N
E
P
A
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
Recommendations
for the
Supplement Analysis
Process
Second Edition
January 2019
U.S. Department of Energy
Oce of the General Counsel
Oce of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Recommendations
for the Supplement Analysis Process
Contents
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Identifying the Need for a Supplement Analysis ....................................................................2
2.1 When to Prepare an SA ....................................................................................................2
2.2 When an SA Is Not Required ...........................................................................................3
2.3 Whether to Continue an Action during SA Preparation ...................................................5
3.0 Content of a Supplement Analysis ..........................................................................................6
3.1 Major Sections of an SA ..................................................................................................6
3.2 Approaches to the Analysis ..............................................................................................7
3.2.1 Streamlining Methodologies .................................................................................8
3.2.2 Strategic Tiering Approach ....................................................................................9
4.0 Completing the Supplement Analysis Process ......................................................................10
4.1 Approval Authorities ......................................................................................................10
4.2 Determination .................................................................................................................10
4.3 Filing an SA within DOE ...............................................................................................10
4.4 Making an SA Available to the Public ...........................................................................11
4.5 SAs and Records of Decision ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 1. Flow Chart: Summary of the Supplement Analysis Process .........................................12
Attachment 1. Regulations and Guidance Relevant to the SA Process ...................................... 1-1
Attachment 2. SA to Support an Amended Decision – An Example .......................................... 2-1
Attachment 3. Bonneville Power Administration’s Strategic Use of SAs .................................. 3-1
Attachment 4. Examples of Determinations Based on SAs ........................................................ 4-1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
January 2019
January 2019 1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
When the Department of Energy (DOE) considers a change to a proposed action analyzed
in an environmental impact statement (EIS), or new information relevant to the action
becomes available, DOE must determine whether a supplement to the EIS (also referred to
as a “supplemental EIS”) or a new EIS is required. Criteria for determining the need for a
supplemental EIS are specied in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and in the
DOE NEPA regulations at 10 CFR 1021.314. (See text boxes (pages 1 and 2) and Attachment 1.)
1.0 Introduction
When the need for a supplemental EIS is
unclear, DOE’s NEPA regulations require
the preparation of a Supplement Analysis
(SA). Despite the similarity of their names,
a “Supplement Analysis” is not the same as a
supplement to an EIS. An SA is the document
DOE prepares to provide the information and
analysis to determine whether a supplement to
an EIS is necessary to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 1502.9(c). In other words, DOE
uses an SA to determine whether changes
in a proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns are “substantial” or
whether new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts are “signicant.” Throughout this
document, the phrase “a proposed change
or new information” refers to a change in
a proposed action or new circumstances or
information that may or may not trigger the
need for a supplemental EIS pursuant to
40 CFR 1502.9(c).
The DOE regulations at 10 CFR 1021.314(c)
provide considerable exibility in preparing
SAs. A case-by-case review is needed to
support sound determinations regarding a
proposed change or new information. There
are, however, some general elements that
should be contained in SAs.
Accordingly, this guidance provides
recommendations that are broadly applicable
to the SA process, including deciding whether
to prepare an SA, the general content of
an SA, and outcomes that can result from
an SA, with a brief overview of the SA
Criteria for Determining
the Need for a Supplemental EIS
Excerpt from CEQ NEPA Regulations:
40 CFR Part 1502—ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Section 1502.9 Draft, nal, and supplemental
statements.
(c) Agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft
or nal environmental impact statements
if:
(i) The agency makes substantial
changes in the proposed action
that are relevant to environmental
concerns; or
(ii) There are signicant new
circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns
and bearing on the proposed action
or its impacts.
process. (See ow chart, Figure 1, page 12.)
These recommendations do not constitute
legal requirements, but are intended to
enhance compliance with existing NEPA
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500−1508 and
10 CFR Part 1021).
This guidance, initially issued in 2005, was
revised in 2018 to reect the cancellation
of DOE Order 451.1B Chg 3, National
Environmental Policy Act Compliance
Program (December 21, 2017), and the
approval of DOE Policy 451.1, National
Environmental Policy Act Compliance
Program (December 21, 2017).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
2 January 2019
2.0 Identifying the Need for a Supplement Analysis
The SA process provides a useful method for addressing the CEQ criteria for determining
whether a supplemental EIS is required and increases the likelihood that the Department’s NEPA
reviews will prevail in the event of litigation. (See Attachment 2.)
2.1 When to Prepare an SA
DOE regulations (10 CFR 1021.314(c))
require that an SA be prepared when the need
for a supplemental EIS is unclear based on the
criteria established in the CEQ regulations.
The DOE regulations also provide for the
use of an SA to reevaluate the adequacy
of a site-wide EIS at least every ve years
(10 CFR 1021.330(d)). (See text box, below.)
• An SA may be appropriate in reexamining
an “old” (existing) EIS if a major
Federal action remains to be taken. CEQ
recommends that “if the proposal has
not yet been implemented, or if the EIS
concerns an ongoing program, EISs that are
more than 5 years old should be carefully
reexamined to determine” if a supplemental
EIS is required. (Question 32, “Forty Most
Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA
Regulations,” as amended, 51 FR 15618,
April 25, 1986; hereafter “CEQ’s 40
Questions.” See text box, page 3.)
• Although the need for an SA typically
does not arise until after a nal EIS and
record of decision (ROD) have been issued,
an SA also may be appropriate between
issuance of a nal EIS and publication of
its associated ROD. This would occur,
Requirements for the Preparation of an SA
Excerpts from DOE NEPA Regulations:
10 CFR 1021.314 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
(c) When it is unclear whether or not an EIS supplement is required, DOE shall prepare a Supplement Analysis.
(1) The Supplement Analysis shall discuss the circumstances that are pertinent to deciding whether to
prepare a supplemental EIS, pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(c).
(2) The Supplement Analysis shall contain sucient information for DOE to determine whether:
(i) An existing EIS should be supplemented;
(ii) A new EIS should be prepared; or
(iii) No further NEPA documentation is required.
(3) DOE shall make the determination and the related Supplement Analysis available to the public for
information. Copies of the determination and Supplement Analysis shall be provided upon written
request. DOE shall make copies available for inspection in the appropriate DOE public reading
room(s) or other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
10 CFR 1021.330 Programmatic (including Site-wide) NEPA documents.
(d) DOE shall evaluate site-wide NEPA documents prepared under § 1021.330(c) at least every ve years.
DOE shall evaluate site-wide EISs by means of a Supplement Analysis, as provided in § 1021.314. Based
on the Supplement Analysis, DOE shall determine whether the existing EIS remains adequate or whether
to prepare a new site-wide EIS or supplement the existing EIS, as appropriate. The determination and
supporting analysis shall be made available in the appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or in other
appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
January 2019 3
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
for example, if DOE receives external
comments during the required 30-day
waiting period that introduce signicant
new information relevant to environmental
concerns. (Usually, comments received
during the waiting period do not trigger
the need for an SA and are addressed in
the ROD.)
• If, during the preparation of an SA, the
need for a supplemental or new EIS appears
unlikely, the SA should nevertheless be
completed. If, on the other hand, it becomes
clear that a supplemental or new EIS is
needed or would be benecial, completion
of the SA is not necessary.
2.2 When an SA Is Not Required
An SA may be prepared at any time, as
appropriate, to further the purposes of NEPA.
However, the following situations illustrate
conditions in which an SA is not required.
• DOE is not required to evaluate new
information in a supplemental EIS or an
SA if there is no major Federal action
proposed or that remains to be taken. For
example, in a case where an agency had
approved an EIS and associated land
use plan, the Supreme Court ruled that a
supplemental EIS was not required in light
of new information because the agency
action – issuance of a land use plan – was
completed and there was no ongoing major
Federal action (Norton v. Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004)).
• An SA is not required if a proposed change
or new information clearly does not have
a bearing on environmental concerns. For
example, a major cost increase that does
not change environmental impacts, or a
facility design change that is not relevant to
environmental concerns, would not require
an SA or a supplemental EIS.
• In other cases, it may be obvious that a
change in a proposed action would have
negligible eects on environmental impact
calculations, and, thus, an SA would not be
required. For example, if an EIS analyzed
the transportation of 10,000 shipments,
a proposal resulting in an additional
10 similar shipments would be unlikely to
change the calculation of transportation
impacts. If it is obvious that no other
resource areas would likely be aected,
it may be concluded that a supplemental
EIS would not be needed, without the
preparation of an SA.
• A supplemental or new EIS without the
need for an SA would likely be required if
the purpose and need for a new proposed
major Federal action diers substantially
from that in an existing EIS such that the
action alternatives are likely to change. To
illustrate, a new proposal to use a former
defense materials production facility for
waste management purposes may require
a new EIS even if the impacts of the
proposed waste management operations
would be less than in the existing analysis.
Excerpt from “CEQ’s 40 Questions”
32. Supplements to Old EISs. Under
what circumstances do old EISs have to be
supplemented before taking action on a proposal?
A. As a rule of thumb, if the proposal has not
yet been implemented, or if the EIS concerns an
ongoing program, EISs that are more than 5 years
old should be carefully reexamined to determine if
the criteria in Section 1502.9 compel preparation
of an EIS supplement.
If an agency has made a substantial change in a
proposed action that is relevant to environmental
concerns, or if there are signicant new
circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts, a supplemental
EIS must be prepared for an old EIS so that the
agency has the best possible information to make
any necessary substantive changes in its decisions
regarding the proposal. Section 1502.9(c).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
4 January 2019
In this example, a new EIS would be
required to analyze the range of reasonable
alternatives for accomplishing the new
waste management purpose and need,
which could dier markedly from the
alternatives analyzed in the existing EIS.
• Similarly, a supplemental or new EIS
without the need for an SA may be required
in some cases if a proposed action diers
substantially from all alternatives analyzed
in an existing EIS, even if the impacts are
likely to be smaller than those estimated in
the existing EIS. To illustrate, a proposal
to change the location of a major disposal
facility analyzed in an EIS from one state
to another not analyzed in the EIS would be
a substantial change in the proposed action
that could warrant a supplemental EIS,
even if the impacts were likely to be similar
to or less than those in the existing EIS. A
key consideration in this instance would
be whether there had been adequate NEPA
review of the proposed action in the newly
proposed host community.
• An SA is not required to determine whether
a supplement to a draft EIS is needed. A
proposed change or new information can
arise between publication of a draft and
nal EIS, in which case the changes may
be addressed in a supplement to the draft
EIS, in a revised draft EIS, or in the nal
EIS. An analytical process similar to that
SAs and Environmental Assessments (EAs)
• DOE NEPA regulations do not provide for preparation of an SA to determine the need for further NEPA
review of an action analyzed in an EA.
• Rather, when the adequacy of an EA is unclear, an analytical process similar to that used in preparing an SA is
appropriate to help resolve the uncertainty. However, an SA or SA-like process would not be a substitute for
any further NEPA review that might be required.
• DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(d) require the evaluation of site-wide NEPA documents at least
every ve years. DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(e)) require evaluation of site-wide EAs by means
of an analysis similar to an SA to determine whether the existing site-wide EA remains adequate, and whether
to prepare a new site-wide EA, revise the nding of no signicant impact, or prepare a site-wide EIS.
• For site-wide EAs, DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(e)) also require that the determination and
supporting documentation be made available in public reading rooms and other appropriate locations for a
reasonable time.
January 2019 5
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
used in preparing an SA is appropriate
to help identify the appropriate course of
action. (For additional information about
identifying the need to supplement a draft
EIS as a result of public comments, see
DOE’s guidance on The EIS Comment-
Response Process, available on the DOE
NEPA Website at energy.gov/nepa under
Guidance & Requirements.)
• The need for extensive data collection
and analysis in order to complete an SA
may be an indicator that a change in the
proposed action is “substantial” or that new
circumstances or information requiring
additional data for appropriate analysis
are “signicant.” In such cases, early
consideration of preparing a supplemental
EIS without an SA is warranted.
2.3 Whether to Continue an Action during
SA Preparation
When new information comes to light, an
agency must consider it, evaluate it, and
determine whether it is of such signicance
as to require a supplemental EIS. The agency
is not obligated to suspend the actions it is
taking as a result of the existing EIS while it
is evaluating the new information.
This principle, however, should be exercised
with prudence and common sense. Where
it is clear from the nature of the new
information that signicant adverse impacts
could occur (e.g., to a newly designated
endangered species) if the ongoing Federal
action continues, common sense suggests that
the agency should refrain from taking that
action until its review of the new information
(i.e., an SA) is completed.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
6 January 2019
3.1 Major Sections of an SA
DOE has prepared adequate SAs that are
only a few pages long. Although a number
of DOE’s complex SAs have been lengthy, a
maximum of approximately 20-30 pages is a
reasonable goal for most situations. Technical
or other supporting documents should be
attached or referenced as appropriate and
should be available to the public when the SA
is issued.
In general, an SA should include the
following elements.
• An introduction, the original statement of
purpose and need for action, other relevant
background information, and a description
of the existing NEPA analyses and
decisions.
• A clear statement of the proposed change
or new information at issue. This statement
should describe, and incorporate by
reference as appropriate, any information
that raised a question on the need for
a supplemental EIS, such as updated
environmental monitoring data or research
results.
3.0 Content of a Supplement Analysis
An SA Should Be Brief
• Focus analyses on changes
• Analyze changes commensurate with their
contribution to potential impacts
• Evaluate changes absolutely and in comparison
to the existing EIS analyses
• Identication of those resource areas or
aspects of the analysis in the existing EIS
that could be aected by the proposed
change or new information. An SA need
not analyze resource areas that would
be unaected by the changes, but it is
necessary to briey explain why any impact
area analyzed in the existing EIS does not
warrant further analysis in the SA.
• An analysis – the crux of the SA – of the
proposed change or new information in
relation to the existing EIS. The analysis
should identify the references on which the
analysis is based. Section 3.2 discusses the
analysis further.
• A ndings or conclusions section. This
section of the SA should summarize the
dierences between the impacts of one or
more alternatives identied in the existing
EIS, as appropriate, and the impacts
identied in the SA. This section should
allow the reader to readily understand
whether the Department considers a change
in the proposed action to be substantial
An SA’s Findings and Conclusions
Should Summarize:
• Changes in the proposed action and/or new
circumstances or information
• Comparison of the new proposed action to
any pertinent alternative(s) analyzed in the
EIS, including a comparison of their potential
impacts
• Comparison of new information and
circumstances to analyses in the existing EIS
DOE regulations do not prescribe a specic format or content for an SA. Nevertheless, an SA
should address the CEQ criteria for whether to prepare a supplemental EIS and follow basic
NEPA principles, e.g., full disclosure, good scientic analysis, clear expression, and discussion
of impacts in proportion to their signicance. (See Recommendations for the Preparation of
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Second Edition, available on
the DOE NEPA Website at energy.gov/nepa under Guidance & Requirements.)
January 2019 7
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
or whether the new circumstances or
information are signicant, within the
meaning of the CEQ regulations. In some
cases the question of whether a change
in a proposed action is “substantial” and
“relevant to environmental concerns”
will be obvious from the analyses and
discussion. In other cases this could be less
evident.
In considering the environmental impacts
of a proposed change or new information,
a nding that the associated environmental
impacts would be less than those of any
of the analyzed alternatives in the existing
EIS would be a strong indicator that a
supplemental EIS is not required.
If the potential impacts of the new proposal
or those resulting from computations
based on new information would exceed
the impacts analyzed in the EIS for one or
more resource areas, the SA should provide
the basis for judging the signicance of
the increased impacts. An SA might show
that the larger impacts are not signicant
and thus support a determination that a
supplemental EIS is not required.
For example, if a change in a proposed
action would result in an increase in waste
inventories destined for a disposal facility,
an SA might show that the increase is
too small (i.e., no new disposal facility is
needed and transportation impacts would be
very small) to trigger a supplemental EIS.
In such a case, an incremental increase in
risk of 1 × 10
−8
above an original EIS risk
estimate of 1 × 10
−6
would almost certainly
be insignicant.
Clearly, “signicance” is a key test in
developing conclusions based on an SA.
This term, as used in a NEPA analysis,
requires consideration of both context and
intensity, as described in 40 CFR 1508.27.
Another key test is whether a change
in a proposed action is “substantial.”
A change is substantial if it presents a
seriously dierent picture of the potential
environmental impacts (In re Operation of
Missouri River System Litigation, 516 F.3d
688, 693 (8th Cir. 2008)).
3.2 Approaches to the Analysis
The analysis should identify the total
potential impacts resulting from the proposed
change or new information, and compare
those potential impacts to the potential
impacts of one or more pertinent alternatives
identied in the EIS (or more than one EIS or
a supplemental EIS, if appropriate).
• The analysis should evaluate the changes
from the existing EIS, both in an absolute
and comparative sense. In other words,
the analysis should identify the total
impacts (i.e., the original estimates and
any additional impacts) and the dierences
between the original estimates and the new
estimates. For example, a change in the
proposed action might result in an increase
in the footprint of a facility so that it would
require an additional acre of land above the
20 acres required for the design evaluated
in the EIS. In absolute terms, the analysis
would show a total impact on 21 acres of
An SA for a Site-wide EIS
• DOE NEPA regulations do not contain
unique requirements for an SA for a site-wide
document, and the recommendations in this
guidance regarding process, format, and content
apply to site-wide as well as other SAs.
• An SA for a site-wide EIS should focus
prospectively on all ongoing and proposed or
reasonably foreseeable programs, operations,
and activities at a site. A site-wide SA should
evaluate new information and changes at a site
since issuance of the most recent site-wide EIS
and SA, including the cumulative impacts of
completed actions. Such impacts could occur,
for example, from the operation of a facility
whose construction was completed based on an
existing EIS.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
8 January 2019
land. In comparative terms, the analysis
would show an increase of ve percent in
land use requirements attributable to the
change.
• The comparison of a proposed change or
new information can be to one or more
of the alternatives analyzed in detail in
the existing EIS. The comparison need
not be only to the preferred alternative
or alternative selected in a ROD. An SA
should always make clear what alternatives
are being compared.
• The analysis should identify any dierences
between the assumptions, including
uncertainties, used for the comparative
analysis and those used in the existing EIS
that are relevant to the interpretation of the
results.
• Presentations
in the form of
tables, bullets,
lists, and
similar devices
can be eective
in comparatively presenting proposed
changes or new information, discussing
associated environmental impacts, and
summarizing the key dierences. These
methods can show at a glance what the
existing NEPA document analyzed, the
new or dierent information, and the
environmental consequences for each
resource area.
• The analysis should be based on the best
information available. Typically, this
would be the most recent information, such
as the latest U.S. Census for population
data, which may be dierent from what was
used in the existing EIS.
• Regardless of the approach used (e.g.,
qualitative, quantitative), the analysis
should identify whether and how the
resources of interest or regions of inuence
would change. Accordingly, the analysis
should identify whether there would be
changes to the impacts for each of the
resource areas assessed in the existing
EIS and, as appropriate, any new potential
impacts that were not associated with
alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
• The SA need not analyze a resource area
if no change to an impact is expected. As
stated in Section 3.1, a brief, substantiated
statement indicating that the impacts would
be unchanged is sucient. For example,
changes to a facility design that could aect
potential air emissions might not change
the land use reported in the EIS; thus, in
regard to land use impacts, the SA would
only need to indicate “no change” and very
briey explain the basis for this conclusion.
• In some cases, a qualitative discussion
would be sucient. For example, a
description of changes in potential impacts
on bird or small animal nesting areas might
be qualitative, explaining, without detailed
species counts, whether the impacted areas
would be adversely aected by a change in
land use.
• In most cases, quantitative estimates are
appropriate, especially when quantitative
estimates were provided in the existing EIS.
3.2.1 Streamlining Methodologies
The comparative focus of an SA lends
itself to streamlined analytical approaches.
Techniques that are sometimes used to
streamline quantitative estimates in EAs and
Analytical Approaches to Streamline
Quantitative Analysis
• Scaling
• Impact indicators
• Numerical sensitivity analysis
• Limited modeling
Use comparative
presentational tools
to highlight key
dierences in actions
and impacts.
January 2019 9
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
EISs may be very useful in preparing an SA.
Several examples follow.
•
Scaling
provides an approximation
of the relative dierence between the
original impact estimate and the estimate
associated with the proposed change or
new information. For example, the scale of
change might be identied as a proportional
dierence between the two estimates, such
as a 25 percent increase in waste volume.
•
Impact indicators
are the most important
parameters used to estimate impacts for an
environmental resource. Impact indicators
usually are directly proportional to the
actual impact, and their determination
generally occurs during an intermediate
step in an impact calculation. For example,
estimating nonradiological air quality
impacts often involves estimating pollutant
emissions and their rate of release,
which are then put in a computer model
to determine pollutant concentrations
at various locations. The analysis then
compares the concentrations to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Rather
than duplicating this analysis, the SA
could present an estimate of emissions (the
impact indicator) in direct comparison to
the emissions estimate used in the original
impact analysis. For example, the SA
might identify a 10 percent reduction in
emissions of a particular pollutant due to a
proposed change.
•
Numerical sensitivity analysis
can be used
to approximate the impact estimates of
more detailed impact models. In general,
a sensitivity analysis would not involve the
complexity and detail of many quantitative
environmental models, yet could provide a
reasonable estimate of the extent to which a
proposed change or new information could
change the analytic results in the EIS. A
quantitative sensitivity analysis is well
suited to estimating whether a change in a
proposed action would aect existing EIS
transportation impacts, for example.
•
Limited modeling
involves re-running the
model used for the EIS analysis, but only
for certain scenarios or types of impacts.
This might help achieve needed accuracy
or a basis for comparison not available with
other approaches. For example, a number
of DOE EISs involve the transportation of
radioactive and/or hazardous materials. If
the EIS in this case did not analyze the use
of a proposed new container and route(s)
between the origin and destination, it
might be necessary to compute potential
routine and accident impacts to compare
the potential risks from the new container
traveling over the new route(s).
3.2.2 Strategic Tiering Approach
Attachment 3 contains an approach to
project-specic analyses developed by
DOE’s Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), which addresses a large and diverse
number of new projects each year. BPA
prepared programmatic EISs to address each
of the discrete aspects of its environmental
management system and then devised a
relatively standardized method for preparing
the SAs necessary to evaluate whether the
potential impacts of proposed site-specic
projects fall within the range of alternatives
and impacts the EISs analyzed. Elements
of the BPA strategy may be appropriate to a
DOE site during review of a site-wide EIS.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
10 January 2019
4.0 Completing the Supplement Analysis Process
Throughout the SA process, DOE is asking whether to prepare a supplemental or new EIS when
the need for an EIS is unclear. If at any point the answer is “yes,” the SA may be stopped and
the supplemental or new EIS begun. So long as the answer is “no,” the SA process continues
through completion. (The major elements and decision points in the SA process are summarized
in the ow diagram in Figure 1, page 12.)
The SA process ends with approval of the document by an appropriate DOE ocial and
a determination whether or not DOE should prepare a supplemental or new EIS. The
determination also may indicate whether an amendment to an existing ROD is needed. DOE
makes the determination and related SA available to the public (10 CFR 1021.314(c)(3)).
4.1 Approval Authorities
Each Departmental Element establishes
responsibilities for preparing SAs, including
approval authorities (DOE P 451.1). An
oce’s NEPA Compliance Ocer will be
familiar with the applicable responsibilities
and authorities.
4.2 Determination
The determination of whether or not DOE
should prepare a supplemental or new EIS
may be included in the SA or issued as a
separate document. (See Attachment 4 for
examples of SA determinations.) If the
determination is included in the SA itself,
the determination language can be a logical
extension of the SA conclusions. The
following points should be included in the
determination.
• A brief description of the proposed change
or new information.
• A summary of the results of the analyses
DOE performed for the SA in relation to
those in the existing EIS.
• A clear statement as to why the preparation
of a supplemental or new EIS is or is not
necessary based on the CEQ criteria at
40 CFR 1502.9(c).
• A statement that an amendment to an
existing ROD is to be issued, if such is the
case.
• The signature, date of signature, and title of
the approving ocial.
4.3 Filing an SA within DOE
The DOE NEPA regulations require that
a determination and supporting SA be
incorporated into any related administrative
record on the action that is the subject of the
determination (10 CFR 1021.314(e)). In
other words, each EIS’s administrative record
should contain all SAs prepared for that EIS
and the associated determinations.
For ling and identication, assign the same
number to an SA as that used for the EIS it
addresses. At the end of the character string,
append the characters “-SA-…n” in the order
of issuance of SAs related to the EIS. For
example, the rst SA for a given EIS (x) and
Supplemental EIS (y) would be DOE/EIS-
000x-SA-1 and DOE/EIS-000y-S1-SA-1,
respectively; the tenth SA would be DOE/
EIS-000x-SA-10 and DOE/EIS-000y-S1-
SA-10, respectively. If an SA addresses
multiple EISs, use the document number for
the EIS considered to be dominant or, if the
EISs are of similar relevance, assign the SA
more than one document number. Contact
the Oce of NEPA Policy and Compliance
with questions regarding numbering SAs
or reporting them to the DOE-wide NEPA
document tracking system.
January 2019 11
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
the public (e.g., to the persons who received
the existing EIS). Mechanisms that can be
used to announce or disseminate an SA and
determination are the same as for an EIS and
include, for example, the Federal Register,
the U.S. Postal Service, and presentations at
site advisory board meetings. If the public
is oered an opportunity to comment, DOE
should make its responses to the comments
available to the public.
4.5 SAs and Records of Decision
• When an SA results in a determination that
a supplemental or new EIS is needed, DOE
may publish an amended or new ROD at
the conclusion of the EIS process. (As
with any EIS, a 30-day “waiting period” is
required before issuance of a ROD.)
• When an SA does not lead DOE to prepare
a supplemental or new EIS, the Department
may or may not determine that an
amendment to an existing ROD is required.
An amended ROD would document that
DOE has changed some aspect of its
decision as published in an earlier ROD and
reference the SA. There is no requirement
for a waiting period between an SA and an
amended ROD.
4.4 Making an SA Available to the Public
Each SA and the resulting determination
must be made available to the public.
DOE must provide copies upon written
request, and copies must be available in an
appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or
other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable
time (10 CFR 1021.314(c)(3), 1021.330(d),
1021.330(e)). The Oce of NEPA Policy
and Compliance also makes SAs and
determinations available to the public on the
DOE NEPA Website (energy.gov/nepa under
NEPA Documents).
Additional public involvement may further
the purposes of NEPA and provide valuable
input to DOE.
This is optional
and at the
discretion of
the cognizant
Program or Field
Oce.
In instances
involving
heightened public interest or technical
controversy, Program or Field Oces may
choose to distribute a draft SA for review
and comment or distribute a completed SA to
Each completed SA
and the resulting
determination must
be publicly available
and placed in the
Administrative
Record.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
12 January 2019
* DOE may supplement a draft or nal EIS at any time to further the purposes of NEPA (10 CFR 1021.314(b)).
Figure 1. Summary of the Supplement Analysis Process
Change in proposed action
or
new circumstances or information*
Public comment
period on SA
(optional)
Supplemental
or new EIS
is clearly:
At any time,
need for a
supplemental
or new EIS
identied
Prepare SA
• Complete SA and determination
• Make available to the public, and place
in the EIS administrative record
No further NEPA
documentation required
Prepare supplemental
or new EIS
Issue new or
amended ROD
Is there a major
Federal action that remains
to be taken?
Is the need for
a supplemental
or new EIS still
unclear?
Is a supplemental or
new EIS needed?
Is a new ROD
or ROD amendment
needed?
Does the change
in proposed action
or new circumstances or
information have a bearing
on environmental
concerns?
Is the change in
potential environmental
impacts obviously
negligible?
Yes or
unclear
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Needed
Not
Needed
January 2019 1-1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Attachment 1. Regulations and Guidance Relevant to the SA Process
A. Excerpts from CEQ Regulations
40 CFR Part 1502—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Section 1502.9 Draft, nal, and supplemental
statements.
(c) Agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or
nal environmental impact statements if:
(i) The agency makes substantial changes in
the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns; or
(ii) There are signicant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts.
(2) May also prepare supplements when the
agency determines that the purposes of the
Act will be furthered by doing so.
(3) Shall adopt procedures for introducing a
supplement into its formal administrative
record, if such a record exists.
(4) Shall prepare, circulate, and le a supplement
to a statement in the same fashion (exclusive
of scoping) as a draft and nal statement
unless alternative procedures are approved by
the Council.
40 CFR Part 1508—TERMINOLOGY AND INDEX
Section 1508.27 Signicantly.
“Signicantly” as used in NEPA requires
considerations of both context and intensity:
(a) Context. This means that the signicance of an
action must be analyzed in several contexts such
as society as a whole (human, national), the
aected region, the aected interests, and the
locality. Signicance varies with the setting of
the proposed action. For instance, in the case of
a site-specic action, signicance would usually
depend upon the eects in the locale rather than in
the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term
eects are relevant.
(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact.
Responsible ocials must bear in mind that more
than one agency may make decisions about partial
aspects of a major action. The following should be
considered in evaluating intensity:
1. Impacts that may be both benecial and
adverse. A signicant eect may exist even if
the Federal agency believes that on balance
the eect will be benecial.
2. The degree to which the proposed action
aects public health or safety.
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic
area such as proximity to historic or cultural
resources, park lands, prime farmlands,
wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
ecologically critical areas.
4. The degree to which the eects on the quality
of the human environment are likely to be
highly controversial.
5. The degree to which the possible eects on
the human environment are highly uncertain
or involve unique or unknown risks.
6. The degree to which the action may establish
a precedent for future actions with signicant
eects or represents a decision in principle
about a future consideration.
7. Whether the action is related to other
actions with individually insignicant
but cumulatively signicant impacts.
Signicance exists if it is reasonable to
anticipate a cumulatively signicant impact
on the environment. Signicance cannot be
avoided by terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small component parts.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely
aect districts, sites, highways, structures,
or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or
may cause loss or destruction of signicant
scientic, cultural, or historical resources.
9. The degree to which the action may adversely
aect an endangered or threatened species
or its habitat that has been determined to be
critical under the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of
Federal, State, or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the
environment.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
1-2 January 2019
Attachment 1
10 CFR 1021.314 Supplemental environmental
impact statements.
(a) DOE shall prepare a supplemental EIS if there are
substantial changes to the proposal or signicant
new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns, as discussed in 40 CFR
1502.9(c)(1).
(b) DOE may supplement a draft EIS or nal EIS
at any time, to further the purposes of NEPA, in
accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(2).
(c) When it is unclear whether or not an EIS
supplement is required, DOE shall prepare a
Supplement Analysis.
(1) The Supplement Analysis shall discuss the
circumstances that are pertinent to deciding
whether to prepare a supplemental EIS,
pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(c).
(2) The Supplement Analysis shall contain
sucient information for DOE to determine
whether:
(i) An existing EIS should be supplemented;
(ii) A new EIS should be prepared; or
(iii) No further NEPA documentation is
required.
(3) DOE shall make the determination and the
related Supplement Analysis available to
the public for information. Copies of the
determination and Supplement Analysis shall
be provided upon written request. DOE shall
make copies available for inspection in the
appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or
other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable
time.
(d) DOE shall prepare, circulate, and le a supplement
to a draft or nal EIS in the same manner as any
other draft and nal EISs, except that scoping is
optional for a supplement. If DOE decides to take
action on a proposal covered by a supplemental
EIS, DOE shall prepare a ROD in accordance with
the provisions of §1021.315 of this part.
(e) When applicable, DOE will incorporate an EIS
supplement, or the determination and supporting
Supplement Analysis made under paragraph (c) of
this section, into any related formal administrative
record on the action that is the subject of the EIS
supplement or determination (40 CFR 1502.9(c)
(3)).
C. Excerpts from DOE Regulations
B. Excerpt from CEQ’s 40 Questions
32. Supplements to Old EISs. Under what
circumstances do old EISs have to be supplemented
before taking action on a proposal?
A. As a rule of thumb, if the proposal has not yet
been implemented, or if the EIS concerns an ongoing
program, EISs that are more than 5 years old should
be carefully reexamined to determine if the criteria
in Section 1502.9 compel preparation of an EIS
supplement.
If an agency has made a substantial change in a
proposed action that is relevant to environmental
concerns, or if there are signicant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns
and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, a
supplemental EIS must be prepared for an old EIS
so that the agency has the best possible information
to make any necessary substantive changes in its
decisions regarding the proposal. Section 1502.9(c).
January 2019 1-3
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Attachment 1
10 CFR 1021.330 Programmatic (including
Site-wide) NEPA documents.
(c) As a matter of policy when not otherwise required,
DOE shall prepare site-wide EISs for certain large,
multiple-facility DOE sites; DOE may prepare
EISs or EAs for other sites to assess the impacts of
all or selected functions at those sites.
(d) DOE shall evaluate site-wide NEPA documents
prepared under § 1021.330(c) at least every ve
years. DOE shall evaluate site-wide EISs by
means of a Supplement Analysis, as provided in
§ 1021.314. Based on the Supplement Analysis,
DOE shall determine whether the existing EIS
remains adequate or whether to prepare a new
site-wide EIS or supplement the existing EIS, as
appropriate. The determination and supporting
analysis shall be made available in the appropriate
DOE public reading room(s) or in other
appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
(e) DOE shall evaluate site-wide EAs by means of
an analysis similar to the Supplement Analysis
to determine whether the existing site-wide EA
remains adequate, whether to prepare a new
site-wide EA, revise the FONSI, or prepare a site
wide EIS, as appropriate. The determination and
supporting analysis shall be made available in
the appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or in
other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
January 2019 2-1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Attachment 2. SA to Support an Amended Decision – An Example
In August 2002, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision that DOE had taken the “hard
look” required by NEPA in regard to the Department’s surplus plutonium disposition program. The Supreme Court
refused to review the appellate court’s ruling (Hodges v. Abraham, 300 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537
U.S. 1105 (2003)). The fact that DOE had prepared SAs in support of its decisionmaking played a large part in the
outcome of this case.
Background. In April 2002, DOE changed its plans for its plutonium disposition program by (1) canceling one
of two parallel tracks for plutonium disposition and (2) accelerating the consolidated storage of surplus, non-pit
plutonium from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina (67 FR 19432,
April 19, 2002).
South Carolina’s Governor Hodges led suit in May 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina alleging that DOE had violated NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act in modifying its plutonium
disposition plans. The Court ruled in DOE’s favor. The issue before the Court relevant to the SAs was the change
from a proposal to construct an Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF) for long-term storage (up to
50 years) of non-pit, surplus plutonium at SRS to a proposal to modify one of the site’s closed reactor buildings to
store the plutonium. The modied reactor building is known as the K-Area Material Storage Facility (KAMS).
Four NEPA Reviews
DOE’s NEPA compliance strategy for its plutonium
disposition program involved a programmatic EIS
(PEIS), a tiered project EIS, and two SAs. The
courts referred to elements of each of these in their
determinations that DOE had satised its obligations
under NEPA.
• Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile
Materials Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229, December 1996)
– DOE evaluated alternative strategies and locations
both for long-term storage and for disposition of
weapons-usable ssile materials (plutonium and
highly enriched uranium). In its record of decision
(ROD), DOE chose to consolidate storage of
surplus, non-pit plutonium at SRS upon completion
of an expanded, new storage facility, and DOE
chose to pursue plutonium disposition through both
immobilization (conversion of plutonium to a form
suitable for direct disposal within a matrix of highly
radioactive vitried waste) and use as mixed-oxide
(MOX) fuel (62 FR 3014, January 21, 1997).
• Supplement Analysis for Storing Plutonium in
the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility and
Building 105-K at the Savannah River Site
(DOE/EIS-0229-SA1, July 1998) – To accelerate
shipment of surplus, non-pit plutonium from Rocky
Flats to SRS, DOE prepared an SA regarding use
of KAMS for up to 10 years. This would allow
receipt at SRS of plutonium before APSF became
operational and enhance management exibility
of plutonium in storage at SRS while additional
shipments were being received. The SA supported
an amended ROD for the Storage and Disposition
PEIS (63 FR 43386, August 13, 1998).
• Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, November
1999) – DOE selected SRS as the location for new
facilities and associated activities to implement
its plan to disposition surplus plutonium through
a combination of immobilization and MOX fuel.
(See ROD, 65 FR 1608, January 11, 2000.)
• Supplement Analysis for Storage of Surplus
Plutonium Materials in the K-Area Material
Storage Facility at the Savannah River Site
(DOE/EIS-0229-SA2, February 2002) – DOE
analyzed use of KAMS for storage of surplus,
non-pit plutonium for up to 50 years. This made the
analysis consistent with the analysis of long-term
storage in the Storage and Disposition PEIS and was
necessary because the APSF was cancelled. This
SA supported an amended ROD for the Storage and
Disposition PEIS (67 FR 19432, April 19, 2002).
Court Decisions
The Court of Appeals, arming the District Court’s
ruling, determined in this case that through the 2002
SA, which incorporated by reference the other NEPA
documents, DOE fullled its NEPA obligations to
take a “hard look” at the long-term plutonium storage
option. The appellate court referred to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources
Council in which the Court held that an agency must
prepare a supplemental EIS “[i]f there remains ‘major
Federal action’ to occur, and if the new information
is sucient to show that the remaining action will
‘aect the quality of the human environment’ in a
signicant manner or to a signicant extent not already
considered” 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989) (quoting 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) (emphasis added).
January 2019 3-1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Attachment 3. Bonneville Power Administration’s Strategic Use of SAs
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) annually
funds a substantial number of specic projects within
each of its three major programs, and must accordingly
conduct a large number of NEPA reviews. To make
its NEPA process ecient and eective, BPA prepared
programmatic EISs for each of these major programs
and regularly prepares a large number of project-
specic SAs to ensure that appropriate NEPA review
has been completed. Although BPA’s approach is
unique to its programs, other NEPA practitioners may
nd elements of the strategy useful to their own needs,
including those for ve-year site-wide reviews.
• BPA’s mission under the Wildlife Mitigation
Program, as mandated by the Pacic Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, is
to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat caused by
development of the Federal Columbia River Power
System. Specic wildlife conservation projects
that BPA supports to satisfy this responsibility are
generally developed in a public process managed by
the multi-state Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (Council). BPA funding of Council-
approved wildlife mitigation projects is a Federal
action subject to NEPA.
• The Watershed Management Program separately
funds projects benecial to sh habitat.
• The Transmission System Vegetation Management
Program maintains the transmission line corridors
and substations free from intrusive vegetation that
could cause interruptions in power transmission
such as from the growth of trees through power
lines.
In 1997, BPA completed the Wildlife Mitigation
Program EIS (DOE/EIS-0246). Until the EIS had
been completed, identication and resolution of
project management issues occurred at various stages
of project planning, sometimes through the NEPA
review and sometimes not. In the EIS, BPA identied
the universe of activities conceivably funded under
the program, generically evaluated their potential
environmental impacts, and presented various
standards and guidelines − procedural and substantive
− to address concerns. The EIS arranged these various
standards and guidelines in alternative sets, with
one set ultimately adopted in the Record of Decision
(ROD). BPA later prepared a very similar EIS for its
Watershed Management Program (DOE/EIS-0265,
July 1997) and a third EIS using a similar NEPA
compliance strategy, but with a very dierent scope
and constituency, to create standards and guidelines
for its Transmission System Vegetation Management
Program (DOE/EIS-0285, May 2000).
For application to specic wildlife and watershed
projects proposed for funding, and for specic
transmission system vegetation management
treatments, BPA environmental sta reviews each
project and evaluates the environmental issues
present. Through this review and evaluation, BPA sta
determines (1) whether there are substantial changes in
the proposed action that are relevant to environmental
concerns, and (2) whether there are signicant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns. The ndings and the analysis supporting
them are recorded in the SA and approved by the
designated NEPA compliance authority, and made
public by way of BPA’s Web site (www.bpa.gov/efw
under Environmental Analysis then Project Reviews).
BPA sta nd these procedures provide project, public,
and agency eciencies and that they help incorporate
environmental protection features early in project
planning.
January 2019 4-1
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
Attachment 4. Examples of Determinations Based on SAs
Concluding paragraph and determination both contained in the SA
Example 1:
From: Supplement Analysis for Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Commingled Transuranic Waste at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (DOE/EIS-0026-SA-2, June 2004)
In summary, DOE has conservatively reviewed the impacts that would be expected from preparing and transporting
up to 2,500 cubic meters (88,000 cubic feet) of PCB-commingled TRU waste from the ve sites where it is currently
stored and projected to be generated and disposing of this waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The
volume of this waste is within the total volume analyzed in the Supplemental EIS II (SEIS-II) Proposed Action.
DOE estimated the maximum impacts that could be associated with the addition of PCBs to the hazardous organic
compounds analyzed in Action Alternative 2. These impacts would be so small that in no instance would the
presence of PCBs increase the impact results beyond those presented in the SEIS-II.
Determination
Based on the analyses of the potential impacts on land use, geology, hydrology, biological resources, air quality,
socioeconomic conditions, noise, cultural resources, environmental justice, waste handling and characterization,
transportation, and long-term performance of the WIPP repository for disposal of PCB-commingled TRU waste
discussed in this Supplement Analysis, DOE concludes that the Proposed Action is not a substantial change to the
proposal analyzed in the SEIS-II. Further, there are no signicant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. Therefore, a supplement to the SEIS-II
is not needed.
Approved in Washington, DC, on this _____ day of ________________, 2004.
[Signature of Approving Ocial]
Example 2:
From Supplement Analysis for Storage of Surplus Plutonium Materials in the K-Area Material Storage Facility at
the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-2, February 2002)
The results of this SA indicate that the activities and potential environmental impacts associated with the storage of
surplus plutonium materials in the KAMS facility at SRS are encompassed within those activities analyzed in the
NEPA and supporting documentation described above. Storage of these materials would not constitute a substantial
change in actions previously analyzed and would not constitute signicant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the previously analyzed action or its impacts. Therefore, DOE
does not need to undertake additional NEPA analysis.
Issued in Washington, DC, [date].
[Signature of Approving Ocial]
