Opinion ID: 370401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Safety and Design Alternatives

Text: 37 ERDA argues NRDC waived its right to have safety and design alternatives considered by failing to present them during proceedings on the EISs for ERDA's overall waste management operations at Hanford and Savannah River. The issuance of a draft EIS on the Hanford program was announced in September 1974, and hearings were held in early 1975. 30 NRDC participated but did not recommend safety and design features to be incorporated in ERDA tanks. The announcement of a draft EIS on the Savannah River program was made in October 1976. 31 NRDC did not comment. ERDA adopted the final EIS for Hanford in December 1975, and the final EIS for Savannah River in September 1977. 38 NRDC contends that, although it did not raise the design and safety features during proceedings on the programmatic EISs, 32 it appropriately alerted ERDA in a letter sent in August 1975. In that letter, NRDC set out the suggested alternatives 33 and explained the need for further discussion in specific EISs: 39 The programmatic EIS on (Savannah River's) and Hanford's waste management programs simply cannot provide Detailed analysis of the important specific environmental issues involved. Moreover, neither of these EIS(s) have been issued in final form yet. Of course, reliance on these documents for issues that Are discussed therein would be appropriate. But they cannot replace the need for individual project EIS(s) when there are significant and important project-specific environmental issues. CEQ guidelines specifically state that: 40 Subsequent statements on major individual actions will be necessary where such actions have significant environmental impacts not adequately evaluated in the program statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.6(d)(1). 41 Exh. 41, at 7. We find that NRDC, in its August 1975 letter, fairly presented potential tank alterations to ERDA. The issue is whether NRDC should have raised these alternatives in proceedings on the programmatic EISs. 42 The programmatic EISs primarily focus on alternatives to ERDA's overall waste management operations, rather than on alternatives to particular facilities encompassed within those operations. For example, ERDA discussed the following alternatives in the Hanford programmatic EIS: continuing the present program of converting liquid waste to a salt cake form; decommissioning Hanford's waste generating facilities; and discontinuing the salt cake solidification system and either (1) holding the liquid waste until an ultimate disposal method is available or (2) converting the waste to a better solid form. See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington at V-1 to V-10 (ERDA-1538) (Dec.1975) (Exh. 39A). 34 The alternatives ERDA discussed in the Savannah River programmatic EIS included: storing no additional wastes onsite; restoring waste management areas to their original conditions; continuing present practices without improvements; and maintaining existing operations with continuing improvements in policies and standards. See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management Operations, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina at V-1 to V-15 (ERDA-1537) (Sept.1977) (Exh. 95). 43 The broad alternatives and related environmental consequences discussed in the EISs on ERDA's overall waste management programs vastly differed, in both quality and quantity, 35 from the safety and design alternatives to specific waste tanks presented in NRDC's letter. See generally Scientists' Institute for Public Information v. AEC, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 409, 481 F.2d 1079, 1093 (1973). NRDC could not have been expected to attempt to shift the programmatic thrust of ERDA's EISs by presenting alternatives for particular facilities in the specific program adopted. 36 We therefore conclude that NRDC was not required to submit the safety and design features during the programmatic proceeding. 44 ERDA also argues that the EISs on the waste management operations at Hanford and Savannah River satisfy its NEPA responsibilities with respect to the tanks. We cannot agree. Those EISs did not discuss safety and design features that could be incorporated in waste storage tanks. The tanks for fiscal years 1976 and 1977 themselves were major Federal actions under NEPA, which warranted discussion of reasonable alternatives. 37 ERDA, in its discretion, could have chosen to explore alternatives to the particular tanks in either a programmatic or site-specific 38 format. See Scientists' Institute for Public Information v. AEC, 156 U.S.App.D.C. at 408, 481 F.2d at 1092. However, the EISs ERDA prepared, which were devoted to program level issues, did not relieve it of the obligation to discuss alternatives to particular tanks prior to adopting a tank proposal. 45