94-2596. Environmental Restoration and Waste Management  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-2596]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: February 4, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
     
    
    Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
    
    AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
    
    ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for comment.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is developing eligibility 
    standards and funding criteria for the distribution of DOE 
    discretionary funds to federally-recognized American Indian tribes by 
    DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM). 
    Discretionary funds, pursuant to Section 646 of the DOE Organization 
    Act, are awarded to Indian tribes to participate in DOE's remediation 
    and management program for wastes produced as the result of its 
    activities at its former and current weapons production facilities. 
    Such participation relates directly to DOE's American Indian Tribal 
    Government policy, pursuant to DOE Order 1230.2, recognizing a 
    government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes.
        Because of the potential for broad interest, DOE is providing 
    interested parties an opportunity for comment on issues related to the 
    funding of Indian tribes who are directly affected by DOE activities. 
    DOE invites written comment on the criteria development process before 
    proposing guidelines. In addition, DOE will schedule public workshops 
    at several of its sites. Announcement of the location, date, and time 
    of the public workshops will be published in the Federal Register. At 
    these workshops, tribes and other interested parties will have an 
    opportunity to further discuss issues related to guidance.
    
    DATES: Written submissions on this notice of inquiry are due on or 
    before June 1, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to Margaret Fernandez, 
    Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Office of 
    Public Accountability (EM-5), U.S. Department of Energy, Room 5B-031, 
    1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington DC 20585. FAX Telephone: (202) 
    586-0293.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Fernandez, at the address 
    above, or by telephone at (202) 586-5821.
    
    I. Background
    
        In 1989, the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste 
    Management was established to address environmental problems at the 
    Department's facilities. Many of the Department's past, present, and 
    future activities potentially affect Indian tribes. Past activities of 
    DOE involved the research and production of plutonium, uranium, and 
    other hazardous substances. Present and future activities focus on the 
    management and remediation of wastes produced as a result of the 
    Department's production activities.
        Because DOE's activities may affect tribes in close proximity to 
    DOE sites, the Department's policy is to consult with these tribes and 
    support tribal environmental remediation programs. The fundamental 
    goals of DOE's policy are to involve affected tribes in remediation 
    activities, provide tribes safe access to and management of cultural 
    and natural resources, and promote tribal economic competitiveness and 
    self-sufficiency pursuant to administration policy and legal 
    requirements.
        In the past, DOE discretionary funds have been distributed to 
    Indian tribes primarily through planning grants. Planning grants have 
    funded tribal environmental restoration and waste management programs 
    to identify, analyze and take initiatives to address waste management 
    and cleanup issues stemming from DOE sites and facilities. The Nez 
    Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
    Reservation, and the Yakima Indian Nation have received planning grants 
    related to the Hanford site.
        As an alternative to planning grants, DOE has used cooperative 
    agreements to fund tribal activities. A cooperative agreement requires 
    greater involvement between DOE and the participant in negotiating and 
    conducting the proposed activities. This involvement results in 
    specific project milestones and products that ensure greater 
    accountability. The Department has successfully employed cooperative 
    agreements to implement hazardous materials emergency response 
    programs, as occurred in the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project 
    with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and at the Hanford site with the 
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Based on this 
    experience, DOE intends to use cooperative agreements as the prime 
    vehicle for tribal involvement in environmental remediation activities. 
    In addition to the use of cooperative agreements, the government-to-
    government relationship between DOE and tribal nations may also be 
    expressed through site-specific agreements, memoranda of understanding, 
    and joint ventures.
        The amount of DOE discretionary funds available for tribal cleanup 
    activities in the early years of the DOE environmental program was 
    based on large projected budget increases. However, present and 
    anticipated budget constrictions for the EM program only allow for 
    moderate funding. As a result, the amount of funds available for tribal 
    environmental management and cleanup activities has leveled, while the 
    degree of involvement by tribes, and the number of tribes that want to 
    be involved in remediation activities, continue to grow. Budget 
    limitations, coupled with DOE's commitment to involve affected tribes 
    in its cleanup and management activities, necessitate the development 
    of standards and guidance for disbursement of DOE discretionary funds 
    to tribes.
        These standards will require the development of criteria relating 
    to eligibility and funding. Eligibility criteria would determine which 
    tribes would qualify to enter into cooperative agreements with DOE. 
    Funding criteria would determine the types of activities that are to be 
    funded and the levels of funding. DOE acknowledges that eligibility and 
    funding criteria may utilize similar factors.
    
    II. Discussion--Eligibility and Funding Criteria
    
    A. Eligibility
    
        Eligibility criteria would determine if a federally-recognized 
    Indian tribe qualifies to enter into a cooperative agreement allowing 
    tribal participation in DOE environmental remediation activities. The 
    following considerations could be used to determine tribal eligibility:
        (1) Should a tribe be considered eligible if its legal interests 
    arising from treaty, statutes, and case law are affected by a DOE 
    hazardous waste site.
        (2) Should a tribe be considered eligible if its legal interests 
    arising from treaty, statutes, and case law are affected by a DOE 
    produced waste stream or transportation corridor which carries DOE 
    hazardous wastes?
        (3) Should a tribe considered eligible if its cultural and natural 
    resources are located on or in close proximity to a DOE hazardous waste 
    site, DOE produced waste stream, or transportation corridor which 
    carries DOE hazardous wastes? Please define cultural and natural 
    resources.
        (4) Should a tribe be eligible if its reservation is located on or 
    in close proximity to a DOE hazardous waste site, DOE produced waste 
    stream, or transportation corridor which carries DOE hazardous wastes?
        (5) Should ``close proximity'' be limited to a geographically 
    defined area in relation to a DOE hazardous waste site, DOE produced 
    waste stream, or transportation corridor which carries DOE hazardous 
    wastes (e.g., a geographic area of not more than 50 miles, 100 miles, 
    etc., from a hazardous site)?
        (6) Should ``close proximity'' be defined to include more distant 
    areas where actual or likely physical harm could occur as a result of a 
    DOE hazardous waste site, DOE produced waste stream, or transportation 
    corridor which carries DOE hazardous wastes?
        (7) What other factors should be considered in determining 
    eligibility?
    
    B. Funding
    
        Once it is ascertained which tribes are eligible to enter into 
    cooperative agreements with DOE, the next determination is what 
    particular tribal activities should be funded and at what levels. The 
    following considerations which could be used to determine tribal 
    funding include:
        (1) Should a priority system be used to categorize activities by 
    factors such as the following:
        (a) The degree of the threat or actual level of harm to a tribe 
    (e.g., the greater threat of harm, the greater the priority, etc.);
        (b) Size of affected tribal population; and
        (c) Types of activities proposed, (e.g., a groundwater monitoring 
    activity to ensure a safe drinking water supply versus the remediation 
    of a cultural site).
        (i) Should activities that support tribal management of cultural 
    resources receive greater priority than other activities?
        (ii) Should activities which would assist a tribe in becoming more 
    economically competitive and self-sufficient receive greater priority 
    than other activities?
        (2) Should the fact that a tribe was previously funded by DOE mean 
    it should receive greater consideration than a tribe that has never 
    been funded, or the opposite?
        (3) Should a tribe receive greater funding consideration for past 
    participation in DOE activities that were well performed by the tribe?
        (4) Where possible, should tribes that coordinate and prepare a 
    joint proposal receive more favorable consideration than proposals by 
    individual tribes?
        (5) To what extent should proximity be taken into account in 
    funding one tribe that can argue a greater degree of affectedness over 
    another tribe? ``Affected'' is defined in this instance to apply to a 
    tribe that faces a substantial environmental or health impact.
    
    III. Request for Submissions
    
        The criteria and other ideas raised in this Notice are suggestions 
    for comment. Comments need not address all suggestions raised in this 
    inquiry and can be limited to particular points. DOE welcomes 
    additional comments on eligibility and funding criteria for Indian 
    tribes. All written information provided by respondents will be 
    available for public inspection at the Department of Energy, Freedom of 
    Information Reading Room, room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
    Washington, 20585, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
    through Friday, except Federal holidays. Pursuant to the provisions of 
    10 CFR 1004.11 (1983), any person submitting information believed to be 
    confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit a 
    copy of the document in which information believed to be confidential 
    has been deleted along with the confidential submissions. The 
    Department of Energy will determine the confidential status of the 
    information and treat it accordingly.
    
        Signed at Washington, DC., this 31st day of January, 1994.
    Thomas P. Grumbly,
    Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.
    [FR Doc. 94-2596 Filed 2-3-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
02/04/1994
Department:
Energy Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice of inquiry and request for comment.
Document Number:
94-2596
Dates:
Written submissions on this notice of inquiry are due on or before June 1, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: February 4, 1994