[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55824-55826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22676]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use 
Plan Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Amended record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its Record of 
Decision (ROD) for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 
Environmental Impact Statement (HCP-EIS) (DOE/EIS-0222; September 
1999), which evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated 
with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford 
Site near Richland, Washington. The CLUP consists of four key elements: 
(i) A land-use map that addresses the Hanford Site as five geographic 
areas and shows the planned future uses for each area, (ii) a set of 
nine land-use designations that define the permissible activities for 
each use, (iii) land-use planning policies, and (iv) implementing 
procedures that apply to the review and approval of future land uses. 
These elements were developed to ensure consistency in land-use 
decisionmaking and application of DOE institutional controls to the 
Site. The ROD (64 FR 61615; November 12, 1999) adopted the CLUP for at 
least the next 50 years.
    In amending the 1999 ROD, DOE seeks to clarify two points: that 
when considering land-use proposals, DOE will use regulatory processes 
in addition to the implementing procedures in Chapter 6 of the HCP-EIS 
to ensure consistency with CLUP land-use designations, and that DOE 
will continue to apply the process under HCP-EIS Chapter 6 to modify or 
amend the CLUP, as needed.
    The CLUP will remain in effect as long as DOE retains legal control 
of some portion of the Hanford Site, which is expected to be longer 
than 50 years. As a ``living document,'' the CLUP is intended to be 
flexible enough to accommodate changes, both anticipated and 
unforeseen, in missions and conditions. The HCP-EIS recommends 
reassessment of the CLUP every 5 years through a Supplement Analysis 
process under the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021.314).

ADDRESSES: The documents referenced herein are available from: Center 
for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769, Washington, 
DC 20026-3769, Telephone: 800-736-3282 (in Washington, DC: 202-863-
5084).
    The 1999 HCP-EIS and ROD are available, and the Supplement Analysis 
and this amended ROD will be available, at http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/ under ``DOE NEPA Documents.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For further information on the Supplement Analysis for the HCP-EIS, 
contact: Mr. Woody Russell, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of River Protection, MS H6-60 P.O. Box 450, Richland, WA 
99352, Telephone: 509-373-5227.
    For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0103, Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-
2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) (57 FR 37959; August 21, 
1992) to prepare the Hanford Remedial Action EIS and identified as an 
EIS objective the establishment of future land uses at the Hanford Site 
near Richland, Washington. After public scoping, DOE issued an 
Implementation Plan (DOE/RL-93-66, June 1995) to document the 
recommendations of the Federal, state, and local agencies, Native 
American Tribes, and interested individuals and organizations, many of 
whom had been working with DOE to identify future use options for the 
Site.
    In response to new directives (DOE Order 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset 
Management, and National Defense Authorization Act for FY97, 42 U.S.C. 
7274k, redesignated 50 U.S.C. 2582), DOE revised the scope of the EIS 
to prepare a comprehensive land-use plan for the Site. Seven 
cooperating agencies (Federal and local agencies) and two consulting 
Tribal governments developed alternatives analyzed in the EIS and 
helped develop the CLUP. In September 1996, DOE issued the Draft 
Hanford Remedial Action EIS and

[[Page 55825]]

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (61 FR 47739) and received extensive 
comments. To address this input, DOE issued a second, revised draft (64 
FR 19983; April 23, 1999).
    DOE considered comments received on the revised draft, and in 
September 1999 issued a final EIS, Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 
Environmental Impact Statement (HCP-EIS), with a new title that 
reflected the change in scope from remedial action to land-use 
planning. The ROD (64 FR 61615; November 12, 1999) adopted DOE's 
Preferred Alternative as the CLUP, with the HCP-EIS Chapter 6 process 
as the governing processes to ensure consistent implementation of the 
CLUP.

II. Other Regulatory Processes at Hanford

    Since 1999, the Hanford Site's primary mission has been 
environmental cleanup, using the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) negotiated 
among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington State 
Department of Ecology (Ecology), and DOE as the framework for 
implementing the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the State of Washington 
Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA). Other important requirements are 
integrated into this cleanup decisionmaking process, including NEPA 
values and the substantive provisions of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA).
    The TPA includes requirements for soliciting input from other 
agencies, Tribal governments, and the public before the Tri-Party 
agencies make cleanup decisions. Cleanup decisionmaking is based on 
proposed uses of land and facilities, risk assessments of exposure 
scenarios that include reasonably anticipated future land uses, and 
consideration of other legally applicable or relevant and appropriate 
requirements established under Federal, state, or local agency laws, 
regulations, and policies.

III. Supplement Analysis

A. The Supplement Analysis Evaluation

    To determine whether the existing HCP-EIS remains adequate or 
whether a new or supplemental EIS is needed, DOE prepared a Supplement 
Analysis under the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314). DOE 
identified documents developed from September 1999 through September 
2007 that potentially involve land use at the Hanford Site. Documents 
considered in this evaluation to support the Supplement Analysis 
include existing NEPA, CERCLA/TPA, RCRA/HWMA, and NHPA documents; DOE 
Orders, policies, and guidelines; DOE real estate licenses, permits, 
easements, deed notices; laws, regulations, Executive Orders; and 
cultural/historical documents. DOE solicited input from Tribal Nations 
and interested stakeholders to identify additional relevant documents 
to be evaluated.
    After identifying candidate decision documents with land-use 
involvement, current actions, and reasonably foreseeable actions, DOE 
evaluated these for consistency with the CLUP. In a few cases, the 
analyses were still under development and a draft document was not yet 
available to determine whether the CLUP would be affected. In other 
cases, analysis in a draft document provides sufficient information to 
determine whether land use is involved, even though the document and 
associated decision had not been finalized; DOE included these as 
reasonably foreseeable actions in the Supplement Analysis. DOE's next 
Supplement Analysis is expected to reflect any such final documents and 
decisions as needed and appropriate, consistent with the HCP-EIS 
Chapter 6 process and DOE's NEPA regulations.
    Though not required under the DOE NEPA regulations, DOE issued the 
draft Supplement Analysis on March 24, 2008, for a 30-day public review 
period. The principal comments received, from area Tribes and 
stakeholders, were that DOE should live up to commitments in resource 
management plans it issues and should implement CLUP land-use values in 
the cleanup process. DOE addressed the comments in the final Supplement 
Analysis and considered all comments in issuing this Amended ROD.

B. Results of the Supplement Analysis

    In reviewing the implementation of area and resource management 
plans for maintaining appropriate environmental controls and 
mitigation, DOE identified changes from the plans as established by the 
CLUP (HCP-EIS, Table 6-4). For example, DOE found that in a few cases 
the scope of a management plan is being covered by other management 
plans. Two resource management plans originally identified in the HCP-
EIS have not been prepared, and two others--one for Gable Mountain/
Gable Butte (finalized and issued) and the other for Rattlesnake 
Mountain (still under development)--are tiered from the Hanford 
Cultural Resources Management Plan. A draft Cultural and Biological 
Resources Management Plan was developed for areas of the Hanford Site 
now being managed by DOE's Pacific Northwest Site Office and issued for 
public comment, but has not been finalized. These deviations from the 
CLUP are minor and have not affected the CLUP (including the land-use 
map, designations, and policies). The management plans in place today 
or still under development continue to support DOE's efforts to 
streamline environmental planning at Hanford and integrate it with the 
CLUP. DOE found that these plans, which have been or will be provided 
to stakeholders, are largely being applied consistently at the Hanford 
Site.
    DOE found that other regulatory processes followed at the Hanford 
Site, such as RCRA and CERCLA, have been used effectively to determine 
whether proposed activities at the Hanford Site are consistent with the 
CLUP. Under the TPA framework for cleanup of the Hanford Site, the 
requirements of the CERCLA and the RCRA/HWMA processes are implemented, 
including opportunities for stakeholder participation in 
decisionmaking. Values under the NEPA and State Environmental Policy 
Act (SEPA) processes, cultural considerations under the NHPA, and land-
use considerations such as consistency with the CLUP also are 
integrated into cleanup decisionmaking under the TPA framework.

C. Basis of Supplement Analysis Determination

    In reaching a determination on the need for a new or supplemental 
EIS for the CLUP, DOE has considered the documents and other 
information developed since 1999 concerning land use at the Hanford 
Site as evaluated in the Supplement Analysis, regulatory processes that 
have been used to consider land use and consistency with the CLUP, and 
comments received on the draft Supplement Analysis. DOE finds that 
modification of resource management plans are minor and consistent with 
the CLUP. Based on the Supplement Analysis, DOE has not identified 
significant new circumstances or changes relevant to environmental 
concerns that affect the CLUP.
    DOE finds that other regulatory processes followed at the Hanford 
Site under the TPA framework, such as RCRA and CERCLA, have been used 
effectively to determine whether proposed activities at the Hanford 
Site are consistent with the CLUP and provide equivalent opportunities 
for agencies, Tribes, and the public to participate in decisionmaking. 
Values

[[Page 55826]]

under the NEPA and SEPA processes, cultural considerations under the 
NHPA, and land-use considerations such as consistency with the CLUP are 
considered also in cleanup decisions under the TPA framework. This 
Amended ROD clarifies DOE's finding that the use of these other 
regulatory processes is consistent with processes established in the 
HCP-EIS to ensure that land-use decisions are consistent with the CLUP.
    However, DOE does not believe it is appropriate to use these other 
regulatory processes to amend the CLUP (including making changes to 
land-use map, designations, and policies). Proposals to amend any 
aspect of the CLUP will continue to follow the process outlined in 
Chapter 6 of the HCP-EIS. The review process for land-use requests that 
would change or modify the CLUP (Figure 5-1 of the Supplement Analysis) 
requires review by the DOE Real Estate Officer (REO) and the DOE NEPA 
Compliance Officer. As stated in Section 6.4 of the final HCP-EIS:

    The REO receives notice (e.g., NEPA checklist, SEPA checklist, 
CERCLA RI/FS [Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study] review 
request, CERCLA review request, RCRA permit request, etc.) from a 
proposed project or activity and initiates, with the NEPA Compliance 
Officer (NCO), a coordinated project review. * * * As an initial 
step in the review process, the REO determines whether the project 
is an ``Allowable Use,'' ``Special Use,'' or ``Amendment'' to the 
CLUP. For projects that require Special Use Permits or Plan 
Amendments, the REO obtains comments and recommendations from the 
SPAB [Site Planning Advisory Board] on the suitability of the 
proposed ``Use'' with respect to the existing CLUP map, land-use 
policies, and implementing procedures. For CLUP Amendments, review 
includes a final RL [Richland Operations Office] Site Management 
Board (SMB) affirmation, or the SMB can refer a proposed Plan 
Amendment back to the REO for further review.

    As discussed in the Supplement Analysis (Section 5.5), this review 
process may result in additional NEPA review.

IV. Supplement Analysis Determination and Amended Decision

    Based on the Supplement Analysis, DOE finds no significant new 
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 
bearing on the proposed actions or their impacts as described in the 
HCP-EIS. Therefore, DOE has determined that neither a new EIS nor a 
supplement to the existing HCP-EIS is needed at this time.
    Based on the Supplement Analysis, DOE concludes that using the 
regulatory processes in place at the Hanford Site under the framework 
of the Tri-Party Agreement is an acceptable way to ensure land use is 
being implemented consistently with the CLUP. DOE will continue to 
follow the provisions of section 6.4 of the HCP-EIS for proposed 
amendments to the CLUP. Resource and area management plans will 
continue to be developed and implemented with the goal of protecting 
Hanford's resources, maintaining consistency with CLUP policies and 
goals, and honoring commitments made in these management plans.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2008.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. E8-22676 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P