 |
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 200 AREA EMERGENCY FACILITIES CAMPUS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON MARCH 1997 |
DOE/EA1182
|
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 200 AREA EMERGENCY FACILITIES CAMPUS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON MARCH 1997 |
| Acronyms | |
|---|---|
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| CRR | Cultural Resources Review |
| DOE | U.S. Department of Energy |
| EA | Environmental Assessment |
| ESA | Endangered Species Act of 1973 |
| HFD | Hanford Fire Department |
| NFPA | National Fire Protection Association |
| PNNL | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Formerly PNL) |
| RL | U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office |
| WSCF | Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility |
| Into metric units | Out of metric units | ||||
| If you know | Multiply by | To get | If you know | Multiply by | To get |
| Length | Length | ||||
| inches | 2.54 | centimeters | centimeters | 0.393 | inches |
| feet | 0.305 | meters | meters | 3.28 | feet |
| yards | 0.914 | meters | meters | 1.09 | yards |
| miles | 1.61 | kilometers | kilometers | 0.62 | miles |
| Area | Area | ||||
| square feet | 0.092 | square meters | square meters | 10.76 | square feet |
| square yards | 0.836 | square meters | square meters | 1.20 | square yards |
| square miles | 2.59 | square kilometers | square kilometers | 0.39 | square miles |
| square feet | 2.296 x 10-5 | acres | acres | 4.36 x 104 | square feet |
| acres | 0.404 | hectares | hectares | 2.47 | acres |
| Volume | Volume | ||||
| gallons | 3.79 | liters | liters | 0.26 | gallons |
| Temperature | Temperature | ||||
| Fahrenheit | subtract 32 then multiply by 5/9ths | Celsius | Celsius | multiply by 9/5ths, then add 32 | Fahrenheit |
After: Engineering Unit Conversions, M. R. Lindeburg, PE., Second Ed., 1990, Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, California.
PREFACE
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
7.0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
8.0 REFERENCES
A BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
1 Hanford Site Map
The following sections describe the purpose and need and provide background
information concerning
this environmental assessment (EA).
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED. The
underlying purpose and need for the agency to take the proposed action.
The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) needs to enhance fire
protection,
hazardous materials response, and emergency services to protect Hanford Site workers, property,
and the
environment.
1.2 BACKGROUND. BACKGROUND
information on the purpose and need, that led to the need for action.
The Hanford Fire Department (HFD) now provides fire suppression and emergency
response capabilities
in order to respond to emergency situations which could threaten the operations, employees, or
interests of
the Hanford Site. Historically, the HFD facilities have been strategically located to respond to
emergency
situations on the Hanford Site. As the Hanford mission has changed the predominant work
centers across the
site have changed. Activity in the 100 Areas has declined while 200 Area activity has increased to
the
point that the major need area for emergency services of all kinds is now in the 200 Area (see Figure 1).
The 200 Area Fire Station was originally built in the early 1960's without a dormitory
sleeping area.
In about 1965, the HFD changed their operations to single 24 hour crew coverage. When this
change occurred,
the 200 Area Fire Station needed dormitory sleeping additions to their already existing facilities.
Over
the last 17 years, the HFD services have increased to provide emergency medical ambulance and
hazardous
materials response capabilities. These two services, in addition to the primary emergency fire and
rescue
operations, required extra personnel and equipment space. In 1995, the HFD redeployed
equipment and
personnel from the 100 Area Fire Station to the 200 Area Fire Station. This resulted in severe
overcrowding
at the 200 Area Fire Station.
In addition, the 200 Area Fire Station was designed to house fire equipment built in the
1950's and
1960's. Through the advancement in technology, this equipment is now larger in size. The
redeployment of
equipment from the 100 Area Fire Station has created a shortage of equipment space. There is no
place to
store this equipment out of the weather and in a controlled environment. By storing this
equipment outside,
the equipment is being adversely affected by weather and is reducing the service life of the
equipment.
The existing septic system serving the 200 Area Fire Station does not have sufficient capacity
to handle the
personnel assigned to this facility. In addition, this septic system does not meet current
Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 246-272 requirements. Any septic system built prior to 1991
must be upgraded
to current WAC requirements when facility modifications or additional personnel are proposed for
a facility.
The existing 200 Area Fire Station has a single source of sanitary water for fire protection.
RL
Implementing Directive 5480.7 "Fire Protection" requires a two-way "looped" water feed to
facilities with a
property value greater that $1,000,000. The proposed sanitary water pipeline would provide a
second water
source to the 200 Area Fire Station meeting National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) and DOE fire
protection requirements. This upgrade would reduce the risk of loss of property and/or life.
A Functional Design Criteria report (WHC 1993a) assessed the HFD fire stations. It
states that, "An
assessment of the existing fire stations for compliance with the National Electrical
Codes (NEC) have
revealed significant deficiencies. The electrical systems did not comply with the NEC when the
stations
were designed and constructed. Alternative designs were allowed at the time of construction. As
a result,
the present electrical systems do not comply with the NEC, nor are they based on acceptable
engineering
practices. The existing fire station is in violation of NFPA standards for air circulation and space
limitations."
The 200 Area Fire Station is currently out of compliance with the following NFPA
standards:
All construction and modification activities would follow approved procedures and
requirements as
directed in 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910 and 29 CFR
1926 (OSHA).
A number of proposed activities are combined into the proposed action. These activities
would
include upgrading the existing sewer system and providing secondary sanitary water supply to the
609A/C Fire
Station Complex; moving an existing modular office facility to the west of the 609 A/C Fire
Station Complex
to serve as the Emergency Services Headquarters; renovating the 609A/C Buildings into adequate
living
quarters and vehicle apparatus facility; and adding a new covered Vehicle Storage Area just south
of the
609A/C Buildings. All construction and pipeline installation activities would spray clean water for
dust
control. The following is a list of specific activities under the proposed action:
2.1 PROPOSED TIMING. Timing or
schedule of the proposed action (including phasing, if applicable).
The proposed action would be accomplished in a phased approach. An approximate timetable
for the proposed
actions is as follows:
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION. Other environmental information that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to the proposed action.
A Biological Resources Review (Appendix A) and a Cultural Resources Review
(Appendix B) have been prepared for the proposed action.
Figure
1. Hanford Site.
Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in the following sections.
3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. CEQ
and DOE NEPA regulations require DOE to analyze the "No Action alternative,"
i.e., to examine what would happen if nothing were done. Note that
generally this is a continuation of the status quo.
The No Action alternative would involve continuing operations with the existing
operations, training,
and support facilities. NFPA codes and standards would not be met. Property and the
surrounding environs
would continue to be at a higher fire risk. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the Purpose
and Need
for DOE action.
3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Other
alternatives considered. CEQ regulations direct all agencies to identify
reasonable alternatives that would achieve the purpose and need.
Other Alternatives to the proposed action are described in the following sections.
3.2.1 Alternative Sewer System
Installation of a new sanitary sewer system for the 200 Area Fire Station just south of the
existing
buildings was considered. However, the new sewer system would require approximately 3 acres
on mostly
undisturbed habitat, create a new soil discharge, and cost approximately twice as much as the
proposed
action to install.
3.2.2 Alternative Sanitary Water Pipeline Routes
An alternative route for the six meters (20 feet wide) corridor for the sanitary water
pipeline is
along the north side of Route 3 adjacent to the utility corridor, then due north to the
WSCF. However, this
would disturb approximately 1.18 hectares (2.91 acres) of big sagebrush habitat.
Another alternative for the sanitary water pipeline was to go cross country from the 200
Area
Emergency Facilities directly to the WSCF. The direct six meters (20 feet) wide corridor route
would make
the water line approximately 271 meters (888 feet) shorter but would bisect and disturb
approximately 1.2
hectares (3.0 acres) of big sagebrush habitat.
3.2.3 Alternative 200 Area Emergency Facility Sites
Alternative siting locations were considered (WHC 1993b) to replace the 200 Area
Fire Station.
Siting criteria were health, safety, environmental impacts, optimized response, construction costs,
and
long-range planning. Response time from any of the considered siting alternatives to the 200
West Area and
the 200 East Area is judged to be approximately 5 to 7 minutes depending on where in the area an
emergency
is located. The recommended site would utilize the existing infrastructure to the maximum extent
possible
by locating a replacement facility as close as practical to the existing 200 Area Fire Station.
Alternative siting several meters west of the existing 609A/C Buildings was considered.
The
alternative would construct a new living space for fire fighters including office space, and a new
Emergency
Services Headquarters Facility. However, this alternative would disturb approximately 0.84
hectares (2.08
acres) of previously undisturbed habitat, and cost about $2 million more to build and take an extra
year to
year and a half to complete compared to the preferred alternative. Therefore, this alternative was
not
selected.
An alternative site located roughly 150 meters (49O feet) east of the existing 200 Area
Fire Station
was examined. The east site is traversed by electrical and telecommunications lines that would
have to be
rerouted to allow construction of the replacement facility. The water service line across the site
could
require excavation and additional protective casing installation at three paved entrances to this
alternative location. For these reasons and because of increased cost, this alternative site was not
chosen.
Alternative siting north of Route 3 where the existing 200 East/West Steam Line utility
corridor
parallels the road was excluded from consideration due to the possible high cost anticipated for
relocation
or removal of portions of the steam line, in addition to construction costs. Also, the site was
excluded
from consideration because the facility would be within close proximity to the existing 100 meter
(328 feet)
meteorology tower.
3.2.4 Private Response
The alternative of utilizing existing private offsite emergency response units or building
new
emergency facilities offsite was not considered because of response time. The fastest response
from any
offsite location would be at least 40 minutes.
Existing environment to be affected by the proposed action and
alternatives. Summary information
only should be provided, with more detailed information referenced.
The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment to be affected by
the
proposed action and alternatives.
4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMENT
The Hanford Site is 1,450 square kilometers (560 square miles) located in
southeastern Washington
State, in a semiarid region with rolling topography. Two topographical features dominate the
landscape:
Rattlesnake Mountain is located on the southwest boundary with Gable Mountain located on the
northern
portion of the Hanford Site. The Columbia River flows through the northern part of the
Hanford Site and
forms part of the eastern boundary of the Hanford Site. Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site
are primarily
agricultural lands. The 200 West Area and 200 East Area of the Hanford Site have been heavily
used as
industrial areas.
The Hanford Site has a mild climate with 15 to 18 centimeters (6 to
7 inches) of annual
precipitation, with most of the precipitation taking place during the winter months. Temperature
ranges of
daily maximum temperatures vary from normal maxima of 2C (36F) in early January to 35C (95F)
in late
July. Monthly average wind speeds are lowest during the winter months, averaging 10 to 11
kilometers per
hour (6 to 7 miles per hour), and highest during the summer, averaging 14 to 16 kilometers per
hour (8 to 10
miles per hour) (PNNL 1996b). Tornadoes are extremely rare; no destructive tornadoes
have occurred in the
region surrounding the Hanford Site.
The Hanford Site and the surrounding area are in attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality
Standards (NAAQS) designed to protect the public health and welfare. During 1994, the Hanford
Site air
emissions remained below all established limits set for regulated air pollutants (PNNL 1996a).
Atmospheric
dispersion conditions of the area vary between summer and winter months. The summer months
generally have
good air mixing characteristics. If the prevailing winds from the northwest are light, less
favorable
dispersion conditions might occur. Occasional periods of poor dispersion conditions occur during
the winter
months.
The vegetation on the Hanford Site is a shrub-steppe community of sagebrush and
rabbitbrush with an
understory consisting primarily of cheatgrass and Sandberg's bluegrass. The typical insects, small
birds,
mammals, and reptiles common to the Hanford Site can be found in the 200 Area
plateau (PNNL 1996b).
Relatively undisturbed areas of the mature shrub-steppe vegetation are high quality habitat for
many plants
and animals and have been designated as "priority habitat" by Washington State.
Most mammal species known to inhabit the Hanford Site are small, nocturnal
creatures, primarily
pocket mice and jackrabbits. Large mammals found on the Hanford Site are deer and elk,
although the elk
exist almost entirely on the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. Coyotes and raptors are the primary
predators.
Several species of small birds nest in the steppe vegetation. Semiannual peaks in avian variety and
abundance occur during migration seasons. Additional information about the Hanford Site can be
found in the
publication entitled the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Characterization
report (PNNL 1996b).
RL and its contractors dominate the local employment picture with almost one-quarter of
the total
nonagricultural jobs in Benton and Franklin counties. Ninety-three percent of Hanford Site
personnel reside
in the Benton and Franklin county areas. Therefore, work activities on the Hanford Site play an
important
role in the socioeconomics of the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick) and other parts of
Benton and
Franklin counties (PNNL 1996b). Other counties are less affected by changes in Hanford
employment.
4.2 SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONMENT
The proposed renovation of the 609A/C Buildings and addition of the Emergency Services
Headquarters
Facility and Vehicle Storage area would occur on previously disturbed areas immediately
surrounding the
609A/C Buildings along Route 3, midway between the 200 West and the 200 East Area. This
area is
approximately 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) from the Columbia River. The 200 Area plateau is
not located in the
100-year or 500-year floodplain of the Columbia River, nor is it located within a wetlands area
(PNNL 1996b). 200 Area elevations average about 218 meters (715 feet)
above mean sea level. The 200 Area
plateau does not contain any prime farmland, state or national parks, forests, conservation areas,
or other
areas of recreational, scenic, or aesthetic concern. The habitat at the site of the proposed
Emergency
Facilities Campus is typical of the general Hanford Site shrub-steppe habitat. The City of
Richland
(population approximately 32,000), located about 40 kilometers (25 miles) away in
Benton County, adjoins the
southernmost portion of the Hanford Site boundary and is the nearest population center.
4.2.1 Soils and Subsurface
The soil in the 200 Areas is predominately a sand and gravel mixture. The geologic
strata under the
surface layer, in descending order, are Holocene eolian deposits, Hanford Formation, Ringold
Formation, and
the Columbia River Basalt Group. The eolian sands are fine- to coarse-grained, and relatively
quartz- and
feldspar-rich. Deposits of the Hanford Formation underlie the eolian deposits. Hanford
Formation strata
generally are dominated by deposits typical of the gravel-dominated facies consisting of
uncemented granule
to cobble gravels and minor coarse-grained sand. This is underlain by the top of the Ringold
Formation.
Basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group and intercalated sediments of the Ellensburg
Formation
underlie the Ringold Formation. The region is categorized as one of low to moderate seismicity
(PNNL 1996b).
4.2.2 Hydrology
The water table in the 200 Areas is approximately 70 meters (230 feet) to 88 meters
(290 feet) below
the surface (PNNL 1996b), and is unaffected by contamination plumes from the 200 East
and 200 West Areas.
4.2.3 Air Resources
The Hanford Site operates under a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
established by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is designed to protect existing ambient
air quality.
Except for automobiles and trucks there are no discharge points for air pollutants at the site of the
proposed Emergency Facilities Campus. No substantial increases in overall emissions are
envisioned from the
proposed action and no changes to the PSD permit would be required.
4.2.4 Plants and Animals
Only a few species of plants and animals, are found in the immediate proximity of the
proposed action
due to the disturbed nature and human occupancy of the area. Killdeer, ground-nesting migratory
birds, were
observed in the south parking lot of the Fire Station as indicated in Biological Review
#96-600-006a
(Appendix A). Under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it is illegal to take,
capture, or kill, as
applicable, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such birds, included in the terms of
the
conventions. To avoid adverse impacts to this species, groundbreaking construction activities
should be
undertaken outside the nesting season that extends from April 1 to July 15.
No plant or animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) were found in the
area of the proposed project. One Sage Sparrow (state candidate) was heard calling from beyond
the site
boundary.
Flora observed were cheatgrass, small sixweeks, Sandberg's bluegrass, and big sagebrush.
The
Biological Review specifically identified big sagebrush, with an average height of 2 meters
(6.5 feet), that
would be disturbed by the addition of the water supply pipeline corridor. The rest of the
proposed action
would be on previously disturbed areas that did not have any big sagebrush in the immediate
vicinity.
4.2.5 Endangered Species
No plants or animals on the federal list of "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants"
(50 CFR 17) are found in the immediate vicinity of the proposed action, as indicated
in Biological Review
#96-600-006a (Appendix A).
4.2.6 Cultural Resources
A Cultural Resources Review (CRR) (Appendix B) was conducted for the
proposed action. It concluded
that, "The project, therefore, will have no effect on any known properties eligible for the National
Register."
Potential environmental impacts from the proposed action and
alternatives are discussed in the
following sections. Impacts are addressed in proportion to their potential significance.
The following sections describe impacts from the proposed action.
5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS. Description of impacts from the construction phase activities of the proposed
action.
Impacts from the construction phase activities are described in the following sections.
5.1.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance and the Consequences
Soil disturbance on previously undisturbed soil would occur for the sanitary water pipeline
corridor
six meters (20 feet) wide by 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) long covering approximately 0.59 hectares
(1.45
acres). This disturbance would be at a maximum depth of approximately three meters (10 feet).
Soil
disturbance for the upgrades to the sewer system pipeline corridor six meters (20 feet) wide by
2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) long covering approximately 1.47 hectares (3.64 acres), and the
additions of the
Emergency Services Headquarters Facility and the Vehicle Storage area, as well as the
renovations to the
609A/C Buildings would be minimal because these portions of the proposed action would occur
on highly
disturbed grounds. The water and sewer pipeline corridors would be covered and returned to
grade level and
hydroseeded with native species following installation. In addition, all soil and subsurface
activities
would be temporary, therefore the anticipated impacts to the environment are not expected to be
consequential.
5.1.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters and
the Consequences
Following installation, the sanitary water pipeline would be flushed with fresh water,
leak/pressure
tested, and disinfected. Construction and pipeline installation activities would include sprinkling
clean
water for dust control. However, since the water table is more than 60 meters (200 feet) below
the surface,
these activities would have little affect on groundwater or surface waters.
5.1.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air and the
Consequences
Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities from typical
construction
activities such as trucks for transporting building materials and wastes, heat and exhaust fumes
from
construction equipment motors, or backfilling may be generated for short periods of time during
the
construction phase of the proposed action. Dust would be controlled by watering down.
5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the
Consequences
There would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure.
5.1.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated and the
Consequences
It is expected that the only nonhazardous solid waste generated during the construction
phase of the
proposed action would be typical construction debris. Existing facilities would have adequate
capacity to
accept all waste volumes from the proposed action. All nonhazardous waste would be disposed
in accordance
with applicable requirements. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be
small.
5.1.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated and the
Consequences
Small amounts of hazardous waste would be generated (e.g., waste cleaning rags, waste
oil, etc.)
during construction of the proposed action. These materials would be managed and disposed of
in accordance
with applicable federal and state regulations. Waste generation resulting from the proposed
action is
expected to be minimal compared to annual Hanford Site waste generation. Therefore, these
impacts to the
environment are not expected to be consequential.
5.1.7 Hazardous Substances Present and the Consequences
No hazardous substances are present or expected to be present during construction,
except small
amounts of lead paint and asbestos. If any hazardous substances are found, they would be
managed in
accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Potential impacts to the environment
would be
minimized through strict compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Due to the
small
quantities of these materials that may be encountered, the effects of the proposed action are not
expected
to be consequential.
5.1.8 Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas and the
Consequences
As indicated in the Biological Review (#96-600-006a) in Appendix A, the proposed action
would disturb
sagebrush steppe habitat considered priority habitat by the State of Washington. This biological
review
originally surveyed a six meter (20 feet) wide corridor for the sanitary water pipeline covering
approximately 1.18 hectares (2.89 acres) of undisturbed sagebrush steppe habitat. However, the
preferred
route for the sanitary water pipeline corridor was moved to partially overlap the previously
disturbed
utility corridor along Route 3, and would remove approximately 0.59 hectares (1.45 acres) of
sagebrush
steppe habitat. The rest of the proposed action would occur on previously disturbed ground.
Following
installation of the sewer and sanitary water pipelines, hydroseeding the corridors with native plant
species
would occur between February 15 and April 15 or between September 1 and
November 15 for favorable plant
growth.
Interim guidance from RL indicates that mitigation of habitat loss in the 200 Area corridor
between
200 West Area and 200 East Area for areas less than 1 hectare (2.47 acres) per project or 5
hectares (12.35
acres) area for the cumulative project is not required other than avoidance and minimization. The
proposed
action addresses five different projects, of which only one is in a previously undeveloped area.
The habitat
that would be removed from the one project would meet the guidance criteria. Therefore, no
adverse impacts
to species or habitats of concern would be expected from the proposed action.
5.1.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable
Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, etc.)
would occur for
short periods during the construction phase of the proposed action. The amount of consumption
is minimal;
therefore, these impacts to the environment are not expected to be consequential.
5.1.10 Effects on Cultural Resources
A CRR (Appendix B) was conducted for the preferred alternative. The CRR
concluded: "Given the
distance to permanent water the potential for buried sites is considered low. The project,
therefore, will
have no effect on any known properties eligible for the National Register."
Per the governing regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
transformation of
the 609A/C Fire Station Complex may be considered an adverse effect since the facility is a
contributing
element of the Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Cold War Era Historic District which is
determined to be
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation of all adverse effects to
the
609A/C Fire Station Complex is covered in the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.
Department of
Energy, Richland Operations Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the
Washington State Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, Deactivation, Alteration,
and Demolition of the Built Environment on the Hanford Site, Washington (PA)
DOE/RL-96-77 rev 0.
The PA allows RL to manage historic properties at the site as elements of a Historic District. Per
the PA,
historic documentation would be prepared on representative buildings and structures to mitigate
adverse
effects to the district. Documentation of the historic significance of the 609A/C Fire Station
Complex
would be represented on the Historic Property Inventory Form for the 3709A Fire Station and
through
preparation of a sitewide historic narrative.
Adaptive reuse and expansion of the 609A/C Fire Station Complex for living quarters,
vehicle
apparatus storage, SCBA shop, and office space would continue this facility as a fire station. One
expected
positive impact of this action would be to preserve the site and some features of the facility as a
historic
property. Implementation of the PA would result in a no adverse impact determination under the
National
Historic Preservation Act.
5.1.11 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered Species
Section 4.2.4 of this EA lists the flora and fauna observed at the proposed project site.
The
Biological Review (Appendix A) concludes: "No other plant or animal species protected under
the ESA,
candidates for such protection, or species listed by the Washington state government were
observed in the
vicinity of the ... sites proposed for the 200 area Emergency Facilities Campus." The Biological
Review
recommended that to avoid impact on nesting birds, land-clearing construction activities in
undisturbed
habitat would not take place during the nesting season (April 1 through July 15).
5.1.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland
The proposed construction would not occur in the 100- or 500-year floodplain of
the Columbia River,
nor within any area designated as a wetland.
5.1.13 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal
Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area
The proposed action is outside any Wild and Scenic River corridor, state or federal
wildlife refuge,
or specially designated area.
5.1.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the
Effects
The only reasonably foreseeable accidents under the construction phase of the proposed
action,
including land clearing, building, and backfilling activities, would be typical construction hazards.
Areas
would be appropriately identified to outside personnel during building activities. All construction
personnel would follow approved safety procedures for the construction and land clearing
activities within
the proposed action, in addition to transporting building and waste materials to and from the
proposed
activities, including soil backfilling, and water spraying for dust control. Public health and safety
would
not be affected because the area is closed to the general public.
The possibility that an uncharted water line or electrical conductor could be broken by
construction
activities is considered to be low. However, Hanford Site utilities are generally well charted and
excavation permits are required before any digging is permitted. Such permits identify buried
utilities.
Pipes and lines would be avoided by construction equipment. Typical construction hazards occur,
however the
risk of severe accidents is small.
5.2 OPERATION AND POST-OPERATION PHASE
IMPACTS. Description of impacts from the operation and
post-operation
phase activities of the proposed action.
Impacts from operation and post-operation phase activities are described in the following
sections.
5.2.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance and the Consequences
There would be no soil or subsurface disturbances anticipated during operation of the
proposed
action. All areas with the post-operation phase of the proposed action would be previously
disturbed areas.
Options to determine possible other uses or decommissioning and demolition of the applicable
areas would be
determined at that time. It is anticipated that impacts to the environment are not expected to be
consequential.
5.2.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters and
the Consequences
The small grassy areas close to the proposed 200 Area Emergency Facilities Campus
would be watered
and fire trucks would occasionally be washed as appropriate. In addition, permitted discharges to
the 2607-EP septic tank system would occur. These liquid discharges from operations are
expected to be small and
have little effect on groundwater or surface waters.
5.2.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air and the
Consequences
Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities from such activities
as
trucks or other gasoline engines would be generated during routine operations of the proposed
action with no
increase from current operations. The proposed facilities are expected to be in service at least
twenty
years. Other uses may be found for these facilities following the use under the proposed action,
however
those are outside the scope of this document. Eventual decommissioning and dismantlement of
the emergency
facilities campus would comply with regulations and procedures which would be in effect at that
time. The
impacts of the operations and post-operations of the proposed action are considered to be
relatively minor.
5.2.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the
Consequences
There would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure expected from
operations or
post-operations of the proposed action.
5.2.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated and the
Consequences
It is expected that only small amounts of nonhazardous solid waste would be generated
during the
operation phase of the proposed action. Once the facilities are decommissioned and dismantled,
typical
demolition waste is expected, and no further waste generation would occur. The demolition
waste generated
would likely be disposed of into existing borrow pits on the Hanford Site. The addition of
demolition waste
into an onsite landfill would be small compared to the expected overall capacity of the future
borrow pits
on the Hanford Site. In addition, other facilities would be expected to have adequate capacity to
accept
all other waste volumes from the proposed action. All nonhazardous waste would be disposed in
accordance
with applicable requirements. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be
small.
5.2.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated and the
Consequences
Small amounts of potential hazardous waste (e.g., waste oil and/or cleaning agents), that
are
expected to be generated during operation would be managed and disposed of in accordance with
applicable
federal and state regulations. No hazardous or dangerous waste is expected to be generated
during post-operation. Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is expected to be
minimal compared to annual
Hanford Site waste generation. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are not expected to
be
consequential.
5.2.7 Hazardous Substances Present and the Consequences
Cleaning solvents and other typical chemicals used in servicing internal combustion
engines may be
present during operation. In addition, fire fighting chemicals such as approximately 3800 liters
(1000
gallons) of fire retardant foam and 3400 liters (900 gallons) of fire extinguisher chemicals on fire
trucks
would be present during operation. These substances would be removed from the facilities
following post-operation. Potential impacts to the environment would be minimized through
strict compliance with the
applicable regulatory requirements for handling and disposing of such materials. Due to the small
quantities of these materials, the effects of the proposed action are not expected to be
consequential.
5.2.8 Any Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas and the
Consequences
There would be no disturbance to previously undeveloped areas during operation and
post-operation.
5.2.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable
Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, etc.)
would occur for
short periods during the operation and post-operation phases of the proposed action. The amount
of
consumption is minimal; therefore, these impacts to the environment are not expected to be
consequential.
5.2.10 Effects on Cultural Resources
There would be no effects on cultural resources during operations and post-operations of
the proposed
action.
5.2.11 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered Species
No Federal or State listed, proposed, candidate, threatened, or endangered species are
expected to be
effected by the operation and post-operation of the proposed action.
5.2.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland
The proposed action is outside any floodplains and wetlands.
5.2.13 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal
Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area
The proposed action is outside any Wild and Scenic River corridor, state or federal
wildlife refuge,
or specially designated area.
5.2.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the
Effects
A reasonably foreseeable accident considered during operation would be the collision of a
fire truck
and another vehicle at the entrance of the emergency campus and Route Three. Traffic is
controlled by a
traffic signal whenever emergency vehicles are entering or leaving the facility. This control would
reduce
the chance of an accident to an acceptable level of risk.
Hazards common to demolition projects would exist in the post-operation phase of the
proposed
project. The post-operation would be conducted in conformance with recognized safety codes
and regulations
to ensure a safe working environment. Public health and safety would not be affected because the
area is
closed to the general public.
5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS. Description of socioeconomic impacts that would result from the proposed
action.
Based on a fixed price contract, utilizing a crew size of between 10 and 30 operating for a
period of
about 31 months, the contractor would bring a construction management team and then hire the
construction
craft personnel from the local area. The existing operating crew at the 200 Area Fire Station has
come from
other locations on the Hanford Site, with no additional newly hired personnel. In a community of
over
165,000 persons with a workforce in excess of 10,000 persons at the Hanford Site, the
socioeconomic impacts
of this proposed action would be expected to be small. There would be no discernible impact to
employment
levels within Benton and Franklin counties.
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. Description of environmental justice impacts that would result from the
proposed action.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that federal agencies identify and
address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or socioeconomic effects of their
programs and
activities on minority and low-income populations. Minority populations and low income
populations are
present near the Hanford Site (PNNL 1996a). DOE is in the process of developing official
guidance on the
implementation of the Executive Order. The analysis of the impacts in this EA indicates that there
would be
minimal impacts to both the offsite population and potential workforce by implementing the
proposed action,
because the entire proposed action would occur on the Hanford Site with minimal construction
craft personnel
temporarily hired and the offsite environmental impacts from the proposed action analyzed in this
EA are
expected to be minimal. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any disproportionate
impacts to
any minority or low-income portion of the community.
5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. Description of the cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed
action.
In analyzing the cumulative impacts, only one area would disturb previously undisturbed
habitat in
the Hanford Site ecosystem. However, measures have been made to minimize the area. Half of
the sanitary
water supply pipeline corridor would disturb approximately 0.59 hectares
(1.45 acres) of previously
undisturbed habitat. However, all of the sanitary water supply pipeline corridor as well as the
sewer
pipeline corridor, totalling approximately 2.65 hectares (6.54 acres), would be covered and
returned to
grade level and hydroseeded with native species following installation.
Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is not expected to be substantial
compared to
annual Hanford Site waste generation. For example, small quantities of low-concentration
hazardous waste
(e.g., solvents or cleaning agents) could be generated as a result of performing the proposed
activities.
These materials would be managed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable
federal and state
regulations. Disposal of wastes as a result of the proposed action would not substantially effect
any
associated disposal sites.
Because the proposed action would involve few construction craft personnel temporarily
hired from
offsite and no new operating personnel at the 200 Area Fire Station would be hired, no substantial
change is
expected in the overall workforce of the Hanford Site or within Benton and Franklin counties.
No adverse
socioeconomic impacts or any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income portion of
the community
are anticipated. The potential impacts from the proposed action are not expected to contribute
substantially to the cumulative impacts of operations on the Hanford Site.
5.6 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives and the No Action Alternative are discussed in the following sections.
5.6.1 Implementation of the No Action Alternative. Qualitative discussion on impacts that would result from
implementation of the no action alternative.
The No Action Alternative would involve continuing operations with the existing
operations, training,
and support facilities. NFPA codes and standards would not be met. Property and the
surrounding environs
would continue to be at a higher fire risk. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the primary
purpose
and need for DOE action, to comply with required NFPA, DOE Orders, RL Directives, and
OSHA standards, and to
protect DOE property, human health, and the environment.
5.6.2 Implementation of Alternatives. Qualitative discussion on impacts that would result from implementation
of alternatives.
The alternative sewer system would take out approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres)
of mostly
undisturbed sagebrush habitat and would create a new soil discharge source. In addition, this
alternative
would cost about twice as much to construct compared to the proposed action.
The sanitary water pipeline corridor route that originally was surveyed to support the
proposed
action would be approximately six meters (20 feet) wide and run 1.93 kilometers (1.2 miles long)
disturbing
approximately 1.18 hectares (2.91 acres) of previously undisturbed sagebrush habitat, which is
approximately
twice the habitat disturbance of the proposed action.
Impacts from using a direct sanitary water pipeline corridor route alternative would make
the line
approximately 271 meters (888 feet) shorter, thus reducing construction costs. However, the
shorter line
route would bisect and disturb approximately 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) of previously
undisturbed sagebrush
habitat, which is more than twice the habitat disturbance of the proposed action.
In the west site alternative for the 200 Area Fire Station, approximately
0.84 hectares (2.08 acres)
more of previously undisturbed sagebrush habitat disturbances would occur, cost an additional $2
million,
and take an extra year to year and a half to complete compared to the preferred alternative.
Under the east 200 Area Fire Station site alternative, habitat disturbances would be
greater than
that for the west site alternative due to rerouting electrical and telecommunication lines and
additional
excavations for the water lines, and would result in greater construction cost.
In the north 200 Area Fire Station site alternative, impacts would be greater than the
proposed
action due to relocation or removal of portions of the existing 200 East/West Steam Line to
accommodate this
site. Locating at this site would adversely impact ongoing meteorological studies conducted by
the PNNL
Atmospheric Sciences Department. This site is in close proximity of the 100 meter
(328 feet) meteorology
tower. In addition, the electrical and water utility lines would have to be extended across Route 3
to
reach the site.
Under the utilization of offsite emergency response personnel alternative, impacts would
be greatly
reduced because no construction would be required. However, emergency response time for
offsite personnel
does not meet response time requirements.
It is the policy of RL to carry out its operations in compliance with all applicable
federal, state,
and local laws and regulations, Presidential Executive Orders, and DOE Orders, and RL
Directives. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and standards are followed as a matter of
RL policy. All
construction and modification activities would follow approved procedures and requirements as
directed in 29
CFR 1910 and 29 CFR 1926 (OSHA). The cooperative agreement in the Tri-Cities
Fire Mutual Aid Plan
states that the Hanford Fire Department will provide effective emergency response on the
Hanford Site and in
the Tri-Cities area. The State of Washington Department of Health would be notified before the
proposed
sewer system pipeline would tie into the existing permitted 2607-EP Septic Tank System per
WAC 246-272. A
limited discharge permit would be submitted to the State of Washington Department of Ecology
per WAC 173-216
prior to hydro testing the sanitary water pipeline. The proposed action would follow pollution
prevention
requirements under Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with Right-To-Know
Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements. Environmental regulatory authority over the
Hanford Site is vested
in federal agencies and in Washington State agencies. The proposed actions would comply with
all of these
and other environmental requirements in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency
while
handling, recycling, salvaging, and disposing of all materials, including small amounts of
hazardous
substances and materials, nonhazardous materials, as well as disposal of demolition wastes, as
applicable.
Tribes, government agencies, and other interested parties consulted during
the preparation of this document.
Concerns expressed by the Yakama Indian Nation (see Appendix C) were incorporated
into preparation of
this EA.
RL consulted with the SHPO in the preparation of this EA (see Appendix B).
Prior to approval of this
EA, a draft version was sent to the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian
Reservation, the Wanapum, the Yakama Indian Nation, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,
Washington State, Benton County, and Physicians for Social Responsibility for a 20 day review
period.
A letter was received from Benton County documenting review of the EA, but raising no
comment (see
Appendix C). No other formal responses to the draft EA were received.
10 CFR 1021, DOE "National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Procedures".
29 CFR 1910, "Occupational and Safety Health Administration".
29 CFR 1926, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction".
40 CFR 61, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants".
40 CFR 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality "Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act".
50 CFR 17, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants".
DOE/RL-96-77, August 1996, Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Department
of Energy, Richland
Operations Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State
Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, Deactivation, Alteration, and Demolition
of the Built Environment on the Hanford Site, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy,
Richland, WA
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 - 1543,
et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.
NPS, 1995, The National Register of Historical Places, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of
Interior, Washington, D.C.
PNNL, 1996a, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar
Year 1995, PNNL-11139, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
PNNL, 1996b, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Characterization, PNNL-6415,
Rev. 8, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
WAC 173-216, "State Discharge Permit Program".
WAC 246-272, "On-Site Sewage Systems".
WHC, 1993a, Functional Design Criteria 200 Area Replacement Fire
Station, WHC-SD-L094-FDC-001,
Rev. 1, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.
WHC, 1993b, Site Evaluation Report 200 Area Replacement Fire
Station, WHC-SD-L094-SE-002, Rev. 0,
Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.
WHC, 1996, Hanford Site Emergency Response Needs,
WHC-SP-1180, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company,
Richland, Washington.
PNNL Letter Supplemental Biolgical Review of the 200 Area Emergency Campus,
600 Area
PNNL Letter Survey Narrative for the 200 Area Emergency Facilities
Campus
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nationa Letter Comment to
Proposed 200A Emergency Facilities Campus
Benton County Planning/Building Department Letter Draft National Environmental
Policy Act for the 200 Area Emergency Facilities Campus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND METRIC CONVERSION CHART
5.1.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters and the
Consequences
5.1.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air and the
Consequences
5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the
Consequences
5.1.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated and the Consequences
5.1.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences
5.1.7 Hazardous Substances Present and the Consequences
5.1.8 Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas and the
Consequences
5.1.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
5.1.10 Effects on Cultural Resources
5.1.11 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered Species
5.1.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland
5.1.13 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife
Refuge, or Specially Designated Area
5.1.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the
Effects
5.2 OPERATION AND POST-OPERATION PHASE
5.2.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters and the
Consequences
5.2.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air and the
Consequences
5.2.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the
Consequences
5.2.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated and the Consequences
5.2.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences
5.2.7 Hazardous Substances Present and the Consequences
5.2.8 Any Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas and the
Consequences
5.2.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
5.2.10 Effects on Cultural Resources
5.2.11 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered Species
5.2.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland
5.2.13 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife
Refuge, or Specially Designated Area
5.2.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the
Effects
5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS
5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
5.6 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES
APPENDICES
B CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE
C COMMENTS/CONCERNS ON THE 200 AREA EMERGENCY
FACILITIES CAMPUS EA
LIST OF FIGURES
2 600 Area Septic System Replacement Map
3 200 Area Fire Protection Water Tie-In Map
4 200 Emergency Facility Map
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR
ACTION
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION
Sewer System Upgrade
March 1997 through September 1997
Fire Protection Water Upgrade
March 1997 through September 1997
Emergency Services Headquarters
July 1997 through June 1998
Vehicle Storage Area
October 1997 through September 1998
Renovate 609A/C Building
July 1998 through December 1999
Figure 2. 600 Area Septic Tank
Replacement.
Figure 3. 200 Area Fire Protection Tie-
In.
Figure 4. 200 Area Emergency Facility
Map.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
ACTION
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
7.0 ORGANIZATIONS
CONSULTED
8.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
[Hanford Home Page] [EA-1182 Index] [Finding of No Significant Impact]
For questions or comments about this document, please send email to W. A. Rutherford
Document Number: DOE/EA-1182
URL: http://www.hanford.gov/docs/ea/ea1182/ea1182.htm
