbe made in a FONSI ordetermination to prepare an EIS, are thewords “sign- and ‘insigniflcarWabsentfromconcfusoty statements inthe EA[Reoommendabw, p.38]?

1.6.2 DOthe oondusions ~ fxtentialimpaots follow from the informationandanalyses presented in the EA[Reoommend@ns, f).30]?

1.6,3 Doesthe EAamidthe im@oationthatWn@ance with regulatory requhmentsdemonstratesthe abeenoe of significantmvironrnantal effects [Recommnd@on%p.20]?

1.6.4 Are mitigation measures ~e tome potentki impaots ide@ied in the EA[40 CFR 1500.2(f)]?

1.6.5 Does the EAshowttWthe~sha8takena’hadfook’*enWmmt#Consequanoea’[Kleppov. Siwra club,427 us 390,410 (1976)]?

7

Uat 1: Genord Yes No N/A Page Adequacy Evaluationand Comments

1.7.0 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.7.1 Were host states and tribes and, whenapplicable, the public notified of DOE’sdetermination to prepare the EA [1O CFR1021.301; Policy Statement, Sec. ~?** Doesthe EA address issues known to be ofconcern to the states, tribes, and public ?

1.7,2 I-W the EA been made available to theagencies, states, tribes, and the public[10 CFR 1021.301]?

1.7.3 Have stakehoiders including the publicbeen invcdvedto the extent practicable duringthe preparation d the EA [CEQ (46 FR18037);40 CFR 1506.640 CFR 1501.4(b);10 CFR 1021,301]? Has DOE proactivetysought the involvementof minorityand low-income oommunitiee in the review andPWS@OIT process [EO 12898]?

1,7,4 Havecommentsfromhoststatesandtribesand,when q@oable, thepublkbeenaddressed [10 CFR 1021.301; PdkyStStam sec. ~?

1.7.5 Isa Floodplain/VVetlandsAseesmmrequired and if so, has one been completed?If required, has a Publk Notice beenpublished in the Federal Register [10 CFRlo22.14(b)]?

1.7.6 Does the EA demonstrate adequateooneultationwith apprOpWe agendes toensure complianoa with sensitive resoumelaws and regulations? Are letters dconsultation (e.g., SHPO, USFWS) appmded[16 USC 1531; 36CFR 80QR~~ P.15]?

1.7.7 Doeathe EAinoludeal&ing&~@l===_d[40CFR1508.9(b)]?

1.S.0 FORMAT, GENERAL 00CUMENT QUALITY, USER-FRIENDUNESS

1,8.1 k3ttW~witt&l pfdSSty9nd

concisety, using plainlanguage,andwithoutjaqon [10 CFR 1021.301(b);Recommendations, p.3S)?

● ☛ p%lioy ~ rwior$to M ‘Soordafhl Polioy Stetomont on ho Ndlond EnvironmonM Polky Ad’ (Iuuod by the SoorcWY01Enugy, Juno 13, 1994)

8

Llet 1: Qonoral Yes No WA Pago Adequacy Evaluationand Comments

1.8.2 Is DOE listedas the preparer on thetitle page of the EA [Recommendations,p.32]?

1,8.3 Is the metric system of units used (withEnglish units in parentheses) to the extentpossible [Recommendations, p.35]?

1.8.4 If scientific notation is used, is anexplanation provided [Reoommendations,p.35J?

1.8.5 Are technical terms defined wherenecessary [10 CFR 1021.301(b);Reoornmendations,p.36]?

1.8.6 Are the units consistent throughout thedocument [Recommendations, p.35]?

1,8.7 K ~UktCWy terms are used, are theyoOn@OtOtltwith their fOfJU&ltOty definitiOftS[RecommendaMm, p.371?

1.6.8 Arevisual aidsused whenever po6sibleto simplifythe EA?

1.8,9 Are abbreviations and acronymsdelinedthe first timetheyareuaed?

1.8.10 Is the use of abbreviations minimizedtotheexterrt praotW?

1.8.11 Dothe_ices supfmt theoontent and cortolusionsoontained in themain bodyofthe EA? Isinformation inthe-u COnSiStWltwith infonnatbn in themain body of the EA [Reoommndaths,p.33]?

1.8.12 Is infmnWon in tables and figuresmnsistent with infcmath inthe text andapf=dim [Reoorn~ p.33]?

1.9.0 KEYTO SUPPLEMENTAL TOPICALQUESTIONS

1.9.1 Doeethe pmpoeed actbnpresant If y- complete queatkms in Seotion 2.1.0.potential forimpaota on WarraeWoesorWaer quatity?

1.9.2 Doesthe prqmsed aotbnpreeent tf yes, oornplete queatbna in Section 2.2.0.potentialfor impacts relatad to gaology orsoils?

1,9.3 Doesthe fmpoeed action present If yes, Oornpletequestiom in section 2.3.0.pdential for impacts on air quality?

w

9

M 1: Gonoral Yaa No

1.9.4 Does the proposed action presentpotential for impacts on wildlife or habfiat? I1,9.5 Doestheproposedactionpresentpotentialfor effects on human health?

1.9.6 Does the proposed action involvetransportation?

1.9.7 Doestheproposedactioninvolvewastemanagement?

1.9.8 Does the proposed action presentpotential for impacts on socioeconomicconditions? II1.9.9 Does the proposed action presentpotential for impacts to historic,~~, m _ cultural sitee orpropettiee?

NIA Pago Adaqmcy Evalustlon●nd Commmts

If yes, complete questions in Section 2.4,0.

If yes, compbte questions in Section 2.5.0.

Ifyes,complete questions in Section 2.6.0.

if yea, complete questions in Section 2,7,0.

if yes, com@Xe questions in sedon 2.8.0.

If yt,, complete questions in Section 2.9.0.

Lbt 2 SupplamantalTopka Yee No NM Page qq EvaluaUon●nd Commanta

2.1.0 WATERRESOURCESAND WATERQUAIJTY

21.1 Doeathe EAMentity potential effectsofthepmpoaed action andaaernattvesonsuIface water quantity and quality under bothnormal operations and acddent conditions?

21.2 Doeathe EAevaluate whether theFW=@Jd*w*~ Would besubject to.

war quality or efrluent stmdwds?

National Interim Primary Drinking WatWRegulations?

National Semmday DrfnkingWtderRe@atbne?

21.3 Doeathe EAaMawMhartha~-~~

would incfudework in, undar, ovar, orhaviqan effect onnav&aMewt$ertithe United States?

WOUid inciuda the di!xhaqe ddre@ed or fitimaterialintO waters&the United states?

10

List 1: Qenoral Ya No NIA

would include the deposit of fill materialor an excavation that atters or modifiesthe course, location, condition, orcapacity of any navigable waters of theUnited States?

would require a Rivers and Harbors ActSection 10 permit or a Clean Water Act(Section 402 or Secthn 404) x~ti

21.4 Does the EA identify potential effects ofthe progmaedaction and alternatives ongroundwater quantity and quality (includingaquifers) under both normal operations andaccident conditions?

2.1.5 Does the EA consider whether thePf- action of alternatives may affectany municipal or prhmtedrinking waterSuodiea?

Z2.O GEOLOQY AND SOILS

221 Doeame EAdeacribe andquantitytheland area proposed to be altered, excmated,or ~ disturbed? [Sthis d8scfiptknconsistent with other sectkma (e.g., lend use,habitat area)?

222 Are ieauea related to seiarnkity= ~-mm, quantified, and

223 tftheactkn invotveedisturbencedSurface soils, areeroaion control meaaureaaddressed?

23.0 AIRQuAull

2.3.1 Doeethe EAidenWypottidkxta OfthepmpOeedactiononarnbiemakqual&yunder both nOrwWand~oondMom?

2.3.2 Are potentisl emisdom ~ totheextent pr@caMe (mount adnXeofrelease)?

23.3 Doeathe EA~e PONWSIeffeotatohuman heatthandthe environment fromexposure to radti and hemrdouachemicals in emissions?

2.3.4 Does the EAevaluate whether themm action and altemmvea would: II

I

Page Adequacy Evaluetlonand Comments

1

11

U8t 1: @fwrd Y09 No N/A Pago Adequacy Evduatlof’I

●nd Comments

be in complii with the NationalAmbient Air QuaIii Standards? —

be m compliance with the Stateimplementation Plan?

potentiality affect any area designatedas Class I under the Clean Ak Act?

be sub-to New Source PerformanceStandards?

be subjeot to National EmissionsStandardsfor Hazardous AirPoWWnts?

be subject to emissions limitationsinan Air Quality Control Regkn?

2.4.0 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

2.4.1 If tha EA identifies potential effeots dthepropoeed actionan daltemathmsonthreatened or mdangered speoies and/ororkioalMbit*, has oondm@lwfm theUSFWS or NMFS bean oonoluded? Does theEA address @lndMQ Speo&s?

2,4.2 Are -isted ~ idenM&d, and ifso, are results of state oonsultatkndocumented?

—

24.3 Are potential effects (htoludmcumulative effects) analyzed for ffeh andwildlife cxherthan thr-ened andendmgmd speoies and forhabitatsoth$rthan Critkal habii

24.4 Doesthe EAaneiyzethe impxtsofthe

PW-d*mm~fJf~affected eoosystem, including gendodtversityand speoies dkmlty?

24,5 Are IwbM typesidsnMedimdtimates pmvidedbytyp efortheamountdhabitat lostoraAmaeiy Wected?

2.5.0 HUMAH HEALTHEFFEC~ .

25.1 Havethe auaaptibk POPIJletionsbeenMentitied- i.e., involvedwork- noninvotvedworkers, and the publk (indudhtg minorityand kw-inoorne oommunitiss, as appropdate)[Recomrnenddm, p.21]?

12

w

L18t1: General Yea No WA Page Adequacy Evaluationand Comments

2.5.2 Does the EA establish the period ofexposure (e.g., 30 yeaIs or 70 years) forexposedworkersandthepublic[Reoommendations,p.21]?

2.5.3DoestheEA identifyallpotentialroulesofexposure[Recommendations,p.21]?

25.4 When providngquantitative estimatesof impacts, doea the EA use current dose-to-dsk conversion faotors thal have beenadopted by oognizant health andenvironmental agencies [Recommendations,pz]?

25.5 When providing quantitative estimatesof health effects due to mdation exposure,are collective effects expressed in eetimatednumbers of fatal cancers, and are maximum.mdividd eitects expressed as the estimatedmaximum probability of dwUh of an individual[Recommendations, p.~]?

2!5.6 Dose the EA deacdbe assumptionsuaedinthe heakheffects anatysisandthebask for health etlecta calculations[Rec=n~ P.Z]?

25.7 As appropdate, does the E/t mdyzeradiological impaota under normal ooeratingQW#19!M fo~

Involved workersCollective doaa?

Maximum indtviduai?

Latent cancer fatalltiea?

Uninvolved workersColktive dose?

Maximum indlvlduat?

I#ent caloer fatalitka?

PutMccO#wtivedose?

Maximum indMdual?

Latent cancer fatalities?

13

Uat 1: General Yes No NIA Pago Adequacy Evaluationand Comments

2.5.8 Does the EA identify a spectrum ofpotential accident scenarios that could occur —

over the life of the proposed action[Recommendations, p.27]?

2.5.9 As appropriate, dms the EA analyzeradiological Impacts under accidentconditions foc

InvotvedworkersCollective dose?

Maximum individual?

Latent cancer fatalities?

Uninvolved workersCollectivedose?

Maximum individual?

Latent cancer fatalities?

PubllcCollectivedose?

Maximum individual?

Latent cancer fatalities?

25.10 Are non-radiological impacts (e.g.,chemical exposures) eddreaaedfw bothroutineand accidentconditions[Recommendations, p.25]?

26.0 TRANSPORTATION

2.6.1 If tranapon of hazardous or radioactivewaste ormatefials ispaftdtheproposdaction,oriftranapwtisarnajorfector,arethepotentialefkta anatyzed (hcfuding~ ashe,on-site,andti~asite)[Recommand@omp.25]?

2.6.2 Does the EA analyze ail re@maMyf~~ t~ lin~ (e,~tovedand tmnafXX pofttrans@r, madnetransport, global ~)[Recommnddona, P.21JEO 12114]?

2.6.3 Does the EA avoid relying exchaivetyon statements that transportation will be inaccordance with all applicable state andfe@ I regulations and requirements[RF mmendations, P.26]?

14

w

w

ml 1: Genord Ye8 No NIA Pago Adoquscy Evaluation●nd Commmta

2.6.4 Does the EA addreas both routinetransponation as well as reasonablyforeseeable accidents [Recommendations,p.26]?

2.6.5 Arethe estimation methods used forassessing radiological impacts oftransportation defensible [Recommendations,pJ?6]?

2.6.6 Does the EA address the annual, total,and cumulative impacts of all DOE and non-DOE transponation on specific routes~iated with the proposed action[Recommendations, p.26]?

2.7.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE MINIMIZATION

27.1 Are pollution prevention and waeteminhnizathpradoesapplie dinthe~ ~ ~ attarr@ves (e.g., ispohtionpreventedorreduce datthesourcewhen feaeim would waste pfcducts berecycled when feaeim are by-products thatCannotbeprevented orrecycledtreated inanenvironmentaWys#ernanner when feasib@tsdispoaal onlyused aealastresort)?

2.7.2 tfwastewould be~ated, doeatheEAexaminethe human heaitheffecteandwlvironmenW impacts d managing mmate, including waate generated duringdecontarninathg and decommkaioning?

2.7.3 Are Waete matefiak characterized bytype and eainmed quantity, where possible?

2.7.4DoestheEA BantWyRCRA/CERCLAbeuesrelatedt othepmposada ctbnandatternativee?

2.7.5DoestheEA~wtMtwthemp=d-dall~timhCOmpliancewithfeckudor!satelawmd@deunee tdfeoting* gmmmor$~t ~ H?~-Mhzadousand other wfuste?

w

15

M 1: Gonord Y88 No NIA Pago Adequaoy Evalu8tlon●nd Comments

2.8.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

2.8.1 Does theEA consider potential effects—

on land use patterns, consistency withapplicable land use plans, and compatibilityof nearby uses?

2.8.2 Does the EA consider possiblechanges in the local population due to theproposad action?

2.8.3 Does the EA consider potentialeconomic impacts, such as effects on jobsand housing, particularly in ragard todisproportionate adverse effscts on minorityand Iow-incoms communities?

2.8.4 Does the EA consider potential affectson public water and wastawatar sawices,stormwtsr management, communitysawices, and utilities?

2,8.5 Does the EA avaluate potential noisaeffects of theproposed action andthaapp&ation of community no&e levelstandards?

2.9.0 CULTURALRESOURCES

2.9.1 was the SHPO COf’lSldhd?

29.2 Was an archxicai surveyconducted?

2.9.3 Does the EA hcfuda a prdsion formitigation in the event unanticipatedarchaeological matariats are encountered?

.-

16

CEQ_ CERCIA

CFR

DOE

EAEISEO

FONSIFR

NIANEPANMFS

RCRA

SHPO

usUscUSFWS

AEEREVIAllONS/ACRONYMS

Prsaident’s Council on Environmental QualilyComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityActUnited States Code of FederalRegulations

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy

EnvironmerWAssessmentEnvironmentalImpactStatementExecutiveOrder

Findingof No Significant ImpactFederal Ra@ster

not applicableNational Environmental Policy ActUnited States National Marina Fisheria6 Service

Resourca Conservation and Racovery Act

State Historic Presan@on Offkef

united statesUnited States CodeUnited Statas Fish and Wildlife Sanka

17

Amhwlqical and Histork PreservatnnAct (16 USC $469 d seq.).

Amerkan IndianReligkM FreedomAfS(42 USC $1996 et seq.).

Cken AirAct(42Usc s 7401- seq.).

Cbtm Wats Am (FOCkd Waer Pollution Control Act) (33 Usc s 1251a seq.).

~ E-- Re$pom, @mP~~, ~ ~1~ ~ (42 ~ $ ml ~ ~~)”

Endq)emd S@e8Act(16W$l=l etseq.).

Farmland Ptiection Policy Act (7 USC 54201 et seq.).

N~~~ACt(42~$=l ~~)0

Natlond Hl@ulc Pmsewdon Act (16 USC S470et seq.).

Naise CanCroi Act(42Usc$4901 ~=@.

Raoum14Com#Won and Recovmy Act(42usc$6sol @s@q.).

Riuusand H_ Act(33U=$401a$@3).

WelMnkklgwaer Act(42usc$ 300a-q.).

Toxk Sub8tams Ccmtrd Act(15~$2601 et8eq.).

WlkJartd Sccnic R/ver8ACt (16 U8c$1271 otseq.).

u.s. EnvkmmW P~Agency, —wActl~ RqtdWbn8 (40 CFR Part60atseq.).

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgenw, Ctieria and Standards for the National Pollutant DischargeEliminationSystem (40 CFR Part 125).

- U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency,(40 CFR Part 61),

U.S, EnvironmentalProtection Agency,Act) (40 CFR Part 141).

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,Water Act) (40 CFR Part 143).

U,S. Environmental Protection Agency,(40 CFR Parts 51 and 52).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PoWtants

National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Safe DrinkingWater

National Seoondaty Drinking Water Regulations (Safe Drinking

Prevention of Significant Deteriorationfor Particulate Matter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standards for Protection Against Radiation(10 CFR Part 20).

=-@~ Orders

Executiva Ordar 11988, Floodplain Management (WY 24, 1978).

Exaoutive Order 11990, Pruection of Wattanda (May 24, 1978).

ExaouthmOrder 12114, Environmental Effaots Abroad d M40r FedaraIActions(Janu~,4,1979).

E@@iva Ordar12898,FederalAotfonstoAddraLssEnvironmentalJustioeinMinorityPopulatiiandLow-hlcmnaP@&tiOna (February11,1994).

w

DewwtmentofEneravO-

DOE 5400.1,GenaralEnvironmentalProtectionProgram(November9,1988).

DOE 5400.3,Hazardwa andRad&a@ve MtKedWastePrqram (Fa&ruary22 1989).

DOE -.4, com~ Environrnentd Resf=we, Com~~, and ~1~ Ad Pro9r$m(Ootober 6, 1s8s).

DOE 5400.5, Radiation Prueuion d the pubfk and the Environment (February 8, 1990).

DOE W40.1 E, Nationaf Environmental Pdky Aot Compfianca Program (Novembar 10, 1992).

DOE 5480.11, Radiation Protectbn for Oooupatbnal Workers (Decamber 21, 1988).

DOE 5820.a Rad&aotlva Waste Managmam (Saptamber 28, 1988).

19

Councilon EnvironmentalQualitvGuidance

Council on EnvironmentalQuality,FortyNlost-AskecJQuestionsconcerningtheCouncilon EnvironmentalQuality’sNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActRegul~ions(46FR 18026,March23,1981;amended51 FR 15618,Aprii25,1966).

Der)artment of Enerov Guidance

Guidance Related to Analysis of Imwc’ts to Workers in National Environmental Policy Act Documentation(Memorandum from the Assiiant Secretary for Office of Environment, Safety and Health, June 10, 1988).

Recommendations on Alternative Actions for Analysis inSite-WideNEPA Documents(Memorandum from the Assistant Secreta~ for Environment, Safety and Health, May 26, 1992).

Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental impact Statements(issued by the As@stantSecret~ for Environment, Safety and F %fth, May 19S3).

Secretarial Policy Statement on the National Environmental Poiicy Act (1. wed by the Secretary of Energy,June 13, 19S4).

20