ML17284A746: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:DOE/EA-1259 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (SUPPLY SYSTEM)SUBLEASE FOR THE , ALUMINUIVI SIVIELTER PLANT U.S.DEPARTHEHT OF ENERGY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON AUGUST 1998 9809ii0077 9808i9 PDR ADGCK 05000397.P PDR  
{{#Wiki_filter:DOE/EA-1259 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (SUPPLY SYSTEM)
SUBLEASE FOR THE
                    , ALUMINUIVISIVIELTER PLANT U.S. DEPARTHEHT OF ENERGY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON AUGUST 1998 9809ii0077 9808i9 PDR ADGCK 05000397.
P               PDR


U;S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Preface PREFACE This environmental assessment (EA)has been prepared to assess potential environmental impacts.associated with the U.S.Department of Energy's (DOE)Proposed Action of approving-a sublease/transfer by the Mashington Public Power Supply System (Supply System)to a company that would construct and operate a large'aluminum smelter plant'on the subleased/transferred property., The Supply System leases the property from DOE for the generation of commercial nuclear power.Any sublease/transfer of the Supply System leased property for any purposes must be approved by DOE.Approval of the sublease/transfer would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail line.Information contained herein will be used by the U.S.Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, to determine if the Proposed Action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
DOE/EA-1259 U;S. Department   of Ener y                                                 Preface PREFACE This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to assess potential environmental impacts .associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
If the impacts of the Proposed Action are determined to be major and significant, an environmental impact statement would be prepared.If the impacts'f the Proposed Action are determined not to be major and significant, a Finding of No Significant Imp~t would.be.issued and the action could proceed.Criteria used to evaluate sig'nificance can be found in Title 40,.Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)1508.27.This EA is prepared in compliance with the National Environs nial Policy Act (HEPA)of 1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental guality (CEg)Regulations for, Implementing the Procedural Provisions of HEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the U.S.Department of Energy Implementing Procedures for HEPA (10 CFR 1021).The following is a description of each section of the EA.1.0 Purpose and Heed for Action.This section provides a brief statement concerning the problem or opportunity the U.S.Department of Energy is addressing with the Proposed Action.Background information is provided.2.0 Description of the Proposed Action.A description of the Proposed Action with sufficient.detail to identify potential environmental impacts is provided.3.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action..This section describes reasonable alternative actions to the Proposed Action, which would address the Purpose and Need.A no action alternative, as required by 10 CFR 1021,.also is described.
Proposed Action of approving- a sublease/transfer by the Mashington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) to a company that would construct and operate a large 'aluminum smelter plant'on the subleased/transferred property.,
4.0 Affected Environment.
The Supply System leases the property from DOE for the generation of commercial nuclear power. Any sublease/transfer of the Supply System leased property for any purposes must be approved by DOE. Approval of the sublease/transfer would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail line. Information contained herein will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, to determine     if the Proposed Action is a major federal action significantly affecting     the   quality of the human environment. If the impacts of the Proposed Action are determined to be major and significant, an environmental impact statement would be prepared. If the impacts'f the Proposed Action are determined not to be major and significant, a Finding of No Significant Imp~t would. be .
This section provides.a brief description of the locale in which the Proposed Action takes place.5.0 Environmental Impacts.The range of environmental impacts, beneficial' and adverse, of the Proposed Action are described in this section.Impacts of alternatives are briefly discussed.
issued and the action could proceed.     Criteria used to evaluate sig'nificance can be found in Title 40,. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27.
6.0 Permits and Regulatory Requirements.
This EA is prepared in compliance with   the National Environs nial Policy Act (HEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council     on Environmental guality (CEg)
This section provides a brief description of permits and regulatory.requirements for the Proposed Acti.on.Draft Environmental Assessment P-1 August 1998  
Regulations for, Implementing the Procedural   Provisions of HEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the U.S. Department     of Energy Implementing Procedures for HEPA (10 CFR 1021). The following is a     description of each section of the EA.
1.0   Purpose and Heed for Action. This section provides a brief statement concerning the problem or opportunity the U.S. Department of Energy is addressing with the Proposed Action. Background information is provided.
2.0   Description of the Proposed Action. A description of the Proposed Action with sufficient .detail to identify potential environmental impacts is provided.
3.0   Alternatives to the Proposed Action. .This section describes reasonable alternative actions to the Proposed Action, which would address the Purpose and Need. A no action alternative, as required by 10 CFR 1021,
    .also is described.
4.0   Affected Environment. This section provides .a brief description of the locale in which the Proposed Action takes place.
5.0   Environmental Impacts. The range of environmental impacts, beneficial' and adverse, of the Proposed Action are described in this section.
Impacts of alternatives are briefly discussed.
6.0   Permits and Regulatory Requirements. This section provides a brief description of permits and regulatory .requirements for the Proposed Acti.on.
Draft Environmental Assessment           P-1                           August 1998


U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Glossary and Unit Conversion Chart Acronyms AAQS AC BACT BPA Btu CFR CO DC DOE EA Ecology EIS ESA kY HACT NM HAAQS PHNL PSD RL SO TAks TSP MAC WNP MPPSS GLOSSARY Ambient Air Quality Standards (federal or state)alternating current best available control technology Bonneville Power Administration (DOE)British thermal units Code of Federal Regulations carbon monoxide direct current U.S.Department of Energy environmental assessment State of Washington Department of Ecology environmental impact statement Endangered Species.Act of l973 kilovolts maximum achievable control technology megawat'ts National Ambient Air Quality Standards'acific Northwest National Laboratory (formerly PNL)Prevention of Significant Deterioration U.S.Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office sulfur dioxide toxic air pollutants total suspended particulates Washington Administrative Code Washington Nuclear Plant.Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System)UNIT COHVERSIOH CHART.Into.metric units Out of metric units If you know HultiPly by Length To get If you know'p y To get by Length miles square miles 1.61 Area 2.59 kilometers squar e kilometers square-kilometers 0.'39 ki 1 ometers 0.62 Area mil es square miles square.feet acres 2.296 x 10 0.404 Yolume acres hectares acres'hectares 4.36 x 1P4 2.47 Yolume square feet acres allons Fahrenheit subtract Celsius 32 then multiply ,by 5/9ths cubic feet 7.48 Tem erature allons Celsius 0.13 Temperature multiply by 9/Sths, then add 32 cubic feet Fahrenheit Draft Environmental Assessment Gl<-1 August 1998  
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                               Glossary and Unit Conversion Chart GLOSSARY Acronyms AAQS           Ambient   Air Quality   Standards     (federal or state)
AC            alternating current BACT          best available control technology BPA            Bonneville Power Administration (DOE)
Btu            British thermal units CFR            Code   of Federal Regulations CO            carbon monoxide DC            direct current DOE            U.S. Department     of Energy EA            environmental assessment Ecology        State of Washington Department of Ecology EIS            environmental impact statement ESA            Endangered Species.Act of l973 kY            kilovolts HACT          maximum   achievable control technology NM            megawat'ts HAAQS          National Ambient Air Quality Standards PHNL                      Northwest National Laboratory (formerly PNL)
                                                                'acific PSD            Prevention of Significant Deterioration RL            U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office SO            sulfur dioxide TAks          toxic air pollutants TSP            total suspended particulates MAC          Washington Administrative Code WNP          Washington Nuclear Plant .
MPPSS        Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System)
UNIT COHVERSIOH CHART.
Into. metric units                               Out       of metric units If you know HultiPly       To   get         If you   know               'p y   To get by                                                     by Length                                                Length miles             1.61         kilometers        ki 1 ometers          0. 62      mil es Area                                                 Area square          2.59         squar e           square               0.'39       square miles                          kilometers        -kilometers                        miles square. feet     2.296 x       acres              acres                4.36 x      square 10                                                     1P4        feet acres            0.404         hectares         'hectares             2.47       acres Yolume                                                Yolume cubic feet       7.48           allons            allons               0.13       cubic feet Tem    erature                                          Temperature Fahrenheit      subtract      Celsius            Celsius              multiply   Fahrenheit 32 then                                                by multiply                                              9/Sths,
                  ,by  5/9ths                                            then add 32 Draft Environmental Assessment               Gl<-1                                   August 1998


U.S.De artment of Ener y , DOE/EA-)259
                                                                                  '          , DOE/EA-)259 U.S. De   artment of Ener y                                                           Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS P-1 PREFACE   .   . . . .   .   .         . . . .         -
'Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE........'.....-~''~~~~~~P-1 GLOSSARY AND METRIC CONVERSION CHART........."........Gt't-)''1.0 ,PURPOSE AND NEED FOR'ACTION lol, PURPOSE AND HEED o~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~"~~~~~~~).2 BACKGROUND
                                        .                       ~                     ~   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
GLOSSARY AND METRIC CONVERSION CHART                                                                   Gt't-)
''1.0 ,PURPOSE AND NEED FOR 'ACTION                                                                     l-l lol,   PURPOSE AND HEED             o         ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~   ~   o ~ ~   ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-1 l-l
                                                ~ ~ ~
        ).2 BACKGROUND 2.0  DESCRIPTIOH OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .                                                              2-1 2.1      PROPOSED        TIMING .                                                                2-5
: 2. 2    ALUMIHUM St1ELTER IHFORt'IATION                                                          2-5 2.3      ENVIRONMENTAL It<FORHATIOH .                                                            2-7 3.0    ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION                                                              3-1 3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .                                                                      3-1 3.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT SITES                                                        3-1 3.2.1        Alternate      Aluminum Smelter Plant on the Hariford            Site      3-1 3.2.2        Alternate      Aluminum Smelter Plants at Hon-Hanford Sites      .                                                  3-1 4.0    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .                                                                            4-.1
: 4. 1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMEHT                                                            4-1 4.2    SPECIFIC SITE EHVIRONt4Et<T.....*.                                                        4-2 4.2. 1 Soils and Subsurface .                                                            4-2 4.2.2 Hydrology                                                                          4-3 4.2.3 Air Resources                                                                      4-3 4.2.4 Endangered Species .                                                              4-7 4.2.5 Plants and Animals .                                                              4-7 4.2.6 Cultural Resources . . . . .                                                      4-7 5.0    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS              '.                                                            5-1 5.1    CONSTRUCTION AHD OPERATION                                                              5-1 5.).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                                                      5-2 5.1.4    'adionuclide            Releases  or Direct Radiation Exposure          and the Consequences                                                          5-4 5.1.5 'ondangerous              Solid Waste Generated and the
                            , Consequences 5.1.6        Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences                                                              5-6
              '5. 1.7        Consumption or Commitment of Resources                                    5-6 S. 1.8        Effects on Cultural Resources .                                            5-6
: 5. 1.9        Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endahgered Species .                              5-7 S. 1. 10      Effects  on any    Floodplain or Wetland                                5-7 5.1. 11      Effects  on any    Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated              Area .              5-7 Draft Environmental Assessment                          TC-1                                  August )998


==2.0 DESCRIPTIOH==
DOE/EA-1259 "U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                                                    Table of Contents 5.2 5.1.12      Reasonably Foreseeable Potential Effects SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS .
OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.2.1 PROPOSED TIMING.2.2 ALUMIHUM St1ELTER IHFORt'IATION
Accidents Consider'ed and the
                                                                        .   . .                                              ~
5-9 5.3    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS .                                                                              5-9 5.4    CUMULATIVE IMPACTS                                                                                            5-9 5.5    IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES .                                                                              . 5-11 5.5.1       Implementation of the No                      Action Alternative                            . 5-11 5;5.2 'mplementation of Alternate Site                                                                  . 5-11 6.0    PERMITS AND REGULATORY RE(UIREMENTS                                                        ~  ~    ~                6-1 7.0    ORGANiZATIONS CONSULTED                                                                                ~  ~    ~    7


===2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL===
==8.0    REFERENCES==
It<FORHATIOH
      .                                                                         ~  ~    ~  ~  ~          8  1 APPENDICES A      BIOLOGICAL,RESOURCES REVIEWS .                                                                               APP A-1 B    CULTURAL RESOURCES          REVIEMS .                                                                       APP B-1 C      SUPPLY SYSTEM HATER RIGHTS AND RIVER REPORT                                                                  APP C-1 Dl    BACT/HACT PROTOCOL .                                                                                   . APP D1-1 D2    MODELING PROTOCOL                                                                                      ;  APP D2-1 D3    ESTIMATING AIR (UALITY IMPACTS USING THE INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX MODEL          . .   ...     . . .
.3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1
.3.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT SITES 3.2.1 Alternate Aluminum Smelter Plant on the Hariford Site 3.2.2 Alternate Aluminum Smelter Plants at Hon-Hanford Sites.4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
                                                        .-.     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APP D3-1 FIGURES Hanford Site Hap          .                                                               e  ~  ~
.4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMEHT 4.2 SPECIFIC SITE EHVIRONt4Et<T.....*.
                                                                                                        '    ~  ~    ~  w1',
4.2.1 Soils and Subsurface
I..
.4.2.2 Hydrology 4.2.3 Air Resources 4.2.4 Endangered Species.4.2.5 Plants and Animals.4.2.6 Cultural Resources.....5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS'.5.1 CONSTRUCTION AHD OPERATION 5.).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'adionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the Consequences 5.1.5'ondangerous Solid Waste Generated and the , Consequences 5.1.6 Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences
2 Southern Hanford          Site Rail Line              and Pro'posed        Natural  Gas Pipeline      Hap .                                                                       ~  ~  o    ~  ~  ~    ~
'5.1.7 Consumption or Commitment of Resources S.1.8 Effects on Cultural Resources.5.1.9 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endahgered Species.S.1.10 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland 5.1.11 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area.l-l 1-1 l-l 2-1 2-5 2-5 2-7 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 4-.1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-3 4-7 4-7 4-7 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-4 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-7 5-7 5-7 Draft Environmental Assessment TC-1 August)998 "U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Table of Contents 5.1.12 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Consider'ed Potential Effects..''....5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.5 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES
                                                                                                                            '1 3 3    Proposed     Siting for      Aluminum Smelter Plant                      .               ~  ~  ~    0  ~  ~    ~    2 2 TABLES
.5.5.1 Implementation of the No Action Alternative 5;5.2'mplementation of Alternate Site and the~5-9 5-9 5-9.5-11.5-11.5-11 6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY RE(UIREMENTS
                                        ~    ~
1   Resource      Estimates for Aluminum Smelter Plant'                                                                    2-3 Limits for Host Restrictive NAAgS and PSD Standards                                                                    4-4 3   Qashington State Fluoride Standards                                                                                    4-5 4   Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant                                                                                                          4-6 5   Projected Haximum Poilu'tant Emission Rates and Annual Emission Total s    ~  ~ ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~    ~  ~  ~ ~    ~  ~      ~  ~  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                                                                            ~ ~ ~  ~
                                          ~,
          ~  ~  ~ ~
Draft Environmental 'Assessment                         =
TC-2                                          August 1998


==7.0 ORGANiZATIONS==
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department  of  Ener y                                        Pur ose and-Seed      for Action 1.0     PURPOSE AND HEED FOR ACTION The  fo'llowing sections describe the purpose and need and provide background  information concerning this environmental assessment (EA).
CONSULTED
I 1.1  PURPOSE AND NEED.      The  vnderlying pvrpose and need for the agency to take the Proposed Action.
The U.S. Department      of Energy (DOE); Richland Operations Office (RL) needs  to consider  a  request from the Mashi.ngton Public Power Supply System (Supply System) for approval of a sublease from the Supply System, or transfer of fee simple title from DOE, for construction an'd operation of an aluminum smelter plant (Figure 1). The Supply System leases the property from RL and any sublease/transfer      requires RL approval. In the event of fee title transfer, assets transferred would include both the aluminum smelter plant site and appropriate infrastructure. The construction and operation of the aluminum smelter plant would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system (Figure 2).
1.2  8ACKGROUND. BACKGROUND  inforaation on  ihe pvrpose and need, that ted to the need for action.
In response to a request from the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) for business recruitment, the Supply System offered either of two 60 hectare (150 acre) sites of their 404 h'ectares (1,000 acres) of property leased from DOE to attract a commercial aluminum company to locate in the Tri-City area. A commercial aluminum 'company screened a                    list  of potential Tri-City area sites provided by TRIDEC to the two locations submitted by the As part of granting a sublease or transfer'ction, DOE                                'upply-System.
requires evaluation of potential impacts of the proposal under the Ii(ational Environmental Policy Act of l969 (HEPA).
.Draft Environmental Assessment                                                            August 1998


==8.0 REFERENCES==
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De    artment of Ener y                                                          Pur ose and Need            for Action Washington State To Nattaw(
24
                                          .f'          100 SCt 0 and Anat
                                        ~
100 tt              I 1
                                      ~
100 tt                Ana'
                          ..f'100          100 KW B      ~ nd KB
                                                                                                  '1 Q'dwey
                )  ubetal We et Area      200    Area US Eoofagy                Proposed Action
                                                                                                      ~
e
                                                                                                          ~
Waehlnttton Pubtto Power Supply Syeleln e
ttentoret Site Sound cry 400 Area lretn Re plde 000 Area 0  '                NI40 0         ~  Kftwn~
ittchta nd 700 Area Figure 1.            Hanford Site.
Draft Environmental Assessment                                      1-2                                          August 1998 P


.~~~6-1~~~7~~~~~'8 1 APPENDICES A BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES REVIEWS.B CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEMS.C SUPPLY SYSTEM HATER RIGHTS AND RIVER REPORT Dl BACT/HACT PROTOCOL.D2 MODELING PROTOCOL APP A-1 APP B-1 APP C-1.APP D1-1;APP D2-1 D3 ESTIMATING AIR (UALITY IMPACTS USING THE INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX MODEL.........-.................APP D3-1 1 FIGURES 3 Hanford Site Hap.Southern Hanford Site Rail Line and Pro'posed Natural Gas Pipeline Hap.Proposed Siting for Aluminum Smelter Plant.e~~'~~~w1', 2 I..~~o~~~~'1 3~~~0~~~2 2 TABLES~~1 Resource Estimates for Aluminum Smelter Plant'Limits for Host Restrictive NAAgS and PSD Standards 3 Qashington State Fluoride Standards 4 Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant 5 Projected Haximum Poilu'tant Emission Rates and Annual Emission T otal s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~'~~~~2-3 4-4 4-5 4-6~,~~~~Draft Environmental
li
'Assessment
                      ~ 0 ~ I ~    ~
=TC-2 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Pur ose and-Seed for Action1.0 PURPOSE AND HEED FOR ACTION The fo'llowing sections describe the purpose and need and provide background information concerning this environmental assessment (EA).I 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED.The vnderlying pvrpose and need for the agency to take the Proposed Action.The U.S.Department of Energy (DOE);Richland Operations Office (RL)needs to consider a request from the Mashi.ngton Public Power Supply System (Supply System)for approval of a sublease from the Supply System, or transfer of fee simple title from DOE, for construction an'd operation of an aluminum smelter plant (Figure 1).The Supply System leases the property from RL and any sublease/transfer requires RL approval.In the event of fee title transfer, assets transferred would include both the aluminum smelter plant site and appropriate infrastructure.
            ~ ~ ~
The construction and operation of the aluminum smelter plant would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system (Figure 2).1.2 8ACKGROUND.
raif
BACKGROUND inforaation on ihe pvrpose and need, that ted to the need for action.In response to a request from the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC)for business recruitment, the Supply System offered either of two 60 hectare (150 acre)sites of their 404 h'ectares (1,000 acres)of property leased from DOE to attract a commercial aluminum company to locate in the Tri-City area.A commercial aluminum'company screened a list of potential Tri-City area sites provided by TRIDEC to the two locations submitted by the'upply-System.
        ~ I I ~ ~ ~
As part of granting a sublease or transfer'ction, DOE requires evaluation of potential impacts of the proposal under the Ii(ational Environmental Policy Act of l969 (HEPA)..Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Pur ose and Need for Action Washington State To Nattaw(100 0 and SCt Anat 100 tt 100 KW~nd KB.f'~1~..f'100 B 24 100 tt I Ana''1)Q'dwey ubetal ttentoret Site Sound cry We et Area 200 Area US Eoofagy Proposed Action~~e Waehlnttton Pubtto Power Supply Syeleln e 400 Area lretn Re plde 0'NI40 0~Kftwn~000 Area it tchta nd 700 Area Figure 1.Hanford Site.Draft Environmental Assessment P 1-2 August 1998 li~0~I~~~~~raif~I I~~~~~~~~
                                ~   ~ ~ ~
U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Description of the Pro osed Action 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Following RL approval of the proposed sublease/transfer, the Supply System would offer to a commercial aluminum company a long-term sublease or fee simple transfer df either one of two 60 hectare (150 acre)sites for siting, construction, and operation of a new aTuminum smelter plant (Figure 3).-Both sites are on the Supply System's 404 hectares (l,000 acres)industrial site located at-the unfinished Washington Nuclear Plants-1 and-4~(WHP-I/O)site on the Hanford Site about 1.6 kilometers (I mile)east of the WHP-2.The Preferred Alternative would occur adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished WHP-'4..According to the Supply System's records, the area is environmentally clean, radiation free, and has highway and railroad access, , water wells, waste water treatment facilities, and 230 kilovolts (kV)electrical power service from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)Ashe substation located adjacent to the site.Extension of the existing Supply System infrastructure, utilities, railroad, and other services to the aluminum smelter plant would be provided by the Supply.System with assistance from Benton County.The sublease/transfer also includes the WHP-4 Containment Building and General Services Building structures for potential storage of raw alumina, spent potliners, and/or other uses.These two buildings would be surveyed for the presence of any endangered or threatened species prior to use..The long-term sublease or transfer would be contingent upon approval by RL, SPA, and the Supply System Executive Board.If the initial aluminum company'fails to take the Supply System sublease/transfer offer, the Supply System could offer a sublease/transfer to another aluminum company.The ,Supply System's current Official Statement'of the estimated cost of site restoration for WHP-I and WHP-4 are S46 million and$30 million, respectively.
                                    ~
BPA could realize resource conservation cost savings by avoiding annual maintenance and eventual removal costs of those two facilities.
 
The initial construction phase of the Proposed Action would build a 60-to 75-thousand (K)metric ton per year capacity aluminum smelter plant over an 18 month to 2 year period.This plant would be termed as a prebake aluminum smeltet (bringing in prebaked anodes), and would initially employ approximately I25 employees.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                          Description of the Pro osed Action
If market demand for aluminum is adequate, tge.Proposed Action would include expansion of the aluminum smelter after initial construction to about a 120K-to 150K-metric ton plant that would include an anode bake production shop (making anodes).If the market demand continues to warrant further expansion, the capacity of the proposed aluminum smelter plant could expand to a 300K metric ton plant, with 600 to 1,000 employees The building height would be approximately 15 meters (50 feet)with prefabricated steel sheeting for the exterior with the color to blend in with the environment.
 
Stacks and towers would be approximately 40 meter s (I30 feet)high.Initially, 75 parking spaces (three shifts)would be needed.At full production, 350 parking spaces (three shifts)would be needed;.The Supply System site currently is served by Ben Franklin Transit.All minor road and railroad extensions to service the Proposed Action would occur within the existing Supply System site.Construction time of the large, plant would take about the same.amount of time as initial construction.
==2.0    DESCRIPTION==
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-1 August 1998 I U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Description of the'roposed Action.P)opeood Silo Kl~f J I l Oi(I tK)O~4\L:.';I~1lJ)~)tt t CI~~~~y~~i~is'I~~I I A((emote Sile~&0 4C k AN h Figure 3.Proposed Siting for Aluminum Smelter Plant.Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Description of the Pro osed Action k The proposed aluminum smelter plant would include the following elements: A single potline consisting of 120 prebake redu'ction cells (60K-metri.c ton capacity)An alumina offloading, handling and storage system including a 40K metric ton storage silo and suction unloader Fume treatment equipment to ensure that gaseous emissions produced by the reduction cells meet applicable regulatory requirement levels A complete anode bake production shop An electrical substation (supplied by BPA)for transforming the incoming 220 kV alternating current (AC)supply down to a variable direct current.(DC)voltage~An administration office including a canteen, showers'nd locker room.~~The.following table (Table 1)estimates resources that may be used annually by the proposed aluminum smelter plant.'able 1.Resource Estimates for Aluminum Smelter Plant Aluminum roduction Alumina consumption Anode.handling Natural as consum tion Electrical consumption Rail car traffic Truck traffic Parkin spaces re uired Em loyment.60K metric tons/year 160K metric tons/year Prebake plant only anodes from offsite 800 metric tons/year 900 gigawatt hours (W-hr/year 42/week 4 to 10/day 75 125 300K metric tons/year 800K metric tons/year Anode bake production sho make anodes 9,700 metric tons/year 4500 gW-hr/year 210/week.20 to 50/day 350 600 to 1,000~g1'Water needed for the proposed'aluminum smelter plant would be made available through the use of the Supply System's existing water rights (Appendix C)of water'usage from the Columbia River for WNP-2.No new construction of water intakes or outfalls would occur at the Columbia River.The Proposed Action would tie-in to the existing 16" diameter pipe off of WHP-2's intake water line from the Columbia River.'he discharge of industrial cooling water from the plant would exit through the existing WHP-1/4 outfall water line back to the river.=If it is determined that the industrial water requires treatment, the commercial al.uminum company would be responsible to treat the water before disposal.Industrial water would be treated in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and permits before any allowable discharge.
OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Following    RL approval of the proposed sublease/transfer,          the Supply System    would  offer to  a  commercial    aluminum  company    a long-term  sublease or fee simple transfer df either one of two 60 hectare (150 acre) sites for siting, construction,      and   operation of a new aTuminum smelter plant (Figure 3).   -
Sanitary wastes would be disposed to the existing, permitted Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System.Draft Environmental Assessment 2-3 August 1998 U.S.Department of fner y DOE/EA-1259 Description of the Pro osed Action The primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to as dross.Dross is furnace slag which consists of aluminum metal and ,aluminum oxide that floats,and has recycle value.The rate of dross generation is about 0'%to]N of the plant's primary metal production.
Both sites are    on the Supply System's 404 hectares (l,000 acres) industrial site located at        -the unfinished Washington Nuclear Plants-1 and -4
Dross would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite for recovery.Cleaning the anodes produces small quantities of nondangerous solids, a fine carbon powder called blowdown, which consists of about 50&#xc3;sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50K fine carbon.Blowdown material would be~collected and sent offsite for disposal.All nondangerous waste would be disposed of offsite in accordance with applicable requirements.
  ~
Small quantities of dangerous waste such as batteries would be generated during maintenance activities.
(WHP-I/O) site on the Hanford Site about 1.6 kilometers (I mile) east of the WHP-2. The Preferred Alternative would occur adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished WHP-'4.. According to the Supply System's records, the area is environmentally clean, radiation free, and has highway and railroad access,
It is planned to recycle these materials locally.The largest amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent potlining, consisting of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (fluorides, sodium, and calcium), and 0.5N cyanide.The dangerous waste would be staged before being shipped offsite for treatment an4 disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.
,  water wells, waste water treatment facilities, and 230 kilovolts (kV) electrical power service from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Ashe substation located adjacent to the site. Extension of the existing Supply System infrastructure, utilities, railroad, and other services to the aluminum smelter plant would be provided by the Supply .System with assistance from Benton County. The sublease/transfer also includes the WHP-4 Containment Building and General Services Building structures for potential storage of raw alumina, spent potliners, and/or other uses. These two buildings would be surveyed for the presence of any endangered or threatened species prior to use..
Approval of the sublease/transfer would result in use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system from Horn Rapids Road north to the Supply.System and the proposed aluminum smelter plant.Any modifications to the existing rail line to support the proposed action would occur on, for the most part, previously disturbed RL land leased to the Supply System.To support initial operations, approximately 42 rail cars per week would transport about 160K tons of raw alumina to the..aluminum smelter plant from offsite.This increased rail traffic on the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc., a local food processing company.For the initial phase, freight shipments would involve 4 to 10 trucks entering and leaving the plant each day.Host of the finished product would be transported out by truck, with up to a third of the total sent by rail.At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values.-Because it burns cleanly and efficiently, natural gas would be used as fuel for most of the anode production process (anode baking and anode paste;.mixing), metal.casting, and utility heating.Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800 metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu).At full production that would include an anode bake production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 billion Btu.Delivery of the natural gas to the proposed aluminum smelter boilers, hot water heaters, and furnaces would require installation of an approximately 6 inch diameter, 250 pounds per square inch (psi), main carbon, steel pipeline and a distribution network of approximately 2 inch diameter pipes.The new pipeline would be tied into the existing natural gas main'pipeline near the Cypress Gate at the southwest corner of the 300 Area on the west side of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line (Figure 2).The main pipeline would cross under Route 4 South and the rail line where these intersect, about 1 mile north of the 300 Area.The main pipeline would be on the east side of the rail line corridor and terminate at'the end of the.railroad line inside the Supply System property.The smaller Draft Environmental Assessment 2-4 August.1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y, DOE/EA-1259 Descri tion of the Proposed Action distribution pipeline would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed.areas on leased Supply System property.The main pipeline would be approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles)long, and would parallel and be within the-existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot)wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line in.order to minimize potential impacts to the environment.
The long-term sublease or        transfer would  be  contingent upon approval by RL, SPA, and the Supply System         Executive Board.      If the initial aluminum company'fails to take the Supply System sublease/transfer offer, the Supply System could offer a sublease/transfer to another aluminum company.                 The
The smaller distribution pipelines would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property.A control system would be installed to monitor and control the flow of natural gas.Construction of the pipeline route along the railroad right-of-way and within Supply System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 feet).The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 feet).Excavated material would be stockpiled next'o the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation.
  ,Supply System's current Official Statement 'of the estimated cost of site restoration for WHP-I and WHP-4 are S46 million and $ 30 million, respectively.
The ditch would be bedded.'with approximately 10 centimeters (4 inches)pf sand or.clean, rock-free.
BPA could realize resource conservation cost savings by avoiding annual maintenance      and eventual    removal costs    of those  two  facilities.
dirt.The pipe would be covered with approximately-5 centimeters (2 inches)of sand or rock-free dirt and backfilled with the excavated material.All construction materials would be transported to the work site by common-truck carrier.The materials would be staged in a designated, previously disturbed laydown area.After completion of the construction, the.laydown area would be restored to its former condition and reseeded as appropriate.
The  initial  construction phase of the Proposed Action would build a 60-to 75-thousand (K) metric ton per year capacity aluminum smelter plant over an 18 month to 2 year period.          This plant would be termed as a prebake aluminum smeltet (bringing in prebaked anodes), and would initially employ approximately I25 employees. If market demand for aluminum is adequate, tge.
Proposed Action would include expansion of the aluminum smelter after initial construction to about a 120K- to 150K- metric ton plant that would include an anode bake production shop (making anodes).              If the market demand continues to warrant further expansion, the capacity of the proposed aluminum smelter plant could expand to a 300K metric ton plant, with 600 to 1,000 employees The building height would be approximately 15 meters (50 feet) with prefabricated steel sheeting for the exterior with the color to blend in with the environment. Stacks and towers would be approximately 40 meter s (I30 feet) high. Initially, 75 parking spaces (three shifts) would be needed.
At full production, 350 parking spaces (three shifts) would be needed; . The Supply System site currently is served by Ben Franklin Transit. All minor road and railroad extensions to service the Proposed Action would occur within the existing Supply System site. Construction time of the large, plant would take about the same. amount of time as initial construction.
Draft Environmental        Assessment            2-1                              August 1998 I
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                            Description of the'roposed Action
                                                              . P)opeood Silo Kl
                    ~
fJ I
l Oi(
I tK)O
                                                                                                  ~ 4\
                                                                                    ';I ~
1lJ)
L:.
                                                                    ~y  ~
                                                                    ~ i~is' I
                                                        ~
t
                                                          )tt CI ~       ~~
I I
                                                      ~     ~
A((emote Sile
                                                                                ~ &0 4C k    AN h Figure 3.         Proposed Siting for Aluminum Smelter                      Plant.
Draft Environmental Assessment                                                                  August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                      Description of the Pro       osed Action k
The proposed   aluminum smelter    plant would include the following elements:
A  single potline consisting of        120 prebake              redu'ction cells (60K-metri.c ton capacity)
An  alumina offloading, handling and storage system including                          a 40K  metric ton storage silo and suction unloader Fume treatment equipment to ensure that gaseous emissions produced                            by the reduction cells meet applicable regulatory requirement levels A  complete anode bake production shop An  electrical substation (supplied        by BPA)             for transforming the incoming 220 kV alternating    current    (AC) supply            down  to a variable direct current      .
(DC) voltage
~    An  administration office including        a  canteen,            showers'nd locker      room.
                        ~                                            ~
The. following table (Table 1) estimates resources                        that  may be used annually by the proposed aluminum smelter plant.'able
: 1. Resource    Estimates    for          Aluminum Smelter Plant Aluminum    roduction          60K metric tons/year                        300K metric tons/year Alumina consumption            160K metric tons/year                      800K metric tons/year Anode. handling                Prebake plant only                          Anode bake production anodes from offsite                      sho    make anodes Natural    as consum tion    800 metric tons/year                        9,700 metric tons/year Electrical consumption        900 gigawatt hours                          4500 gW-hr/year
( W-hr /year Rail car traffic              42/week                                      210/week  .
Truck traffic                4  to 10/day                                20  to 50/day Parkin spaces re uired        75                                          350 Em loyment.                  125                                        600  to 1,000
                                  ~                                                                  g1 Water needed  for the   proposed'aluminum smelter plant would be made available through the use of the Supply System's existing water rights (Appendix C) of water 'usage from the Columbia River for WNP-2. No new construction of water intakes or outfalls would occur at the Columbia River.
The Proposed Action would tie-in to the existing 16" diameter pipe off of WHP-2's intake water line from the Columbia River.'he discharge of industrial cooling water from the plant would exit through the existing WHP-1/4 outfall water line back to the river. =If                        it is determined that the industrial water requires treatment, the commercial al.uminum company would be responsible to treat the water before disposal. Industrial water would be treated in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and permits before any allowable discharge. Sanitary wastes would be disposed to the existing, permitted Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System.
Draft Environmental Assessment                2-3                                            August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of fner  y                      Description of the Pro  osed Action The primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to  as  dross. Dross is furnace slag which consists of aluminum metal and
  ,aluminum oxide that floats,and has recycle value. The rate of dross generation is about 0 '% to ]N of the plant's primary metal production. Dross would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite for recovery. Cleaning the anodes produces small quantities of nondangerous solids, a fine carbon powder called blowdown, which consists of about 50&#xc3; sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50K fine carbon.         Blowdown material would be
~
collected    and sent offsite for disposal.       All nondangerous waste would be disposed    of offsite in accordance with applicable requirements.
Small  quantities of  dangerous waste such as batteries would be generated during maintenance      activities. It is planned to recycle these materials locally.     The  largest  amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent potlining, consisting          of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (fluorides, sodium,         and  calcium),  and 0.5N cyanide. The dangerous waste would be staged before being shipped            offsite for treatment an4 disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.
Approval  of the sublease/transfer    would result in use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail        system from Horn Rapids Road north to the Supply. System and the proposed aluminum smelter plant. Any modifications to the existing rail line to support the proposed action would occur on, for the most part, previously disturbed RL land leased to the Supply System.             To support    initial  operations, approximately 42 rail    cars  per week  would transport about 160K tons of raw alumina to the.. aluminum smelter plant from offsite. This increased rail traffic on the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc., a local food processing company.
For the initial phase, freight shipments would involve 4 to 10 trucks entering and leaving the plant each day. Host of the finished product would be transported out by truck, with up to a third of the total sent by rail. At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values.-
Because  it burns cleanly and efficiently, natural gas would be used as fuel for most of the anode production process (anode baking and anode paste;.
mixing), metal .casting, and utility heating. Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800 metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu). At full production that would include an anode bake production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 billion Btu. Delivery of the natural gas to the proposed aluminum smelter boilers, hot water heaters, and furnaces would require installation of an approximately 6 inch diameter, 250 pounds per square inch (psi), main carbon, steel pipeline and a distribution network of approximately 2 inch diameter pipes. The new pipeline would be tied into the existing natural gas main'pipeline near the Cypress Gate at the southwest corner of the 300 Area on the west side of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line (Figure 2). The main pipeline would cross under Route 4 South and the rail line where these intersect, about 1 mile north of the 300 Area. The main pipeline would be on the east side of the rail line corridor and terminate at
  'the end of the. railroad line inside the Supply System property. The smaller Draft Environmental Assessment                2-4                            August.1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener  y,                          Descri tion      of the    Proposed Action distribution pipeline    would be connected        from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed .areas                on leased Supply System property.
The main  pipeline would be approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, and would parallel and be within the -existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line in
. order to minimize potential        impacts to the environment. The smaller distribution pipelines would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property. A control system would be installed to monitor and control the flow of natural gas.
Construction of the pipeline route along the railroad right-of-way and within Supply    System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 feet). The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 feet). Excavated material would be stockpiled next'o the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation. The ditch would be bedded.'with approximately 10 centimeters (4 inches) pf sand or. clean, rock-free. dirt. The pipe would be covered with approximately- 5 centimeters (2 inches) of sand or rock-free dirt and backfilled with the excavated material.
All construction materials would be transported to the work site by common-truck carrier. The materials would be staged in a designated, previously disturbed laydown area. After completion of the construction, the .laydown area would be restored to its former condition and reseeded as appropriate.
Appropriate areas may be sprayed to prevent noxious weeds from getting established.
Appropriate areas may be sprayed to prevent noxious weeds from getting established.
2.1 PROPOSED TIMIHG.vining or schedule of the proposed Action (including phasing, if applicable>.
2.1   PROPOSED   TIMIHG. vining 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, if the sublease/transfe'r is approved, is as follows:~Sublease/transfer approval of aluminum plant~Initial 60K-to 25K-metric ton construction
The Proposed Action would be accomplished in                         approach.
~Potential expansion to 120K-.to 150K-metric ton~Potential expansion to 300K metric ton Summer 1998 Spring 1999 2002 ot after.2006 or after.2.2 ALUMINUM SMELTER INFORMATION.
if thephased a                          An approximate timetable for the Proposed Actions,                         sublease/transfe'r       is approved, is as follows:
Altninun smelter information that is related to the proposed Action.Primary aluminum is produced from alumina (aluminum oxide)refined from bauxite.for smelter use, it is calcined to drive off almost all bonded and free moisture and is delivered to the smelter in the form of a granular white powder similar in appearance to fine, white sand.This'lumina would be shipped by rail from offsite to the proposed site,to provide feed stock for the proposed aluminum smelter plant.To produce one metric ton.of aluminum, 1.89 metric tons of alumina are required.Draft Environmental Assessment 2-5~August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-}259
  ~   Sublease/transfer   approval of aluminum plant                   Summer    1998
-Description of the Pro osed Action The alumina is dissolved in a=molten salt bath of cryolite (sodium aluminum.fluoride)and the dissolution of the metal and oxide is accomplished electrolytically.
  ~   Initial   60K- to 25K-metric ton construction                   Spring 1999
The molten cryolite bath is augmented with s~all additions of other salts (primarily
~   Potential expansion to 120K-. to 150K- metric ton                 2002 ot    after.
'aluminum fluoride)to reduce the melting point of the salt bath to 955 degrees Celsius ('C)(1751'Fahrenheit
~   Potential expansion to 300K metric ton                           2006 or   after.
[F]).f The typical reduction cell consists of a large, steel shell.Insulation and refractory bricks are used to line the inside of the steel shell and carbon blocks are placed on the bottom and'sides to completely cover'all of the refractory.
2.2     ALUMINUM SMELTER INFORMATION.         Altninun smelter information that is related to the proposed Action.
Joints in the carbon are sealed with a rammed mixture of carbon paste that is baked'into a carbon bond by external heat.The carbon blocks on the bottom of'the cell contain imbedded steel bars to carry electrical current from the cell.The assembled carbon cel,l'ining and steel electrical conductors are the cathode of the electrolytic reaction and is the electrically negative pole of a DC reaction.The electrically positive pole of the reaction is the anode, which is constructed of carbon.Electrical current flows from the anode into the.molten bath and into the cathode carbon blocks and out of thg cell via the steel cathode conductors.
Primary aluminum is produced from alumina (aluminum oxide) refined from bauxite. for smelter use, it is calcined to drive off almost all bonded and free moisture and is delivered to the smelter in the form of a granular white powder similar in appearance to fine, white sand.                 This'lumina would be shipped by rail from offsite to the proposed site,to provide feed stock for the proposed aluminum smelter plant. To produce one metric ton. of aluminum, 1.89 metric tons of alumina are required.
The cathode carbon is protected from exposure to air by the molten bath.Alumina dissolved in the bath is reduced electrolytically into aluminum and oxygen.The melting point of aluminum is about 680'C (1256'F).Thus, the aluminum metal produced is liquiB at the 950'C (I742'F)operating temperature of the reduction cell.8ecause of the required conversion of electrical energy to DC, the most efficient arrangement of melting pots is to connect individual pots electrically in series so that the power loss because of rectification can be minimized by maximizing the number of pots requiring only one rectification.
Draft Environmental Assessment                 2-5 ~
Typically, between 120 and 240 pots.are connected in series to form one potline operating at a nominal voltage of 700 to 1,000 volts DC.I Two measures are used for the relative efficiencies of aluminum reduction pots.The primary measure is energy efficiency expressed in DC kilowatt-hours per pound (kMh/lb)of aluminum produced.Energy efficiency is a straightforward measurement of the electrical cost of producing a pound of aluminum.A second measure used within the industry is current efficiency,';
August 1998
expressed as a percentage of the theoretical maximum amount of aluminum that'an be produced by the ampere-hours of electricity passing through the cell.Energy efficiency is in the 300,000 amperes range to 5.8 kMh/lb for modern prebake pots.Current efficiencies
 
'in new aluminum smelter plant operations
DOE/EA-}259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                 -
~under good control are as high as 93.5 percent, compared to about 88 percent efficiencies in older technol.ogy plants.The aluminum metal from the rooms containing melting pots (potrooms) is received into holding furnaces, alloyed and fluxed to customer specifications, continuously cast into rolling ingots or extrusion billets, heat-treated, sawed to length, and shrink-wrapped for shipment as final product to the customer.Draft Environmental Assessment 2-6 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Descri tion of the Pro osed Action 2.3 EHVIROHNENTAL IHFORNATIOH.
Description of the Pro osed Action The alumina is dissolved in a=molten salt bath of cryolite (sodium aluminum. fluoride) and the dissolution of the metal and oxide is accomplished electrolytically. The molten cryolite bath is augmented with s~all additions of other salts (primarily 'aluminum fluoride) to reduce the melting point of the salt bath to 955 degrees Celsius ('C) (1751'Fahrenheit [F]).
other envfronnentaf fnformat fon that has been prepared, or sfll be prepared, direstly related to the proposed Actfon.Following a submittal for a special use permit, on May 4', 1998 the Benton County Planning 5, Building Department'nitially issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)provided that the Proposed Action would mitigate potential adverse air impacts through adherence to Benton County and Washington State permit conditions.
f The typical reduction cell consists of a large, steel shell. Insulation and refractory bricks are used to line the inside of the steel shell and carbon blocks are placed on the bottom and'sides to completely cover'all of the refractory. Joints in the carbon are sealed with a rammed mixture of carbon paste that is baked 'into a carbon bond by external heat. The carbon blocks on the bottom of 'the cell contain imbedded steel bars to carry electrical current from the cell. The assembled carbon cel,l'ining and steel electrical conductors are the cathode of the electrolytic reaction and is the electrically negative pole of a DC reaction.
However, Benton County has delayed a'inal DNS for at least 60 days.Information on the existing Supply System.'uildings and operation has been previously evaluated in an environmental statement (NUREG-0812).
The electrically positive pole of the reaction is the anode, which is constructed of carbon. Electrical current flows from the anode into the.
Two Biological Resources Reviews (Appendix A)and two Cultural Resources Reviews (Appendix B)have been prepared for the Proposed Action.Draft Environmental Assessment 2-7 August 1998 U.S;Department of fner y DOE/EA-1259 Affec'ted Environment 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment to be affected by the Proposed Action and alternate site.4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONYiENT The Hanford Site is 1,450 square kilometers (560 square miles)located in southeastern Washington State, in a semiarid region with rolling topography.
molten bath and into the cathode carbon blocks and out of thg cell via the steel cathode conductors. The cathode carbon is protected from exposure to air by the molten bath. Alumina dissolved in the bath is reduced electrolytically into   aluminum and oxygen. The melting   point of aluminum is about 680'C (1256'F). Thus, the aluminum metal produced   is liquiB at the 950'C (I742'F) operating temperature of the reduction   cell.
Two topographical features dominate the landscape:
8ecause of the required conversion of electrical energy to DC, the most efficient arrangement of melting pots is to connect individual pots electrically in series so that the power loss because of rectification can be minimized by maximizing the number of pots requiring only one rectification.
.Rattlesnake Mountain is located on the southwest boundary 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 (Figure 1).Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site are primarily agricultural lands.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 duiing.the winter months'.Temperature ranges of daily maximum temperatures vary from no;mal maxima of 2'C (36'F)in early January to 35.C (95'F)'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 s'ummer, averaging 14 to 16 kilometers per hour (8 to R miles.per hour)(PHHL-6415).
Typically, between 120 and 240 pots. are connected in series to form one potline operating at a nominal voltage of 700 to 1,000 volts DC.
Tornadoes are extremely rare;no destruct'ive 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 gualitg Standards (HAA(S)designed to protect the public health and welfare.During 1996, the Hanford Site and Supply System air emissions remained below all established limits set for regulated air pollutants (PHHL-11472).
I Two measures are used for the relative efficiencies of aluminum reduction pots. The primary measure is energy efficiency expressed in DC kilowatt-hours per pound (kMh/lb) of aluminum produced. Energy efficiency is a straightforward measurement of the electrical cost of producing a pound of aluminum. A second measure used within the industry is current efficiency,';
Atmospheric dispersion conditions of the area vary between summer and winter months.The summer months generally have good air mixing characteristics.
expressed as a percentage of the theoretical maximum amount of aluminum be produced by the ampere-hours of electricity passing through the cell.
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.
that'an Energy efficiency is in the 300,000 amperes range to 5.8 kMh/lb for modern prebake pots. Current efficiencies 'in new aluminum smelter plant operations
The typical insects, small birds, mammals, and reptiles common to the Hanford Site can be found in the 200 Area plateau (PHHL-6415).
~
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.
under good control are as high as 93.5 percent, compared to about 88 percent efficiencies in older technol.ogy plants.
Large mammals found on the Hanford Site are deer and elk.Coyotes and raptors are the primary predators.
The aluminum metal from the rooms containing melting pots (potrooms) is received into holding furnaces, alloyed and fluxed to customer specifications, continuously cast into rolling ingots or extrusion billets, heat-treated, sawed to length, and shrink-wrapped for shipment as final product to the customer.
Several species of.small birds nest in the steppe vegetation.
Draft Environmental Assessment         2-6                           August 1998
Semiannual peaks in avian variety and abundance occur during migration seasons.'dditional information about the Hanford Site can be found in the publication entitled the Hanford Site Ilational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Characterization report (PHHL-6415).
 
Draft Environmental Assessment 4-1 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1Z59 Alternatives to the Pro osed Action 3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives to the Proposed Action are discussed in the following sections.3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIYE.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De   artment of Ener y                             Descri tion of the Pro osed Action 2.3     EHVIROHNENTAL IHFORNATIOH. other envfronnentaf fnformat fon that has been prepared, or sfll be prepared, direstly related to the proposed Actfon.
cga and god A<PA regulatfons require DOE to analyte the"Ho Action'alternative,e f.e., to examfne what would happen ff nothing were cfone.Nate that generally this fs a contfnuatfon of the status quo.The No Action alternative'ould be RL disapproval of the Supply System proposed subl.ease/transfer.
Following     a   submittal for a special use permit, on May 4', 1998 the Benton County Planning         5, Building Department'nitially issued a Determination of Nonsignificance         (DNS) provided that the Proposed Action would mitigate potential       adverse     air impacts through adherence to Benton County and Washington State permit conditions. However, Benton County has delayed a
There would be no construction of an aluminum smelter plant.~3.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLAHT SITES.other alternatives considered.
'inal DNS for at least 60 days. Information on the existing Supply System .
cEQ regulations dfrect all agencfes to fdentffy reasonable alternatives that would achieve the purpose and need." Other,P'.~ernatives to the Propo'sed Action are described in the following sections.3.2.1 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT OH THE HANFORD SITE.The alternate site for the proposed aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished MNP-1.The process fl.ow for producing aluminum.requires a configuration that is uniform in shape (square in shape)similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped.The recommended site would use the existing Supply System infrastructure,to the maximum extent possible by locating the proposed aluminum smelter.pl.ant as close as practical to WNP-4, whereas the alternate site is further away from MNP-4.The alternate site would require longer extensions.
'uildings and operation has been previously evaluated in an environmental statement (NUREG-0812). Two Biological Resources Reviews (Appendix A) and two Cultural Resources Reviews (Appendix B) have been prepared for the Proposed Action.
to existing utilities and infrastructure than the Proposed Action because of the orientation of the'Supply System site.Therefore, this alternate would be more costly to construct compared to the Proposed Action.3.2.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANTS OH HON-HAHFORD SITES.The commercial aluminum company is considering other.locations away from the Hanford Site.These sites are not analyzed in this EA because they are not within the purview of DOE.Draft Environmental Assessment 3-1 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Affected'nvironment RL and its contractors are a large portion of the local employment picture with almost one-quarter of the total nonagricultural jobs in Benton and Franklin.counties.
Draft Environmental Assessment                       2-7                           August 1998
Ninety-three percent of Hanford Site personnel reside in the Benton and Franklin county areas.Therefore,'ork 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-6415).
Other counties are less affected by changes in Hanford employment.
4.2 SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONNENT All of the Supply System property for both proposed sites for the aluminum smelter plant is located on, for the most part, previously disturbed land designated for industrial use (DOE/EIS-0222D).
Installation of.the natural gas pipeline would occur on previously disturbed areas along the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line, 15-meter (50-foot)wide right-of-way, and within the Supply System property.The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant is approximately


===2.8 kilometers===
DOE/EA-1259 U.S; Department    of fner y                                      Affec'ted Environment 4.0  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The  following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment to  be  affected by the Proposed Action and alternate site.
(1.75 miles)from the Cnlumbia River.The Proposed Action is outside of the Hanford Reach Study area.The Proposed Action is not located in the 100-year floodplain of the Columbia River, nor is it located within a wetlands area (NUREG-0812).
4.1    GENERAL HANFORD  SITE ENVIRONYiENT The Hanford Site is 1,450 square kilometers (560 square miles) located in southeastern Washington State, in a semiarid region with rolling topography.
The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant averages about 115 meters (375 feet)above mean sea level and does not contain any prime farmland, state or national parks, forests, conservation areas, or other areas of recreational or aesthetic concern.The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river several miles away to the south.The habitat at the site of the proposed aluminum smelter is typical of the general Hanford Site shrub-steppe habitat.The City of Richland (population approximately 32,000), located about 16 kilometers (10 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'upply System property is predominately loose to medium dense, fine to coarse eolian sand with scattered gravel (glaciofluvial sediments) to about 60 meters (200 feet)below the.surface.The geologic''strata under the surface layer, in descending order, are upper and lower Ringold Formation ranging from about 60 meters (200 feet)to 365 meters (1,200 feet), and the Columbia River Basalt Group below 365 meters (1,200 feet).The upper Ringold Formation consists of very dense, sandy gravel with interbedded sandy and silty layers.The lower Ringold Formation consists of very dense, interbedded layers.of sandy gravel, silt, and soft sandstone (NUREG-.OS12).
Two topographical features dominate the landscape:        . Rattlesnake  Mountain is located on the southwest boundary 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 (Figure 1). Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site are primarily agricultural lands.
Basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group and intercalated sediments of the Ellensburg Formation underlie the Ringold Formation.
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 duiing.the winter months'. Temperature ranges of daily maximum temperatures vary from no; mal maxima of 2'C (36'F) in early January to 35 .C (95'F) '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 s'ummer, averaging 14 to 16 kilometers per hour (8 to R miles .
The region is categorized as one of low to moderate'seismicity (PNNL-6415).
per hour) (PHHL-6415). Tornadoes are extremely rare; no destruct'ive tornadoes have occurred in the region surrounding the Hanford Site.
Draft Environmental Assessment 4-2 August l998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Affected Environment 4.2.2 Hydrology Mater needed for the Proposed Action would be delivered from the Columbia River via the existing MNP-2 intake water line provided by the Supply System.The Supply System has water rights for use of up to 56 cubic feet per second (f/sec)(about 25,000 gallons per minute[g/min])for consumptive industrial use.In addition, the MNP-2 Site Certification Agreement and Resolution
The Hanford Site and the surrounding area are in attainment of the National Ambient Air gualitg Standards (HAA(S) designed to protect the public health and welfare. During 1996, the Hanford Site and Supply System air emissions remained below all established limits set for regulated air pollutants (PHHL-11472). Atmospheric dispersion conditions of the area vary between summer      and winter months. The summer months  generally   have good air mixing characteristics.       Occasional periods of poor dispersion conditions occur during the winter months.
~122.(Appendix C)allows the Supply System to provide water of up to 8.9 fthm/sec 400D g/min)for commercial development.
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 (PHHL-6415). 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.
The Supp1y System currently uses about 34 ft/sec (15,300 g/min)during MNP-2 operations.
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. 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.'dditional information about the Hanford Site can be found in the publication entitled the Hanford Site Ilational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)     Characterization report (PHHL-6415).
Estimated maximum quantities of water to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter.plant would be maximum'of about 8.9 ft/sec (4000 g/min).The primary uses of the industrial water would be as a heat exchanger to cool electrodes, castings, anodes, and for air compressors.
Draft Environmental Assessment               4-1                              August 1998
A maximum of about 8.02 ft/sec (3600 g/min)would be discharged through the existing MNP-I/4 outfall water line back to the river.Since the MNP-1/4 outfall water line currently is not in use, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimin'ation System (NPDES)water permit would be required for its use.Haximum sanitary water discharges are estimated at 0.18.ft/sec (80 g/min).Sanitary water would be discharged to the existing Supply System Sanitary Maste Disposal System.All water usa+would comply with.applicable regulatory requirements.
The water table in the supply system area is approximately.R meters (30 feet)to 12 meters (40 feet)below the surface (NUREG-0812), and is unaffected by contamination plumes from the 200 East and 200 Mest Areas.4.2.3 Air Resources An extensive database of.meteorological information exists for the Hanford Site.Meteorological monitoring began on the Hanford Site in l945.In the early 1980's, automated monitoring stations began monitoring winds, temperature, and other meteorological parameters at locations across the Hanford Site.Currently, 30 monitoring stations are in operation, including a station that is located in the vicinity of the MNP-2 plant.Data from this monitoring network provides a comprehensive database for modeling the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants and for estimating the likely air quality impacts from proposed facilities.
'I Atmospheric dispersion is a function of wind speed, duration and direction of wind, atmospheric stability, and mixing-depth.Dispersion conditions are generally good if winds are moderate to strong, if the atmosphere is of neutral or unstable stratification, and if there is a deep mixing layer.Neutral and unstable stratifications occur about'6%of the time during the summer.Less favorable dispersion conditions occur when the wind speed is light and the mixing layer is shallow.These conditions.
are most common during the winter when moderately to extremely stable stratifications occur about 66A of the time.Less favorable conditions also occur near the surface in all seasons from about sunset to about an hour after sunrise as a result of ground-based temperature inversions and shallow mixing layers.Stationary high-pressure systems produce extended periods of poor Draft Environmental Assessment 4-3 August l998 I~tl~~~~~~~I~~~~~~I~~~~I~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~<~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~I~~~~~--~.~'~~''I.~'~.~~~~I~I I I I~I I I I~~~~l~~~~~I~~~~t I~~I~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~I-~-~~~I~I~I U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Affected Environment Federal regulations require the states to promulgate their own regulations to achieve or maintain compliance or"attainment" with ambient air quality standards..
State and local governments have the authority to impose standards for ambient air quality that are stricter than the national standards.
Washington State has established more stringent standards for sulfur dioxide and TSP.Ih addition, Washington State has established standards (Table 3)for total fluoride (TF), and other pollutants that are not covered by national standards.
Table 3.Mashington State Fluoride Standards Pollutant Fluorides (TF)Time Period 12 consecutive hours 24 consecutive hours 7 consecutive days 30 consecutive days llarch 1;through'ctober 31 Primary (p/m 3,700 2,900 1,700 840 500 The Hanford Site and surrounding areas are in attainment with ambient air quality standards.
On occasion, particulate concentrations can reach relatively high levels.in eastern Mashington State because of exceptional natural events (i.e., dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and large brushfires) and agricultural activities (e.g., field burning, plowing fields)that occur in the region.The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}has exempted the rural fugitive dist component of background concentrations when considering permit applications and enforcement of air quality standards.
Similarly, Washington State ambient air quality standards have not consider'ed"rural fugitive dust" from natural or some agricultural practices when estimating the maximum background concentrations of particulates in the area east of the Cascade Mountain crest.*To meet air regulatory requirements and keep within ambient air,quality standards, the emission collection systems used in the proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable best available control technology (8ACT).and maximum achievable control technology (HACT}before operation of the proposed alumi,num smelter plant begins.Each 8ACT/HACT option is evaluated for its range of impacts and cost-effectiveness during the air permitting process.The control options providing the greatest control efficiency is selected unless eliminated on energy, environmental, or economic grounds.The commercial aluminum company would be required to obtain the appropriate PSD air permits.controlling criteria pollutant emissions under Washington Draft Environmental Assessment 4-5 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOEIEA-}259 Affected Environment Administrative Code (WAC)173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141.
A Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs)air permit would also be required under WAC 173-460.The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)and EPA have promulgated emission limits applicable to primary aluminum smelter operations (Table 4).Hew aluminum smelters that would be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart S might elect to comply with either the requirements of'40 CFR 60 Subpart S or 40 CFR 63 Subpart LL.Table 4.Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant.Re ulation MAC 173-415,<<Primary Atumfnum Plants.<<40 CFR 60 Subpart S,"Standards of Performance for Primary Atunfnun Reduction Plants." 40 CFR 63 Subpart Lt.,<<Hatfonal Emissfon Standards for Hatardous Air Pollutants for Primary Atunfnum Reduction Plants.<<Pollutant Fluorides Particulates SO2 Visible emissions Fugitive omissions Ftuorides Visible emfssians'Fatal fluarides Palycyclic aromatic hydrocarbans Emission limit Hinicxxn f tuoride collection efficiencies are prescribed for each pottfne primary emission controL system.A primary emfssion control system uith a design removaL efffcienc of at Least 95%.15 pounds per ton of At produced on a daily basis 60 pounds per tan nf Al produced an a monthly average fro all emfssions Shall not exceed 20X opacity fcr mare than 6 cansecutive minutes Reasonably achievable control technology to control em,'asians 1.9 pounds per ton of At produced for potroom groups at prebake plants 0.1 pounds per ton of AL produced for anode bake lants 10X o acity from any patroam gro 20%o acit from an anode bake tant Shall not exceed 1.2 pounds per ton of Al produced Shall not exceed 0.02 pounds per ton of green anode from anode bake lants Shalt not exceed 0.025 pounds per ton of green anode from anode bake plants Each pitch storage tank shaLL be equipped ufth an emfssfon control system desfgned and operated to reduce fnlet emfssions of polycyclfc organic matter (POH)b 95X or greater Draft Environmental Assessment 4-6 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Affected Environment


====4.2.4 Endangered====
DOE/EA-1Z59 U.S. Department        of Ener y                            Alternatives to the         Pro osed Action 3.0    ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives to the Proposed Action are discussed in the following sections.
Species Biological Reviews f98-600-024 and f98-600-024'Appendix A)were performed on the areas of the Proposed Action and the alternate location.Ho plant or animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on the federal list of"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants" ,(50 CFR 17), or on Washington State list of threatened or endangered species were found.4.2.5 P1ants and Animals Only a few species of plants and animals are found in the immediate proximity of the Proposed Action due to the area being mostly previously disturbed as indicated in Biological Reviews~98-600-024 and~98-600-024a (Appendix A).However, the long-billed curlew and Loggerhead shrike were seen on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Action.Under The Higratory Bird Treaty Act, it is illegal to take, capture, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such birds included in the terms of the'mnventions.
3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIYE. cga and god A<PA regulatfons require                DOE to analyte the "Ho Action
To avoid adverse impacts to any of these species, ground clearing activities should be undertaken between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.Flora observed in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are listed in the Biological Reviews.''total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the proposed site for the aluminum smelter plant.A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the alternate site.Two Piper s daisy individuals were identified near the terminal end of the proposed natural gas pipeline route, however both individuals were probably outside of the area'hat would be disturbed by installation of the pipeline.All of the Piper's daisies were observed on previously disturbed areas..The appropriate mitigation for this species in this'situation would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development.
'alternative,e f.e., to examfne what would happen ff nothing were cfone. Nate that generally this fs a contfnuatfon of the status quo.
An estimated 5 hectares (12 acres)of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed.aad probably would-qualify as mitigable (DOE/RL 96-32)and (DOE/RL 96-88).In" addition, access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.
The No  Action alternative'ould be RL disapproval of the Supply System proposed    subl.ease/transfer.        There would be no construction of an aluminum smelter plant.      ~
4.2.6 Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews~'98-600-024 and 498-600-024a (Appendix B)were conducted for the Proposed Action and alternate site.They concluded that,"....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area." Draft Environmental Assessment 4-7 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Impacts 5.0 EHYIROHMEHTAL IMPACTS The following sections describe potential impacts from the proposed action.Impacts are addressed in proportion to their potential significance.
3.2    ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLAHT SITES.                  other alternatives considered. cEQ regulations dfrect all agencfes to fdentffy reasonable alternatives that would achieve the purpose and need.
Other,P'.~ernatives      to the   Propo'sed Action are         described in the following sections.
3.2.1      ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT              OH  THE HANFORD      SITE.
The alternate site for the proposed aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished MNP-1. The process fl.ow for producing aluminum
.requires a configuration that is uniform in shape (square in shape) similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped. The recommended site would use the existing Supply System infrastructure,to the maximum extent possible by locating the proposed aluminum smelter. pl.ant as close as practical to WNP-4, whereas the alternate site is further away from MNP-4. The alternate site would require longer extensions. to existing utilities and infrastructure than the Proposed Action because of the orientation of the 'Supply System site. Therefore, this alternate would be more costly to construct compared to the Proposed Action.
3.2.2      ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANTS OH HON-HAHFORD                    SITES.
The commercial aluminum company is considering other. locations away from the Hanford Site. These sites are not analyzed in this EA because they are not within the purview of DOE.
Draft Environmental Assessment                       3-1                                      August 1998


===5.1 CONSTRUCTION===
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department    of Ener y                                Affected'nvironment RL and its contractors are a large portion of 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,'ork 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-6415). Other counties are less affected by changes in Hanford employment.
AHD OPERATION IMPACTS.Descrfptfon of potential fapacts from the construction and operatfon actfvitfes of the proposed action.The following sections describe potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action all on previously disturbed.areas.5.1.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance Soil disturbance of previously disturbed soil would occur over the entire 60 hectares (150 acres), with structures covering about 50%of the area.This disturbance would be at a maximum depth of approximately 3 meters (10 feet).Soil:disturbance for all of the utilities and rail line would occur on the Supply System's highly disturbed grounds.The ilatural gas main pipeline would run approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles)long, and would parallel and be within the existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot)wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Lime.The smaller distribution pipeline would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property.Construction of the pipeline route along the.railroad right-of-way and within Supply System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 foot).The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 foot).Excavated material would be stockpiled next to the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation.
4.2  SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONNENT All of the Supply System property for both proposed sites for the aluminum  smelter plant is located on, for the most part, previously disturbed land designated for industrial use (DOE/EIS-0222D). Installation of. the natural gas pipeline would occur on previously disturbed areas along the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way, and within the Supply System property. The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant is approximately 2.8 kilometers (1.75 miles) from the Cnlumbia River.
The ditch would be bedded with approximately
The Proposed Action is outside of the Hanford Reach Study area. The Proposed Action is not located in the 100-year floodplain of the Columbia River, nor is it located within a wetlands area (NUREG-0812). The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant averages about 115 meters (375 feet) above mean sea level and does not contain any prime farmland, state or national parks, forests, conservation areas, or other areas of recreational or aesthetic concern. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river several miles away to the south. The habitat at the site of the proposed aluminum smelter is typical of the general Hanford Site shrub-steppe habitat.
'10 centimeters (4 inches)of sand or clean, rock-free dirt.The pipe would be covered with approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches)of sand or rock-free dirt and then backfilled with the excavated material.Most of the soil and subsurface activities would be temporary during construction, therefore the anticipated impacts to the environment are'ot expected to be consequential.
The City of Richland (population approximately 32,000), located about 16 kilometers (10 miles) away in Benton County, adjoins the southernmost portion of the Hanford Site boundary and is the nearest population center.
5.1.2 Liquid Dischaiges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters There would be no discharges to the groundwater
4.2.1    Soils and Subsurface The soil in the'upply System property is predominately loose to medium dense, fine to coarse eolian sand with scattered gravel (glaciofluvial sediments) to about 60 meters (200 feet) below the .surface. The geologic ''
.All sanitary wastes would be disposed of to the existing Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System.Maximum sanitary discharges are estimated at 80 g/min.Ca'pacity of the Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System is 644,300 liters.(170,000 gallons)per day.Approximately 1,500 people from the Supply System and DOE currently use less than 30%capacity of the disposal system.If it is determined during the HPDES permitting process that the industrial water requires treatment, the water would be treated to'PDES permit.levels by a water treatment facility provided by the aluminum smelter plant before disposal.'It is estimated that industrial water discharge from the proposed aluminum smelter plant to.the WHP-'/4 outfall water line would be Draft Environmental Assessment 5-1 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Env>ronmental Impacts about 20'C (68'F}, similar to Supply System blowdown.'Estimated maximum quantities of water to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter plant would be about 8.9 fts/sec$)000 g/min).The average river flow of the Columbia River is 120,000'ft
strata under the surface layer, in descending order, are upper and lower Ringold Formation ranging from about 60 meters (200 feet) to 365 meters (1,200 feet), and the Columbia River Basalt Group below 365 meters (1,200 feet). The upper Ringold Formation consists of very dense, sandy gravel with interbedded sandy and silty layers. The lower Ringold Formation consists of very dense, interbedded layers. of sandy gravel, silt, and soft sandstone (NUREG-.OS12).
/sec (53,859,744.0 g/min), with the minimum regulated flow of the river.is 36,000 ft/sec (16, I57,923.2 g/min};In the therma1 plume ana3ysis of the environmental report for operation of WHP-I/4 and WNP-2 (MPPSS-ER), the maximum blowdown conditions projected from WHP-I/O into the WHP-'I/O outfall was 33.4 ft/sec (14,990 g/min), and 17.8 ft/sec (7,990 g/min)at normal conditions.
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-6415).
The thermal plume from MNP-I/O blowdown or the industrial water from the proposed aluminum smelter would be dominated by the river flow within about 6 to 8 meters (20 to 25 feet)of exiting the WHP-I/4 outfall;During full MHP-I/4 operations, projected blowdown would have resulted in a temperature increment of less than-17.65'C (0.22'F)at minimum flow, and-17.77'C (0.01'F)at normal flow, in the Columbia River.The thermal plume analysis for WHP-2 blowdown discharges into the WNP-2 outfall at minimum river flow resulted in a heat load that would raise the bulk river temperature by less than-17.76'C (0.033'F),'nd
Draft Environmental Assessment          4-2                          August l998
-17.77'C (0.0067'F) at'normal river flow.The temperature increment heat load on the Columbia River resulting from the Proposed Action would be less than.for MHP-I/O and WNP-2, due to the lower volume of industrial water (maximum of about 8.02 ft/sec f3600 g/min])exiting the WNP-I/O outfall into the river.'otential impacts from existing aluminum smelters on the C&umbia River were'analyzed in a river report prepared for EPA (Appendix C).This study made observations, including bioassay expeyiments on adult salmon behavior, attributing elevated fluoride concentrations which might have a critical role effecting adult salmonids during migrati.on.
 
The study concluded that the low, narrow range of concentrations measured throughout the study area of several aluminum plants along the Columbia River did not'cause a particular problem with fluoride discharge to the river.The stu'dy also concluded that organic compounds emitted by upriver aluminum smelter plants have accumulated in sediments behind l<cHary Dam.It is not known if the proposed aluminum smelter would contribute additional hydrocarbons to river sediments.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of Ener y                                  Affected Environment 4.2.2    Hydrology Mater needed    for  the Proposed Action would be delivered from the Columbia River via the existing      MNP-2 intake water line provided by the Supply System.
The environmental effects of these hydrocarbons has not been determined.
The Supply System has water rights for use of up to 56 cubic feet per second (f /sec) (about 25,000 gallons per minute [g/min]) for consumptive industrial use. In addition, the MNP-2 Site Certification Agreement and Resolution ~122
5.1.3 Gaseous or Particulate Discharges to the Air ae Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities from typical construction activities (e.g., trucks transporting building materials and waste, operation of construction equipment, fugitive dust emissions from digging and backfilling) could be generated intermittently during the construction phase of the Proposed Action.Particulate emissions would be controlled by watering or other dust suppression techniques.
.   (Appendix C) allows the Supply System to provide water of up to 8.9 fthm/sec 400D g/min) for commercial development.       The Supp1y System currently uses about 34    ft  /sec (15,300 g/min) during MNP-2 operations.     Estimated maximum quantities of water to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter. plant would be maximum'of about 8.9 ft /sec (4000 g/min). The primary uses of the industrial water would be as a heat exchanger to cool electrodes, castings, anodes, and for air compressors.        A maximum of about 8.02 ft /sec (3600 g/min) would be discharged through the existing MNP-I/4 outfall water line back to the river. Since the MNP-1/4 outfall water line currently is not in use, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimin'ation System (NPDES) water permit would be required for its use. Haximum sanitary water discharges are estimated at
In addition, small quantities of gaseous and particulate pollutants would be emitted by the transportation (via truck and rail}of raw materials for aluminum production, finished products', and waste.Potenti'ally substantial gaseous and particulate emissions might occur during smelting and related operations.
: 0. 18 .ft /sec (80 g/min). Sanitary water would be discharged to the existing Supply System Sanitary Maste Disposal System. All water usa+ would comply with .applicable regulatory requirements.
The emission of criteria air pollutants by the proposed smelter would have to meet the applicable AAgS (both federal and state), PSD limits, and Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Impactsother applicable regulatory limits (refer to Section 4.2.3).The point of regulatory compliance for air releases has not been determined.
The  water table in the supply system area is approximately .R meters (30  feet) to    12 meters (40 feet) below the surface (NUREG-0812), and is unaffected by contamination plumes from the 200 East and 200 Mest Areas.
However for purpose of analysis in this EA, air emissions from the proposed facility have to meet air quality standards and PSD limits at the fenceline of the proposed aluminum smelter.This would maintain pollutant concentrations within permitted federal and state limits on publicly accessible roadways (including Supply System access roads), at Supply System facilities (including h'HP-2),'and other portions of the Hanford Site.At this point in the planning process, site-specific information is not available on pollutant emission rates for the proposed facility.However, a BACT/HACT protocol (Appeadix Dl)and modeling protocol information (Appendix D2)were made available by Ecology during a meeting with'enton County discussing the SEPA checklist.
4.2.3      Air Resources An  extensive database of. meteorological information exists for the Hanford    Site. Meteorological monitoring began on the Hanford Site in l945.
The modeling protocol for the proposed Oregon site includes estimates of emission parameters.
In the early 1980's, automated monitoring stations began monitoring winds, temperature, and other meteorological parameters at locations across the Hanford Site. Currently, 30 monitoring stations are in operation, including            a station that is located in the vicinity of the MNP-2 plant. Data from this monitoring network provides a comprehensive database for modeling the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants and for estimating the likely air quality impacts from proposed       facilities.
It is'assumed that the proposed facility on the Hanford'Site would have similar or reduced pollutant emissions.
                                      'I Atmospheric dispersion is a function of wind speed, duration and direction of wind, atmospheric stability, and mixing -depth. Dispersion conditions are generally good        if winds are moderate to strong, if the atmosphere is of neutral or unstable stratification, and        if there is a deep mixing layer. Neutral and unstable stratifications occur about'6% of the time during the summer. Less favorable dispersion conditions occur when the wind speed is light and the mixing layer is shallow. These conditions. are most common during the winter when moderately to extremely stable stratifications occur about 66A of the time. Less favorable conditions also occur near the surface in all seasons from about sunset to about an hour after sunrise as a result of ground-based temperature inversions and shallow mixing layers. Stationary high-pressure systems produce extended periods of poor Draft Environmental Assessment              4-3                            August l998
 
tl    ~
I              ~
~      ~        ~          ~    ~        ~        I
              ~
            ~
            ~ ~
I
  ~  ~                                                                  ~  ~
                ~    ~                                        I      ~                      ~,      ~                                                      ~    ~
                                                            ~    ~
~  ~ ~        ~      ~                            ~                ~                            ~ ~
                                ~      I                                                ~        ~                                        ~    ~      ~    I
        ~ ~        ~  ~                                      ~  ~          ~    ~                                      ~      ~  <    ~
                                                                                    ~      I    ~                    ~      ~
~ ~                                                                                                                                                      ~  ~  ~
                                                    ~ ~                                              ~ I    ~ ~
~    ~    ~    ~    ~                  ~ ~                                                                              ~    -  -    ~    .       ~
        ~    ~                                                                                                                                  ~      ~
                                                                                                        ~    I ~
                                                                                                            ''I    .   ~
                                                                                                                              '               ~ .     ~
                          ~
                              ~
                                                        ~
I  ~
I    III
                                                                                        ~
I    III
                                                                                                          ~      ~                        ~              ~    l    ~
                                              ~  I            ~                        ~    ~                                                            I  ~
                                    ~  ~  ~                                                                                        ~    t                  ~  I
                        ~      ~  .               ~      ~                                  ~      ~
                                        ~  ~  ~              ~
            ~ ~
                            ~    ~                            I          ~
I    -  ~-
                  ~ ~      ~                                                  I    ~      I
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department  of  Ener y                                            Affected Environment Federal regulations require the states to promulgate their own regulations to achieve or maintain compliance or "attainment" with ambient air quality standards.. State and local governments have the authority to impose standards for ambient air quality that are stricter than the national standards.
Washington State has established more stringent standards for sulfur dioxide and TSP. Ih addition, Washington State has established standards (Table 3) for total fluoride (TF), and other pollutants that are not covered by national standards.
Table 3. Mashington State Fluoride Standards Pollutant    Time Period          Primary (p /m Fluorides                  12                    3,700 (TF)             consecutive hours 24                    2,900 consecutive hours 7  consecutive                    1,700 days 30                      840 consecutive days llarch 1;                      500 through'ctober 31 The Hanford Site and surrounding areas are in attainment with ambient air quality standards. On occasion, particulate concentrations can reach relatively high levels. in eastern Mashington State because of exceptional natural events (i.e., dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and large brushfires) and agricultural activities (e.g., field burning, plowing fields) that occur in the region. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} has exempted the rural fugitive dist component of background concentrations when considering permit applications and enforcement of air quality standards.
Similarly, Washington State ambient air quality standards have not consider'ed "rural fugitive dust" from natural or some agricultural practices when estimating the maximum background concentrations of particulates in the area east of the Cascade Mountain crest.*
To meet air regulatory requirements and keep within ambient air,quality standards, the emission collection systems used in the proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable best available control technology (8ACT)
. and maximum achievable control technology (HACT} before operation of the proposed alumi,num smelter plant begins.               Each 8ACT/HACT option is evaluated for its range of impacts and cost -effectiveness during the air permitting process. The control options providing the greatest control efficiency is selected unless eliminated on energy, environmental, or economic grounds. The commercial aluminum company would be required to obtain the appropriate PSD air permits .controlling criteria pollutant emissions under Washington Draft Environmental Assessment                4-5                                August 1998
 
DOEIEA-}259 U.S. De  artment    of Ener y                                          Affected Environment Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141. A Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) air permit would also be required under WAC 173-460.                            The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and EPA have promulgated emission limits applicable to primary aluminum smelter operations (Table 4).
Hew aluminum smelters that would be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart S might elect to comply with either the requirements of'40 CFR 60 Subpart S or 40 CFR 63    Subpart LL.
Table 4.     Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant.
Re  ulation                  Pollutant                Emission      limit MAC  173-415, <<Primary        Fluorides              Hinicxxn f tuoride collection Atumfnum  Plants.<<                                    efficiencies are prescribed for each pottfne primary emission controL system. A primary emfssion control system uith a design removaL efffcienc of at Least 95%.
Particulates            15 pounds per ton of At produced on a daily basis SO2                    60 pounds per tan nf Al produced an a monthly average fro all emfssions Visible emissions       Shall not exceed 20X opacity fcr mare than 6 cansecutive minutes Fugitive omissions      Reasonably achievable control technology to control em,'asians 40 CFR 60 Subpart S,          Ftuorides              1.9 pounds per ton of At produced for "Standards of Performance                            potroom groups at prebake plants for Primary Atunfnun Reduction Plants."
: 0. 1 pounds per ton of    AL  produced for anode bake    lants Visible emfssians      10X o acity from    any patroam gro 20% o  acit from    an  anode bake tant 40 CFR 63 Subpart Lt.,        'Fatal fluarides        Shall not exceed 1.2 pounds per ton of
    <<Hatfonal Emissfon Standards                          Al produced for Hatardous Air Pollutants for Primary Atunfnum Reduction Plants.<<
Shall not exceed 0.02 pounds per ton of green  anode from anode bake lants Palycyclic aromatic    Shalt not exceed 0.025 pounds per ton hydrocarbans            of green anode from anode bake plants Each  pitch storage tank shaLL be equipped ufth an emfssfon control system desfgned and operated to reduce fnlet emfssions of polycyclfc organic matter  (POH) b    95X  or greater Draft Environmental Assessment                      4-6                                    August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of  Ener y                                  Affected Environment 4.2.4    Endangered  Species Biological Reviews f98-600-024 and f98-600-024'Appendix A) were performed on the areas of the Proposed Action and the alternate location. Ho plant or animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on the federal    list of "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants"
,(50 CFR 17), or on Washington State      list  of threatened or endangered species were found.
4.2.5    P1ants and Animals Only a few species of plants and animals are found in the immediate proximity of the Proposed Action due to the area being mostly previously disturbed as indicated in Biological Reviews ~98-600-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix A). However, the long-billed curlew and Loggerhead shrike were seen on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. Under The Higratory Bird Treaty Act,  it  is illegal to take, capture, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such birds included in the terms of the 'mnventions. To avoid adverse impacts to any of these species, ground clearing activities should be undertaken between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.
Flora observed in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are listed in the Biological Reviews.'      'total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the proposed site for the aluminum smelter plant. A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the alternate site. Two Piper s daisy individuals were identified near the terminal end of the proposed natural gas pipeline route, however both individuals were probably outside of the area
'hat    would be disturbed by installation of the pipeline. All of the Piper's daisies were observed on previously disturbed areas. .The appropriate mitigation for this species in this 'situation would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development.
An estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed "      .aad probably would- qualify as mitigable (DOE/RL 96-32) and (DOE/RL 96-88). In addition, access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.
4.2.6    Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews ~'98-600-024 and 498-600-024a (Appendix B) were conducted    for the Proposed Action and alternate site. They concluded that, "....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area."
Draft Environmental Assessment              4-7                            August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department        of  Ener y                                    Environmental Impacts 5.0    EHYIROHMEHTAL IMPACTS The  following sections describe potential impacts from the proposed action.      Impacts are addressed          in proportion to their potential significance.
5.1 CONSTRUCTION AHD OPERATION IMPACTS. Descrfptfon of potential fapacts from the construction and operatfon actfvitfes of the proposed action.
The following sections describe potential impacts from the construction and  operation of the Proposed Action all on previously disturbed .areas.
5.1.1    Soil or Subsurface Disturbance Soil disturbance of previously disturbed soil would occur over the entire    60 hectares (150 acres), with structures covering about 50% of the area. This disturbance would be at a maximum depth of approximately 3 meters (10  feet). Soil:disturbance for all of the utilities and rail line would occur    on  the Supply System's highly disturbed grounds. The ilatural gas main pipeline would run approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, and would parallel and be within the existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Lime. The smaller distribution pipeline would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property. Construction of the pipeline route along the. railroad right-of-way and within Supply System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 foot). The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 foot). Excavated material would be stockpiled next to the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation. The ditch would be bedded with approximately '10 centimeters (4 inches) of sand or clean, rock-free dirt. The pipe would be covered with approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches) of sand or rock-free dirt and then backfilled with the excavated material. Most of the soil and subsurface activities would be temporary during construction, therefore the anticipated impacts to the environment expected to be consequential.
are'ot
: 5. 1.2    Liquid Dischaiges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters There would be no discharges to the groundwater . All sanitary wastes would be disposed of to the existing Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System. Maximum sanitary discharges are estimated at 80 g/min. Ca'pacity of the Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System is 644,300 liters. (170,000 gallons) per day. Approximately 1,500 people from the Supply System and DOE currently use less than 30% capacity of the disposal system.
If it is determined during the HPDES permitting process that the industrial water requires treatment, the water would be treated to'PDES permit .levels by        a water treatment facility provided by the aluminum smelter plant before disposal.          'It is estimated that industrial water discharge from the proposed aluminum smelter plant to .the WHP-'/4 outfall water line would be Draft Environmental Assessment                      5-1                        August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of  Ener y                                    Env>ronmental  Impacts about 20'C (68'F},        similar to Supply System blowdown. 'Estimated maximum quantities    of  water  to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter plant would be about 8.9 fts/sec $ )000 g/min). The average river flow of the Columbia River is 120,000'ft /sec (53,859,744.0 g/min), with the minimum regulated flow of the river. is 36,000 ft /sec (16, I57,923.2 g/min}; In the therma1 plume ana3ysis of the environmental report for operation of WHP-I/4 and WNP-2 (MPPSS-ER), the maximum blowdown conditions projected from WHP-I/O into the WHP-'I/O outfall was 33.4        ft /sec (14,990 g/min), and 17.8    ft  /sec (7,990 g/min)      at  normal  conditions. The thermal  plume from  MNP-I/O  blowdown or the industrial water from the proposed aluminum smelter would be dominated by the river flow within about 6 to 8 meters (20 to 25 feet) of exiting the WHP-I/4 outfall; During full MHP-I/4 operations, projected blowdown would have resulted in a temperature increment of less than -17.65'C (0.22'F) at minimum flow, and -17.77'C (0.01'F) at normal flow, in the Columbia River.
The thermal plume analysis for WHP-2 blowdown discharges into the WNP-2 outfall at minimum river flow resulted in a heat load that would raise the bulk river temperature by less than -17.76'C (0.033'F),'nd -17.77'C (0.0067'F) at 'normal river flow. The temperature increment heat load on the Columbia River resulting from the Proposed Action would be less than. for MHP-I/O and WNP-2, due to the lower volume of industrial water (maximum of about 8.02    ft  /sec f3600 g/min]) exiting the WNP-I/O outfall into the river.
      'otential      impacts from existing aluminum smelters on the C&umbia River were 'analyzed      in a river report prepared for EPA (Appendix C). This study made observations, including bioassay expeyiments on adult salmon behavior, attributing elevated fluoride concentrations which might have a critical role effecting adult salmonids during migrati.on. The study concluded that the low, narrow range of concentrations measured throughout the study area of several aluminum plants along the Columbia River did not 'cause a particular problem with fluoride discharge to the river. The stu'dy also concluded that organic compounds emitted by upriver aluminum smelter plants have accumulated in sediments behind l<cHary Dam. It is not known          if the proposed aluminum smelter would contribute additional hydrocarbons to river sediments.              The environmental effects of these hydrocarbons has not been determined.
: 5. 1.3    Gaseous    or Particulate Discharges to the Air                                ae Small  quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities    from typical construction activities (e.g., trucks transporting building materials and waste, operation of construction equipment, fugitive dust emissions from digging and backfilling) could be generated intermittently during the construction phase of the Proposed Action. Particulate emissions would be controlled by watering or other dust suppression techniques.                In addition, small quantities of gaseous and particulate pollutants would be emitted by the transportation (via truck and rail} of raw materials for aluminum production, finished products', and waste.            Potenti'ally substantial gaseous and particulate emissions might occur during smelting and related operations.
The emission    of criteria air pollutants  by the proposed smelter would have  to  meet the    applicable AAgS  (both federal and state), PSD limits, and Draft Environmental Assessment                                                August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                    Environmental Impacts other applicable regulatory limits (refer to Section 4.2.3). The point of regulatory compliance for air releases has not been determined. However for purpose of analysis in this EA, air emissions from the proposed facility have to meet air quality standards and PSD limits at the fenceline of the proposed aluminum smelter.      This would maintain pollutant concentrations within permitted federal and state limits on publicly accessible roadways (including Supply System access roads), at Supply System facilities (including h'HP-2),
'and other portions of the Hanford Site.
At this point in the planning   process, site-specific information is not available   on pollutant emission rates for the proposed facility. However, a BACT/HACT   protocol (Appeadix Dl) and modeling protocol information (Appendix D2) were made   available by Ecology during a meeting with'enton County discussing the SEPA checklist. The modeling protocol for the proposed Oregon site includes estimates of emission parameters. It is'assumed that the proposed facility on the Hanford'Site would have similar or reduced pollutant emissions.
Options in the BACT/MACT protocol list various air emiuion control technologies that might be used in the proposed aluminum smeRer plant, such as wet scrubbing for SOa emissions and afterburners to control CO emissions.
Options in the BACT/MACT protocol list various air emiuion control technologies that might be used in the proposed aluminum smeRer plant, such as wet scrubbing for SOa emissions and afterburners to control CO emissions.
The BACT options for TF control in approximate descending order of control effectiveness include: dry alumina scrubbers, dry plus secondary.scrubbers, coated bag filter dry scrubbers, floating bed scrubbers, and spray towers.Host of the Tf control options listed also reduce TSP emissions.
The BACT options for TF control in approximate descending order of control effectiveness include: dry alumina scrubbers, dry plus secondary .scrubbers, coated bag filter dry scrubbers, floating bed scrubbers, and spray towers.
Inherent in the dry alumina scrubber system are high-efficiency bag filters for.particulate collection.
Host of the Tf control options listed also reduce TSP emissions.         Inherent in the dry alumina scrubber system are high-efficiency bag filters for.
This type of scrubber collects fluorides and particulate that are returned to the reduction cells and re-absorbed.
particulate collection. This type of scrubber collects fluorides and particulate that are returned to the reduction cells and re-absorbed. Gases that ar'e not re-absorbed are primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, CO, and SO . Trace combustible hydrocarbon. gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized and destroyed. HACT options might require the capture of polycyclic organic matter (POH) emissions through a closed system cont'rol device with a reduction efficiency of at lease 95 percent.
Gases that ar'e not re-absorbed are primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, CO, and SO.Trace combustible hydrocarbon.
To assess the. maximum pollutant emission rates that. the proposed smelter could have and still remain in compliance with ambient air quality standar)s.
gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized and destroyed.
and prevention of significant deterioration limits, atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted by Pacific Horthwest National Laboratory (PHNL) specifically addressing the Proposed Action using EPA's Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model (Table 5). The ISC model uses a Gaussian plume model. that offers a wide vary of options for configuring release characteristics and computing pollutant co'ncentration and deposition values for a wide, range of averaging periods. The model focused on particulates, SO<, and CO, and produced estimates of ground-level pollutant concentrations 'averaged over the year and estimates of maximum impacts for short-duration periods (e.g., I hour, 3 hours, 24 hours). The model estimates the maximum pollutant emission rates from the proposed facility that would not result in a violation of regulatory limits; refer to Appendix     03 for more details.
HACT options might require the capture of polycyclic organic matter (POH)emissions through a closed system cont'rol device with a reduction efficiency of at lease 95 percent.To assess the.maximum pollutant emission rates that.the proposed smelter could have and still remain in compliance with ambient air quality standar)s.
Draft Environmental Assessment             5-3                           August 1998
and prevention of significant deterioration limits, atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted by Pacific Horthwest National Laboratory (PHNL)specifically addressing the Proposed Action using EPA's Industrial Source Complex (ISC)model (Table 5).The ISC model uses a Gaussian plume model.that offers a wide vary of options for configuring release characteristics and computing pollutant co'ncentration and deposition values for a wide, range of averaging periods.The model focused on particulates, SO<, and CO, and produced estimates of ground-level pollutant concentrations
'averaged over the year and estimates of maximum impacts for short-duration periods (e.g., I hour, 3 hours, 24 hours).The model estimates the maximum pollutant emission rates from the proposed facility that would not result in a violation of regulatory limits;refer to Appendix 03 for more details.Draft Environmental Assessment 5-3 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Impacts Haximum annual pollutant emissions (MT Governing standard Haximum pollutant emi ssi on rate/sec Time period Regulatory limit in , (ug/m')pollutant Table 5.Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates and Annual Emission Totals.(Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed NAQS and PSD Limits.These preliminary values are based on a simple, preliminary characterization of the roposed facility;Particulates Soa, CO Annual 24 hour Annual 24 hour 8 hour 1 hour 17 150 20 91 10,000 40,000 PSD PSD PSD PSD AAQS AAQS 28 14 33 8 390 480 900 440 1,000 250 12,000 15,000 Unmitigated airborne emissions of CO, So<, particulates, and fluorides from the proposed aluminum smelter plant may have significanWambient air quality impacts, however emission controls would bring the plant within.compliant permit standards.
Federal regulations set HAAQS for criteria air pollutants and require the states to promulgate regulations to a<ieve or maintain compliance or attainment with those standards.
Emissions are limited by appl.icable PSD and TAP limits.Appropriate BACT/HACT emission controls would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all'ertinent air quality regulations.
The emission control strategy to-be employed at the proposed facility has not been identified at this point in time,.however would, be evaluated during the applicable air permitting process.A hazard index approach was conservatively assumed (DOE/EIS-0189) for a large Hanford Site project called Tank Haste Remediation System (TMRS)which related noncarcinogenic health effects that would be additive for all ,chemicals (i.e., all chemicals would have the same mechanism of action-and effect the same target organ).The hazard index represents the summation of hazards evaluated.
'A hazard index greater than or equal to 1.0 would be indicative of potential adverse health effects in the population of concern, from exposure-to multiple chemicals.
Conversely, a hazard index less than'i:0 would suggest that no adverse health effects would be expected.All carcinogenic risks were assumed to be additive.Consequently, the total incremental lifetime, cancer risk (ILCR)would represent the summation of individual chemical cancer risks, from each emission source,,for each alternative analyzed.Regulatory agencies have defined an acceptable level of risk to be between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000, with 1 in 1,000,000 being the point of departure and referred to as de minimis (below which there is.no concern)risk.A risk below 1 in 1,000,000 was considered low, and a risk greater than 1 in 10,000 was considered high.The commercial aluminum company would have to meet air quality requirements and permit standards regulated under MAC 173-400 and MAC 173-460 and applicable
'federal regulations before operation of the proposed aluminum Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-I259 Environmental Im acts smelter plant.These standards are based on, for the most part,.cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants.
~Potential emissions from the source (see Table 5)must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulative exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects.,The;applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more than one additional cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals continually exposed to an ail pollutant.
The proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable BACT/HACT air emission controls to meet air quality requirements and standards.*
The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have minimal health effects from mitigated air emissions.
.5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure Th'ere would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure expected from the Proposed Action.5.1.5 Nondangerous Solid Maste Generated It is expected that the only nondangerous solid waste generated during the construction phase of the'roposed Action would be typical construction debris.Existing offsite facilities would have.adequate capacity to accept all waste volumes from the Proposed Action'.All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements.
The primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to as dross which consists of:aluminum metal.and al'uminum oxide.Dross is furnace slag that floats and has recycle value.The rate of dross generation is about 0.5%to IN of the plant's primary metal p)oduction.During the initial operation phase of the proposed action, about 600 metric tons per year would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite.After blowdown from cleaning the anodes, small quantities of nondangerous solids would be collected.-This blowdown material, a fine carbon powder, consists of about 50%sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50%fine carbon.During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately.
32 metric tons per year.At full production, the numbers would be about f'ive times these values.In addition, other offsite facilities would be expected to have adequate capacity to accept all other waste volumes from the Proposed Action.All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements.
Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be inconsequential.
.5.1.6.Dangerous Haste Generated Small amounts of dangerous waste could be generated (e.g., solvents, waste oil, etc.)during construction of the Proposed Action.These materials would be'managed and disposed of according to applicable regulations.
Draft.Environmental Assessment 5-5 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Im acts The largest.amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent pot1ining, consisting of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (f1uorides, sodium, and calcium), and 0.5X cyanide.The WAC-303-'9904 classifies this dangerous waste as~K088,"Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction." During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately 1,500 metric tons per year.At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values.The waste would be staged in the unused WNP-4 reactor Containment Building or General Service Building before being shipped offsite by rail for treatment.and disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.
Small quantities of other dangerous material such as solvents and waste oil might be generated during maintenance activities.
These wastes would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
5.l.7 Consumption or Commitment of Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, gravel, concrete, etc.)would occur for short periods dgring the'onstruction phase of the Proposed Action.The amount of consumption is typical for construction of a modern day aluminum smelter.Electrical energy would be used in the operation of the proposed aluminum smelter.Capacity needed is estimated at 107 megawatts (HW)and use 900 gigawatt hours (gM-hr)per year during the 60K-metric tons per year production phase of operatio'ns.
At full production of the 300K-metric tons per year, electrical capacity would be approximately five times these values at 535 HW and use 4500 gW-hrs per year.Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800 metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu).At full production that would include an anode production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 bill-ion Btu.These impacts.to the environment are indeterminate due to the complexity of region-wide electrical usage planning.5.1.8 Effects on Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews$98-'00-024 and~98-600-024a (Appendix B)were conducted.for the preferred.
alternative.
The reports concluded:
"....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area." Personnel would be briefed on the requirements of cultural resources, and would be directed to watch for cultural artifacts during excavation.
If cultural features or artifacts are.encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery would stop, and the appropriate cultural resource staff would be notified.There would be no effects expected on cultural resources during the Proposed Action.Draft Environmental Assessment 5-6 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y~DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Im acts 5.1.9 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species The Biological Revi'ews~98-600-024 and~98-600-024a (Appendix A)list the flora and fauna observed at the proposed project site.The reviews conclude,"No plant and animal species protected-under the ESA,.candidates for such protection, or species listed by the Washington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site." However, the estimated 5 hectares (12 acres)in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed and probably would qualify as mitigable habitat under (DOE/RL 96-32)and (DOE/RL 96-88).Access from the main rail line to the alternate'ite is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.
In addition, the reports indicated that the appropriate mitigation for the Piper's daisy would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development.
If the Proposed Action is constructed, the applicable areas should be resurveyed because the reviews are valid until April 15, 1999.Construction activities should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.5.1.10 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland The proposed construction would not occur in the 100-year Tloodplain of the Columbia River, nor within any area designated as a wetland (NUREG-0812).
I 5.1.11 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area The Proposed Action would be outside the Hanford Reach Study'Area, state or federal wildlife refuges, or specially designated areas.The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river only along the 300 Area, which is about 16 kilometers (10 miles)away to the south.Intermittent odors and particulate matter in the air might be observers immediately east or'south of the proposed plant along the river.5.1.12 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the Potential 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'ppropriately identified during construction activities.
All construction personnel would follow approved safety procedures for the construction and land clearing activities within the Proposed Action.Safety pr'ocedures would be followed for 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 would be 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, because Draft Environmental Assessment 5-7 August 1998 V.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental.Im acts the Supply System utilities generally are well charted.Excavation permits would be required before any digging is permitted.
Such permits would identify.buried utiliti'es.
Pipelines and utilities would be avoided by construction equipment.
Typical construction hazards occur.However, the risk of severe accidents is small.Rail traffic on the southern Hanford Site rail line is expected to'ncrease as materials are shipped to and from the aluminum smelter plant.Therefore, potential for collisions with vehicles on Route 4 South are expected to increase over current rail usage.However, warning signals, signs, and barriers would be maintained, and scheduling shipment during off-,peak travel hours would be enforced.Risk of all rail accidents involvina breach of containers for hazardous material on the Hanford Site is 1.49 x 10 accidents per train mile is based on rail crossings at about l40 locations on the Hanford Site.Mith an estimated rail usage of 42 rail cars per week, the Proposed Action would produce about 43,680 train miles on the southern Hanford rail line, and result in an'estimated 0.00065 rail accidents per vear.Because the rail usage under the Proposed Action would occur only on the-southern 10 miles of the Hanford Site rail line and crosses a highway at only one location, risk of accidents from, the Proposed Action is more remote.In additio~, the Hanford Site and Supply System<<orkforce would be notified of the increased rail traffic.The risk of a severe railroad accident on the Hanford Site is small.The largest amount of dangerous waste (hazardous waste designation under federal regulations) produced by the Proposed Action would be spent potliners.
About l,500 metric tons'ould be generated annually by the 60K-metric ton aluminum smelter plant and temporarily stage'd in the presently unused MHP-4 Containment Building or General Service Building.The two MHP-4 buildings are designed with much greater safety constraints to contain high-level radioactive materials than would be required to temporarily contain spent potliners before offsite shipment by rail for treatment and disposal.-.Recent analysis of offsite rail shipments of hazardous waste and various radiological wastes to and from applicable DOE sites across the country for,, DOE waste management activities has been conducted (DOE/EIS-0200-F).
This'nalysis concluded that reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents are not expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse human health effects to minority or low-income populations.
The total number of life-threatening effects from rail transportation is less than 0.5 for any hazardous waste alternative.
The expected number of transportation accident fatalities from trauma is no higher than one under any hazardous waste alternative.
These fatalities from potential rail accidents are independent of the shipments contents.The potential accidents within the scope of the Proposed Action of this EA are well within the accident scenarios.
analyzed'(DOE/EIS-0200-F)
.Because employees in the aluminum smelting industry work in an environment surrounded by very.large equipment and hot and molten metals, the most reasonably foreseeable accident considered during operation would be Draft Environmental Assessment 5-8 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Impacts serious burns to employees.
Local emergency response teams and care providers are trained to address potential accident victims.'Public health and safety would not be affected because the area is closed to the general public.5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS.nescription of socioeconomic impacts that uoutd result from the Proposed Action.A construction crew of approximately 500 would be required to build the initial phase of the proposed aluminum smelter..The contractor would bring a construction management team and hire the construction craft personnel from'he local area.The initial workforce of permanent employees at the proposed aluminum smelter ifould be 125.If the aluminum smelter is expanded to full-sized plant,'he workforce would be increased to about 600 to 1,000 employees.
The addition of up to 1,000 employees and about 2,000 to 3,000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset much of the impacts of 1, 100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in 1997 and the 8%unemployment rate in the Tri-City area (Benton County Planning.8.Building Department).
Therefore no crucial impact to employment levels withi'n Benton and Franklin counties is likely.For example,.student gl.owth in Richland schools from 1990 to 1995 has been 2%to 3%per year, and from 1996 to 1998 has been 1%per year.The Richland School District is currently building a new elementary school to accommodate the existing student body and for projected growth.All Richland School District modernizations and expansions are designed to meet growth in'student count for the next 5 to 10 years.5.3 EHYIROHMEHTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.oescription of environmentai justice impacts that uouid resuit from the Proposed Action.Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address'nvironmental Justice in Hinority Populations and Lo>u-1'ncome 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 (primarily Hispanic)populhtions and low income populations are present near the Hanford Site (PHHL-11472).
The analysis of the impacts in this EA indicates that there.would be no adverse impacts to the offsite population from implementing the Proposed Action.Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income portion of the community.


===5.4 CUMULATIYE===
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                            Environmental Impacts Table 5.     Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates and Annual Emission Totals. (Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed NAQS and PSD Limits. These preliminary values are based on a simple, preliminary characterization of the roposed facility; pollutant          Time        Regulatory      Governing      Haximum      Haximum period        limit in      standard      pollutant      annual
IMPACTS.oescriptfon of the cuwiative impacts that uould resuLt from the Proposed Action.During the initial phase of annual operation of'he Proposed Action, about 600 metric tons of nondangerous dross and 32 metric tons of nondangerous blowdown material from cleaning the anodes would be generated.
                                        , (ug/m')                     emi ssi on    pollutant rate        emissions
In addition, the largest volume of dangerous waste type (K088)expected to be generated annually would be 1,500 metric tons of spent potlining.
                                                                          /sec          (MT Particulates        Annual                17            PSD            28          900 24 hour              150              PSD            14          440 Soa,                Annual                20            PSD            33        1,000 24 hour                91            PSD              8          250 CO                  8 hour            10,000          AAQS            390        12,000 1 hour            40,000          AAQS            480        15,000 Unmitigated airborne emissions of CO, So<, particulates, and fluorides from the proposed aluminum smelter plant may have significanWambient air quality impacts, however emission controls would bring the plant within.
At full production, these numbers would be about five times higher..These materials would be'raft Environmental Assessment August)998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Im acts staged and managed within the Supply System's property and disposed of offsite by the commercial aluminum smelter company in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
compliant permit standards.           Federal regulations set HAAQS for criteria air pollutants and require the states to promulgate regulations to a<ieve or maintain compliance or attainment with those standards.                 Emissions are limited by  appl.icable    PSD  and  TAP limits.       Appropriate   BACT/HACT  emission  controls would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all'ertinent air quality regulations.                 The emission control strategy to
As a result of the Proposed Action, waste disposal would not substantially effect any associated treatment or disposal sites.Federal regulations set HPDES for water pollutant discharges and require the States to promulgate regulations to achieve or maintain compliance with those standards.
-  be employed at the proposed facility has not been identified at this point in time, .however would, be evaluated during the applicable air permitting process.
States also can create their own water quality standards.that are more restrictive than national standards.
A hazard index approach was conservatively assumed (DOE/EIS-0189) for a large Hanford Site project called Tank Haste Remediation System (TMRS) which related noncarcinogenic health effects that would be additive for all
Appropriate water treatment would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all pertinent HPDES regulations.
  ,chemicals (i.e., all chemicals would have the same mechanism of action -and effect the same target organ). The hazard index represents the summation of hazards evaluated. 'A hazard index greater than or equal to 1.0 would be indicative of potential adverse health effects in the population of concern, from exposure-to multiple chemicals. Conversely, a hazard index less than 'i:0 would suggest that no adverse health effects would be expected.
Ho new construction of water'ntakes or outfalls for industrial water would occur at the Columbia River, as existing Supply System piping systems would be used.Sanitary water would be disposed of into the existing Supply.System Sanitary Waste Disposal System, which is currently under utilized.The Proposed Action would bring the Sanitary.Waste Disposal System close to full capacity, the specific effects on the system would be evaluated through the HPDES permit that the commercial aluminum company would have to obtain from the state.\A summarization was made (DOE/EIS-0189) of the noncarcinogenic health hazards and carcinogenic risks'associated with air emissions for each TMRS alternative.
All carcinogenic risks were assumed to be additive. Consequently, the total incremental lifetime, cancer risk (ILCR) would represent the summation of individual chemical cancer risks, from each emission source,,for each alternative analyzed. Regulatory agencies have defined an acceptable level of risk to be between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000, with 1 in 1,000,000 being the point of departure and referred to as de minimis (below which there is.no concern) risk. A risk below 1 in 1,000,000 was considered low, and a risk greater than      1  in 10,000  was  considered high.
'he hazard indices for the maximally exposed individual worker maximally exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally exposed individual general public were well below the benchmark value of 1.0 for.all alternatives.
The commercial aluminum company would have to meet air quality requirements      and permit standards regulated under MAC 173-400 and MAC 173-460 and   applicable 'federal regulations before operation of the proposed aluminum Draft Environmental Assessment                                                     August 1998
Therefore, none of the proposed TWRS remediation alternatives were expected to.result in adverse health effects from air emissions.
Air quality requirements and p'ermit standards regulated under WAC 173-400 and WAC 173-460 and applicable federal regulations would have to be met by the commercial aluminum company before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter plant.These standards are based on, for the most part, cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants.
Emissions from the source must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulqtive exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects.The applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more thorn , one additional-cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals.
continually exposed to an air pollutant.
Similar to the findings of the hazard indices for the'aximally-exposed individual worker, maximally-exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally-exposed individual general public for proposed remediation alternatives analyzed in DOE/EIS-0189, the propo'sed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have no adverse health'ffects from mitigated air emissions.
To support initi al operations, approximately 42 rail cars per week would transport materials to the aluminum smelter plant from offsite.This compares to an average of 930 coal car shipments per year on the southern Hanford Site rail line from 1993 through 1996.This increased rail traffic adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc.Draft Environmental Assessment 5-10 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Impacts If the aluminum smelter operations are expanded to a full-sized plant with a workforce of 600 to 1,000, traffic on South Power, Plant Loop Road, Route 4 South, and the streets of the Tri-City area would increase.However, when compared to the estimated 17,300 vehicles that pass the 300 Area each work day (DOE/EA-1178);
the probability of traffic accidents per work day during full buildout of the proposed facility would be about equivalent or slightly less than those.analyzed in DOE/EA-1]78.
The initial proposed aluminum smelter plant would involve temporary construction personnel from offsite and approximately 125 new operating personnel.
The addition of up to 1,000 employees and 2,000 to 3;000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset some of the impacts of 1,100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in]997 and the 8X unemployment rate in the Tri-City area.Based on the analysis in'OE/EIS-0189 for Hanford work force and Tri-City nonfarm employment, the addition of the employment from the Proposed Action is expected to create no, adverse impact.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 from operations of the Supply System, Hanford Site, or Tri-City area.5.5 IHPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES The Ho Action Alternative and Alternate Site are discussed in the following sections.5.5.1 Implementation of the No Action Alternative.
Oualftative discussion on impacts that uould result from implementation of the no action alternative.
The No Action Alternative would have no sublease/transfer for a company to construct and operate a large aluminum smelter plant on the'ubleased/transferred property.There would be no increased use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system, and no natural gas pipeline would be buil-t north of the 300 Area.Supply System property and the surrounding environs would continue with its current activities.
No new impacts would be expected.5.5.2 Implementation of'Alternate Site.cualftatfve discussfon on fmpacts that voufd result from implementation of alternate site.The alternate site for the aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished WNP-].However, the process flow for producing aluminum requires a configuration that is uniform in shape*(square in shape)similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped.The alternate site is.not as close in its proximity to MNP-4 and to the existing BPA substation.
In addition, an estimated 5 hectares (12 acres)of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed and probably would qualify's mitigable Draft Environmental Assessment 5-11 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Environmental Im acts under DOE/RL 96-32 and DOE/RL 96-88.Access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.
This alternative would cost more to construct compared to the Proposed Action, otherwise impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action.Draft Environmental Assessment 5-12 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Permits and Regulatory Re uirements-6;0 PERM1TS AND REGULATORY REQUIRENENTS The Hanford Site is owned by DOE.The aluminum company would have to coordinate with RL and the Supply System concerning emergency preparedness and training, environmental stewardship, and potential cultural resource issues.The aluminum company would be responsible to obtain applicable HPDES permits and notify the State of Washington Department of Health per MAC 246-272 and provide a limited discharge permit to be submitted to Ecology per MAC 173-216 before making the proposed waste water tie-in into the existing permitted Supply System Waste Mater Disposal System.*Before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter, the commercial aluminum company would be required to'btain the appropriate air permit{s)controlling criteria pollutant emissions under WAC 173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141,.and a TAPs air permit under MAC 173-460.Environmental regulatory authority over the Supply System is vested in federal agencies and in Washington State agencies.The commercial aluminum company would comply.with all of these and other environmental requirements in a manner acceptable to the releva..+regulatory agencies.Draft Environmental Assessment 6-1 August l998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Or a'nizam.ions Consulted 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Consultation has been made in the preparation of this draft EA with Benton County, the Supply System, TRIDEC, Ecology, and the potential commercial aluminum company.4 Before approval of this EA, a draft version will be sent for a 30 day review period to: 'Nez Perce Tribe,~Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,~Wanapum'People,~Yakama Indian Nation,,~U.S.National Park Service,~U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,~U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 0 BPA,~Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council,~Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish 5, Wildlife, and Health,~Benton County,~Franklin County, Port of Benton,~City of Richland,~Supply System,~Hanford Education.Action League,~.Heart of America,~Physicians for Social Responsibility,~available in the DOE reading room (Washington State University Tri-Cities), and placed on the Hanford Homepage.l All comments received during the comment period would be considered in the preparation'f the final EA, and in the DOE decision whether to resolve the EA as a Finding'f No Significant Impact (FONSI), or as a determination to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
\Draft Environmental Assessment
?-1 ,August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y ,.DOE/EA-1259
-Ap endix A APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REYIEM~~Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A pendix A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Cpcccrcd by Sc".eric loc tbc U.S.Ocpcctrocot ot Bevy April 28, 1998 Mr, Randall J.Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford;Inc, P.O.Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 Richland, WA 99352.


==Dear Mr.Staudacher:==
DOE/EA-I259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                  Environmental Im acts smelter plant. These standards are based on, for the most part,.cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants. Potential emissions from the source
                                              ~
(see Table 5) must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulative exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects. ,The;applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more than one additional cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals continually exposed to an ail pollutant. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable BACT/HACT air emission controls to meet air quality requirements and standards.* The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have minimal health effects from mitigated air emissions.
.5.1.4    Radionuclide Releases  or Direct Radiation Exposure Th'ere would be no radionuclide releases  or direct radiation exposure expected from the Proposed Action.
5.1.5    Nondangerous Solid Maste Generated It is expected that the only nondangerous solid waste generated during the construction phase of the'roposed Action would be typical construction debris. Existing offsite facilities would have .adequate capacity to accept all waste volumes from the Proposed Action'. All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements.
The  primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to  as  dross which consists of:aluminum metal. and al'uminum oxide. Dross is furnace slag that floats and has recycle value. The rate of dross generation is about 0.5% to IN of the plant's primary metal p) oduction. During the initial operation phase of the proposed action, about 600 metric tons per year would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite. After blowdown from cleaning the anodes, small quantities of nondangerous solids would be collected. -This blowdown material, a fine carbon powder, consists of about 50% sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50% fine carbon. During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately.
32 metric tons per year. At full production, the numbers would be about f'ive times these values.
In addition, other offsite facilities would be expected to have adequate capacity to accept all other waste volumes from the Proposed Action. All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be inconsequential.
.5.1.6. Dangerous Haste Generated Small amounts of dangerous waste could be generated (e.g., solvents, waste oil, etc.) during construction of the Proposed Action. These materials would be'managed and disposed of according to applicable regulations.
Draft. Environmental Assessment          5-5                          August 1998


BIOLOGICAL REVIEW OF THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES, 600 Area, 098-600-024.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department    of Ener y                                  Environmental          Im acts The largest. amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent pot1ining, consisting of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (f1uorides, sodium, and calcium), and 0.5X cyanide. The WAC-303-'9904 classifies this dangerous waste as ~K088, "Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction." During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately 1,500 metric tons per year. At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values. The waste would be staged in the unused WNP-4 reactor Containment Building or General Service Building before being shipped offsite by rail for treatment.and disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.
Small quantities of other    dangerous material such as solvents and waste oil  might be  generated during maintenance activities. These wastes would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
: 5. l.7  Consumption or Commitment    of Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, gravel, concrete, etc.) would occur for short periods dgring the phase of the Proposed Action. The amount of consumption is  'onstruction typical for construction of a modern day aluminum smelter.
Electrical energy would be used in the operation of the proposed aluminum smelter.      Capacity needed is estimated at 107 megawatts (HW) and use 900 gigawatt hours (gM-hr) per year during the 60K-metric tons per year production phase of operatio'ns. At full production of the 300K-metric tons per year, electrical capacity would be approximately five times these values at 535 HW and use 4500 gW-hrs per year.
Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800  metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu). At full production that would include an anode production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 bill-ion Btu. These impacts .to the environment are indeterminate due to the complexity of region-wide electrical usage planning.
5.1.8    Effects  on Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews $ 98-'00-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix B) were conducted  .for the preferred. alternative. The reports concluded:
"....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area."
Personnel  would be briefed on the requirements of cultural resources, and would be  directed to watch for cultural artifacts during excavation. If cultural features or artifacts are. encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery would stop, and the appropriate cultural resource staff would be notified. There would be no effects expected on cultural resources during the Proposed Action.
Draft Environmental Assessment            5-6                          August 1998
 
                                                                      ~
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                  Environmental          Im acts
: 5. 1.9    Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species The  Biological  Revi'ews ~98-600-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix A)          list the flora    and fauna observed at the proposed project site. The reviews conclude, "No plant and animal species protected-under the ESA,. candidates for such protection, or species listed by the Washington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site."
However, the estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed      and probably would qualify as mitigable habitat under (DOE/RL 96-32) and (DOE/RL 96-88).        Access from the main rail line to the alternate'ite is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.      In addition, the reports indicated that the appropriate mitigation for the    Piper's  daisy would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development. If the Proposed Action is constructed, the applicable areas should be resurveyed because the reviews are valid until April 15, 1999. Construction activities should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.
5.1.10    Effects  on any  Floodplain or Wetland The proposed construction would not occur in the 100-year Tloodplain of the Columbia River, nor within any area designated as a wetland (NUREG-0812).
I 5.1.11    Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal    Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area The Proposed Action would be outside the Hanford Reach Study'Area, state or federal wildlife refuges, or specially designated areas. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river only along the 300 Area, which is about 16 kilometers (10 miles) away to the south.
Intermittent odors and particulate matter in the air might be observers immediately east or 'south of the proposed plant along the river.
: 5. 1.12    Reasonably Foreseeable    Accidents Considered and the Potential 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 identified during construction activities. All construction
                                                                          'ppropriately personnel would follow approved safety procedures for the construction and land clearing activities within the Proposed Action. Safety pr'ocedures would be followed for 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 would be 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, because Draft Environmental Assessment              5-7                          August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 V.S. Department    of  Ener y                                Environmental .Im acts the Supply System utilities generally are well charted. Excavation permits would be required before any digging is permitted. Such permits would identify. buried utiliti'es. Pipelines and utilities would be avoided by construction equipment. Typical construction hazards occur. However, the risk of severe accidents is small.
Rail  traffic on the southern Hanford Site rail line is expected to as  materials are shipped to and from the aluminum smelter plant.          'ncrease Therefore, potential for collisions with vehicles on Route 4 South are expected to increase over current rail usage. However, warning signals, signs, and barriers would be maintained, and scheduling shipment during off-,peak travel hours would be enforced. Risk of all rail accidents involvina breach of containers for hazardous material on the Hanford Site is 1.49 x 10 accidents per train mile is based on rail crossings at about l40 locations on the Hanford Site.
Mith an estimated rail usage of 42 rail cars per week, the Proposed Action would produce about 43,680 train miles on the southern Hanford rail line, and result in an 'estimated 0.00065 rail accidents per vear. Because the rail usage under the Proposed Action would occur only on the -southern 10 miles of the Hanford Site rail line and crosses a highway at only one location, risk of accidents from, the Proposed Action is more remote. In additio~, the Hanford Site and Supply System <<orkforce would be notified of the increased rail traffic. The risk of a severe railroad accident on the Hanford Site is small.
The largest amount of dangerous waste (hazardous waste designation under federal regulations) produced by the Proposed Action would be spent potliners.
About l,500 metric tons'ould be generated annually by the 60K-metric ton aluminum smelter plant and temporarily stage'd in the presently unused MHP-4 Containment Building or General Service Building. The two MHP-4 buildings are designed with much greater safety constraints to contain high-level radioactive materials than would be required to temporarily contain spent potliners before offsite shipment by rail for treatment and disposal. -.
Recent analysis of offsite rail shipments of hazardous waste and various radiological wastes to and from applicable DOE sites across the country for,,
DOE  waste management  activities has been conducted (DOE/EIS-0200-F).
concluded that reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents are This'nalysis not expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse human health effects to minority or low-income populations. The total number of life-threatening effects from rail transportation is less than 0.5 for any hazardous waste alternative. The expected number of transportation accident fatalities from trauma is no higher than one under any hazardous waste alternative. These fatalities from potential rail accidents are independent of the shipments contents. The potential accidents within the scope of the Proposed Action of this EA are well within the accident scenarios. analyzed
'(DOE/EIS-0200-F) .
Because employees in the aluminum smelting industry work in an environment surrounded by very. large equipment and hot and molten metals, the most reasonably foreseeable accident considered during operation would be Draft Environmental Assessment            5-8                          August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                                  Environmental Impacts serious burns to employees.            Local emergency response          teams and care providers are trained to address potential accident victims. 'Public health and safety would not be affected because the area is closed to the general public.
5.2    SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS.          nescription of socioeconomic impacts that uoutd result from the Proposed  Action.
A  construction crew of approximately 500 would be required to build the initial    phase of the proposed aluminum smelter.. The contractor would bring a construction management team and hire the construction craft personnel local area. The initial workforce of permanent employees at the proposed from'he aluminum smelter ifould be 125. If the aluminum smelter is expanded to full-sized plant,'he workforce would be increased to about 600 to 1,000 employees.        The addition of up to 1,000 employees and about 2,000 to 3,000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset much of the impacts of 1, 100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in 1997 and the 8% unemployment rate in the Tri-City area (Benton County Planning.
: 8. Building Department).          Therefore no crucial impact to employment levels withi'n Benton and Franklin counties is likely. For example, .student gl.owth in Richland schools from 1990 to 1995 has been 2% to 3% per year, and from 1996 to 1998 has been 1% per year. The Richland School District is currently building a new elementary school to accommodate the existing student body and for projected growth. All            Richland School District modernizations and expansions      are designed to meet growth in 'student count for the next 5 to 10 years.
5.3 EHYIROHMEHTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.                oescription of environmentai justice impacts that uouid resuit from the Proposed Action.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address'nvironmental Justice in Hinority Populations          and Lo>u-1'ncome 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 (primarily Hispanic) populhtions and low income populations are present near the Hanford Site (PHHL-11472). The analysis of the impacts in this EA indicates that there
.would be no adverse impacts to the offsite population from implementing the Proposed Action. Therefore,            it  is not expected that there would be any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income portion of the community.
5.4    CUMULATIYE IMPACTS.        oescriptfon of the cuwiative impacts that uould resuLt from the Proposed Action.
During the initial phase of annual operation of'he Proposed Action, about 600 metric tons of nondangerous dross and 32 metric tons of nondangerous blowdown material from cleaning the anodes would be generated.                          In addition, the largest volume of dangerous waste type (K088) expected to be generated annually would be 1,500 metric tons of spent potlining. At full production, these numbers would be about five times higher.. These materials would be Environmental Assessment
                                                                                                            'raft August )998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department    of  Ener y                                Environmental  Im acts staged and managed within the Supply System's property and disposed of offsite by the commercial aluminum smelter company in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. As a result of the Proposed Action, waste disposal would not substantially effect any associated treatment or disposal sites.
Federal regulations set HPDES for water pollutant discharges and require the  States  to promulgate regulations to achieve or maintain compliance with those standards.      States also can create their own water quality standards
. that are more restrictive than national standards.        Appropriate water treatment would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all pertinent HPDES regulations.        Ho new construction of water
  'ntakes or outfalls for industrial water would occur at the Columbia River, as existing Supply System piping systems would be used. Sanitary water would be disposed of into the existing Supply. System Sanitary Waste Disposal System, which is currently under utilized. The Proposed Action would bring the Sanitary. Waste Disposal System close to full capacity, the specific effects on the system would be evaluated through the HPDES permit that the commercial aluminum company would have to obtain from the state.
                                                                        \
A  summarization was    made (DOE/EIS-0189) of the noncarcinogenic health hazards  and  carcinogenic risks 'associated with air emissions for each TMRS alternative.    'he hazard indices for the maximally exposed individual worker maximally exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally exposed individual general public were well below the benchmark value of 1.0 for. all alternatives. Therefore, none of the proposed TWRS remediation alternatives were expected to .result in adverse health effects from air emissions.
Air quality requirements and p'ermit standards regulated under WAC  173-400  and WAC 173-460 and applicable federal regulations would have to be met by the commercial aluminum company before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter plant. These standards are based on, for the most part, cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants. Emissions from the source must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulqtive exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects. The applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more thorn
,  one additional-cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals.
continually exposed to an air pollutant. Similar to the findings of the hazard indices for the'aximally-exposed individual worker, maximally-exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally-exposed individual general public for proposed remediation alternatives analyzed in DOE/EIS-0189, the propo'sed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have no adverse health'ffects from mitigated    air  emissions.
To support initial operations, approximately 42 rail cars per week would transport materials to the aluminum smelter plant from offsite. This compares to an average of 930 coal car shipments per year on the southern Hanford Site rail line from 1993 through 1996. This increased rail traffic adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc.
Draft Environmental Assessment            5-10                            August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of  Ener y                                                Environmental Impacts If the    aluminum smelter operations are expanded to a full-sized plant with  a  workforce of 600 to 1,000, traffic on South Power, Plant Loop Road, Route 4 South, and the streets of the Tri-City area would increase.                            However, when compared to the estimated 17,300 vehicles that pass the 300 Area each work day (DOE/EA-1178); the probability of traffic accidents per work day during full buildout of the proposed facility would be about equivalent or slightly less than those .analyzed in DOE/EA-1]78.
The initial proposed aluminum smelter plant would involve temporary construction personnel from offsite and approximately 125 new operating personnel. The addition of up to 1,000 employees and 2,000 to 3;000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset some of the impacts of 1,100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in ]997 and the 8X unemployment rate in the Tri-City area. Based on the analysis for Hanford work force and Tri-City nonfarm employment, the                    in'OE/EIS-0189 addition of the employment from the Proposed Action is expected to create no, adverse impact. 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 from operations of the Supply System, Hanford Site, or Tri-City area.
5.5    IHPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES The Ho  Action Alternative        and  Alternate Site are discussed in the following sections.
5.5.1    Implementation of the        No  Action Alternative.          Oualftative discussion  on impacts that uould result from implementation of the no action alternative.
The No Action Alternative would have no sublease/transfer for a company to construct and operate a large aluminum smelter plant on the
'ubleased/transferred property. There would be no increased use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system, and no natural gas pipeline would be buil-t north of the 300 Area. Supply System property and the surrounding environs would continue with its current activities. No new impacts would be expected.
5.5.2      Implementation of'Alternate Site.              cualftatfve discussfon  on fmpacts that voufd result from implementation of alternate site.
The  alternate site for the          aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's        unfinished WNP-]. However, the process flow for producing aluminum requires a configuration that is uniform in shape *(square in shape) similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped.
The alternate site is .not as close in its proximity to MNP-4 and to the existing BPA substation. In addition, an estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed and probably would qualify's mitigable Draft Environmental Assessment                      5-11                                      August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                                Environmental Im  acts under DOE/RL 96-32 and DOE/RL 96-88. Access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush.
This alternative would cost more to construct compared to the Proposed Action, otherwise impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action.
Draft Environmental Assessment      5-12                          August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department  of  Ener y                  Permits and Regulatory  Re uirements
                    - 6;0  PERM1TS AND REGULATORY REQUIRENENTS The Hanford Site is  owned by DOE. The aluminum company would have  to coordinate with RL and the Supply System concerning emergency preparedness and training, environmental stewardship, and potential cultural resource issues.
The aluminum company would be responsible to obtain applicable HPDES permits and notify the State of Washington Department of Health per MAC 246-272 and provide a limited discharge permit to be submitted to Ecology per MAC 173-216 before making the proposed waste water tie-in into the existing permitted Supply System Waste Mater Disposal System.
Before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter, the commercial aluminum company would be required to'btain the appropriate air permit{s) controlling criteria pollutant emissions under WAC 173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141, .and a TAPs air permit under MAC 173-460.      Environmental regulatory authority over the Supply System is vested in federal agencies and in Washington State agencies. The commercial aluminum company would comply.
with all of these and other environmental requirements in a manner acceptable to the releva..+ regulatory agencies.
Draft Environmental  Assessment        6-1                          August l998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                                Or a'nizam.ions Consulted
: 7. 0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Consultation has been made in the preparation of this draft EA with Benton County, the Supply System, TRIDEC, Ecology, and the potential commercial aluminum company.                                                4 Before approval
                    '  of this EA, a draft version will  be sent  for    a 30 day review period to:
Nez Perce  Tribe,
~ Confederated Tribes  of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
~ Wanapum 'People,
~ Yakama  Indian Nation,,
~ U.S. National Park Service,
~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 0 BPA,
~ Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council,
~ Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish  5, Wildlife,  and  Health,
~  Benton County,
~  Franklin County, Port of Benton,
~  City of Richland,
~
Supply System,
~  Hanford Education .Action League,
~. Heart of America,
~  Physicians for Social Responsibility,
~  available in the DOE reading room (Washington State University Tri-Cities),
and placed on  the Hanford  Homepage.
l All comments received during the comment period would be considered in the preparation'f the final EA, and in the DOE decision whether to resolve the EA as a Finding'f No Significant Impact (FONSI), or as a determination to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
                                                                \
Draft Environmental Assessment          ?-1                              ,August 1998
 
                                                          - DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                                    Ap endix A APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REYIEM
                    ~ ~
Draft Environmental Assessment                            August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department        of  Ener y                                                                        A pendix      A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Cpcccrcd by Sc".eric loc tbc U.S. Ocpcctrocot ot Bevy April 28, 1998 Mr, Randall J. Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford; Inc, P. O. Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 Richland, WA 99352
 
==Dear Mr. Staudacher:==
 
BIOLOGICALREVIEW OF THE WPPSS INDUSTRIALSITES, 600 Area, 098-600-024.
Project
Project


== Description:==
== Description:==


~Two 150 acre sites on thc eastern edge of the land managed by.the Washington Public Power Supply System are being evaluated as potential sites for an aluminum smelter.Site.."A" is located to the cast and northeast of the WhlP-4 reactor, Site"B" is located east and southeast of the WNP-1 reactor.If one of these sites is selcctcd as the, f5cation for the smelter, it is cxpectcd that thc entire 150 acres will bc cleared and leveled in preparation for facility construction.
        ~ Two 150 acre sites on thc eastern edge of the land managed by. the Washington Public Power Supply System are being evaluated as potential sites for an aluminum smelter. Site                 ..
            "A"is located   to the cast and northeast of the WhlP-4 reactor, Site "B" is located east and southeast of the WNP-1 reactor. Ifone of these sites is selcctcd as the, f5cation for the smelter, it is cxpectcd that thc entire 150 acres willbc cleared and leveled in preparation for facility construction.
Survey Objectives:
Survey Objectives:
~To determine the occurrence in the project area of plant and animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species listed as threatened, endahgered, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, I'To evaluate thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.Survey Methods: Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of the proposed sites were, conducted by C.A;~Duberstein, J.M: Becker, C.A.Brandt, and M.R.Sackschcwsky on 27 April 1998.The Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale (Bonham 1989)was used to determine percent cover of dominant vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following:
        ~ To determine the occurrence in the project area of plant and animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species listed as threatened, endahgered, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,                                     I' To evaluate thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (1994,.1996), Washington State Department
Survey Methods:
~of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S.Hsh and%'iidlifc Service (1985).Lists of animal and plant species considered Endangered, Thrcatcncd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFWS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12.Survey Results:.~Lists of all plants and animals observed within each of the proposed industrial sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of the proposed sites were, conducted by C. A;                 ~
902 Battelle Boulevard x P.O.Box 999 x Richland, WA 99352 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Appendix A Mr.R.J.Staudachcr 98-600-024 Page 2 of 9 The southern 2J5 and western 1/4 of Site A have been previously disturbed (Figure 1).Th Wcstcrn 1/4 is within a perimeter fenceline for lA'PA and appears to have been used as a construction laydown area, it is currently dominated by cheatgrass, hoary aster, and pale cnveningprimrose, v ith significant amounts of yanow and bur sage.The, southern 2/5 of.the site (outside, the fence line)appears to have been used for borrow activities, it is currently dominated by needle-and-thread grass, cheatgrass, and hoary aster.The remaining portIons of Site A does not app~to have been physically disturbed, although it has burned, probably in thc early 19SO's, The undisturbed portion of Site A is dominated by cheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, with a large number of additional species.Shrub cover is sparse, with small clumps of Big sagebrush, and scattered individuals of gray and grccn rabbitbrush.
Duberstein, J. M: Becker, C. A. Brandt, and M. R. Sackschcwsky on 27 April 1998. The Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale (Bonham 1989) was used to determine percent cover of dominant vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following:
An inactive security training facility is located in thc center of Site A.The eastern 200 m of Site B is relatively undisturbed except for fires that probably occurred in the early 1980's (Figure 2).Thc southern 5 ha of this portion of Site B has recovered.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(1994,.1996), Washington State Department                         ~
well and the shrub cover is between 15 and 20 Jo, with a relatively even Six of big sapebrush and Antelope bitterbrush, ard an understory of Sandberg's bluegrass and c'.;atgrass, Thc remaining areas ivitl Jg the undisturbed portion of the site arc dominated by Sandberg's bluegrass, cheatgrass, and needle-and-thread grass.West of Qe undisturbed section is a strip, approximately 250 m wide, that consists of two large borrow pits, and an area between these two that appears to be an additional pit that has been filled in and revegetated.
of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S. Hsh and %'iidlifcService (1985). Lists of animal and plant species considered Endangered, Thrcatcncd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFWS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12.
Vegetation in this a;ca consists primarily of cheatgrass; with an asso'rtment of other species, mostly weedy sp'ecies.The western portion of Site B is primarily within the existing fence linc around V&#xc3;P-1, except for a small area in'the northwest corner.The western portion of Site B has been higMy disturbed, and appears to have been used as construction lay down areas and for other construction support.Vegetation within the fence lines of Site B is primarily chcatgrass, with significant amounts of barren six-v, eeks and hoary aster, with an assortmetn of other, primarily~vccdy species.One plant species on thc Washington State Sensitive plant list (Piper's daisy-Erigeron piperianus), ahd onc plant species on the Washington State Watch list (Stalked-pod-milkvctch-AsIra'galus sclcrocarpus) were observed in both of thc proposed industrial sites.I A total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals werc identified within Site A, all of these werc within the western portion of the Site, inside of the%%P-4 fence line, (Figure 1).A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were, identified within Site, B, all of these v ere in the disturbed western section, 4 werc inside of the WNP-1 fence, and 4 were in the northwest corner of Site B (Figurc 2).The stalked-pod milkvetch were observed both inside and outside the fence lines within both of the proposed sites, but all were in relatively disturbed sites.Animal species of concern included the Loggcrhcad shrike, (Washington State Candidate, former federal candidate), observed within Site B, and the Long-billed curlew (Washington State Monitor)observed in both Sites.Most of thc other bird species observed are protected under thc Migratory Bird Treaty Act.Draft Environmental Assessment A-2 August 199S U.S.Department of Ener y'DOE/EA-1259 A endix A Mr.R.J.Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 3 of 9 Considerations and Recommendations:
Survey Results:
No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species listed by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the, vicinity of the proposed site.The majority of both of the sites consist of highly dcgradcd or otherwise low quality habitat.However, the estimated 5 ha of shrub land in the south eastern part of Site B would probably qualify as mitigablc habitat under the Hanford Site Biological Resources management Plan (DOE/RL l 996a)and Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy (DOE/RL 1996b)~Thc populations of Piper's daisy in both of the Sites consist of relatively few, widely scattered individuals in highly disturbed habitats.Piper's daisy.normally occurs with sagebrush on silty to sandy soils, but it does sporadically occur in disrobed settings.If one of these sites is selected for development, appropriate mitigation far this species in this situation would consist of attempting to transplant thc individuals prior to site development.
      .~ Lists of all plants and animals observed within each of the proposed industrial sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
~The stall ed-pod'milkvetch occurs in sandy soils throughout the Hanford Sitt.-.The populations within thc proposed industrial sites arc sparse and arc primarily within disturbed habitats.Yo specific mitigation fog this species would be required.''he long-billed curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the Hanford Site, and the'oggerhead shrike occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats if suitable perch'sites are available.
902 Battelle Boulevard     x   P.O. Box 999         x Richland, WA 99352 Draft Environmental Assessment                                                                           August 1998
If one of thcsc Sites is selected for'cvclopment, thc ground clearing should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with the migratory bird treaty act.~Development of either of the Sites would not result in serious impacts to species or habitats of concern.However, based on ecological considerations, Site A is preferable because Site B has slightly morc Piper's daisies, and approximately 5 ha of Site B is a relatively healthy Sagebrush/Bittcrbrush.community.
 
that may require compensatory mitigation.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De     artment of Ener y                                                                     Appendix A Mr. R. J. Staudachcr 98-600-024 Page 2 of 9 The southern 2J5 and western 1/4 of Site A have been previously disturbed (Figure 1). Th Wcstcrn 1/4 is within a perimeter fenceline for lA'PA and appears to have been used as a construction laydown area, it is currently dominated by cheatgrass, hoary aster, and pale cnveningprimrose, v ith significant amounts of yanow and bur sage. The, southern 2/5 of
Sincerely, CA Brandt, Ph.D.Project Manager Ecological Compliance Asscssmcnt CAB:mrs Draft Environmental Assessment A-3 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Ap endix A Mr.R.J.Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 4 of 9 REFERENCES' e t'alVe e t, John Wiley A,Sons, fnc.Bonham, Charles D.19S9.e~u e ent pp.127-128..U.S.Department of Energy.1996a.Draf't Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan.DOE/RL 96-32.U.S.Department of Energy.1996b.Draft Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy.DOE/RL 96-88.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1985.Revised List of Migratory Birds;Fina Rule.50 FF', 13708 (April 5, 19S5).Washington Department of Natural Resources.
        . the site (outside, the fence line) appears to have been used for borrow activities, it is currently dominated by needle-and-thread grass, cheatgrass, and hoary aster. The remaining portIons of Site A does not app~ to have been physically disturbed, although it has burned, probably in thc early 19SO's, The undisturbed portion of Site A is dominated by cheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, with a large number of additional species. Shrub cover is sparse, with small clumps of Big sagebrush, and scattered individuals of gray and grccn rabbitbrush. An inactive security training facility is located in thc center of Site A.
1997.Endangered, Threatened A Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.'994.
The eastern 200 m of Site B is relatively undisturbed except for fires that probably occurred in the early 1980's (Figure 2). Thc southern 5 ha of this portion of Site B has recovered.
Species of Special Concern in Washington.(April 1994).Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.1996.f'riority Habitats and Species List.(January 1996).'raft Environmental Assessment A-4 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A pendix A Mr.R.J.Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 5 of 9 TABLE 1.PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Species Achillea milli olium Y arrow Common Name Site A Site B Agro'ron cristatum A ro ron das~srach~um Ambrosia acanthica a Amisincl ia resse ara Amsinc/'ia l'co soides Artemisia tridentata Ascle iass eciosa As ara uso cinalis Astra a us caricinus Astra alussclerocar us Balsamorhiza care ana Brodiaea dou lasii Brodiaea hoivellii Bromus tectorum Centaurea di sa Centaurea re ens Chaenactis dou asii Chon rilla'uncea C/i sotha>nnus nauseosus Chr sothamnus viscidi orus Comandra umbellatum Con za canadensis Cre isatrtbar a C tan tha circumscissa C'mo teris lezebinrhinus Del hiniuni nuttalianu>n Descurainea innata Draba verna Eaea nusan usti olia E ilobium aniculataum Eri eron i erianus Eri eron olios ermus Eri eron uniilus Erio onum niveum Erodium cicutarium E'simumas erum Fesruca octo ora Fesluca ovina Crested wheat rass Thicks ike wheat rass Bursa e Tesselatc fiddleneck Tarv eed iddleneck Bi sa ebrush Milkweed As aragus Buckwheat milkvetch Stalked-d milkvetch are's balsamroot Douglas c usterlil Howell's clusterlil Cheat grass Diffuse kna weed Russian kna wccd Hoa false arrow Rush skeletonwecd Gra rabbitbrush Green rabbitbrush Bastard toadflax Horsewced Hawksbeard Matted c tantha Tu entine s rin arslc landlar s ur Tans mustard S ring whitlow Russian olive willoavherb Pi er's dais Cushion fl eabanc Shag gv fleabane Snow buckwheat Fillaree cstern wallflower Barren six-weeks Shee escue Draft Environmental Assessment A-5 August 1998
well and the shrub cover is between 15 and 20 Jo, with a relatively even Six of big sapebrush and Antelope bitterbrush, ard an understory of Sandberg's bluegrass and c'.;atgrass, Thc remaining areas ivitlJg the undisturbed portion of the site arc dominated by Sandberg's bluegrass, cheatgrass, and needle-and-thread grass. West of Qe undisturbed section is a strip, approximately 250 m wide, that consists of two large borrow pits, and an area between these two that appears to be an additional pit that has been filled in and revegetated. Vegetation in this a;ca consists primarily of cheatgrass; with an asso'rtment of other species, mostly weedy sp'ecies. The western portion of Site B is primarily within the existing fence linc around V&#xc3;P-1, except for a small area in'the northwest corner. The western portion of Site B has been higMy disturbed, and appears to have been used as construction lay down areas and for other construction support.
~~~~II I~0~j RRSRQ~~~r t t~~~~I~~t~t~~J~~~~rt JJ tt~~~~~~~~~r t~~~~t t~J tr t~t~~~r tc~t c 0%~~r'~t~~J~~~0~~r~~~~~J 0 a~~~.~~~~~~~
Vegetation within the fence lines of Site B is primarily chcatgrass, with significant amounts of barren six-v, eeks and hoary aster, with an assortmetn of other, primarily ~vccdy species.
U.S;De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix A Mr.R.J.Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 7 of 9 TABLE 2.ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Common Name Site A Site 3 MAMMALS Badoer.Co ote Grassho er mouse Jack rabbit Mule deer Pocket o her Pocket mouse REPTILES Go her snake Side-blotched lizard BIRDS American kestrel American robin Canada oose~Horned lark House finch House s arrow Lo~erhead shrike Lono-billed curlew Os re Pheasant Savannah s arrow Sa's hoebe Ves ers arrow%estern meadowlark
One plant species on thc Washington State Sensitive plant list (Piper's daisy Erigeron piperianus), ahd onc plant species on the Washington State Watch list (Stalked-pod-milkvctch -AsIra'galus sclcrocarpus) were observed in both of thc proposed industrial sites.
%hite crown s arrow Draft Environmental Assessment A-7 August 1998'I U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix A Mr.R.J.Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 8 of 9 PICTURE X.HABXTATS ANZAC FEATURES WITHIN SXTE A-C7 0~gP-+.Draft Environmenta1 Assessment i,s August 1998.
I A total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals werc identified within Site A, all of these werc within the western portion of the Site, inside of the%%P-4 fence line, (Figure 1). A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were, identified within Site, B, all of these v ere in the disturbed western section, 4 werc inside of the WNP-1 fence, and 4 were in the northwest corner of Site B (Figurc 2).
U.S.De artment of Ener y DOEJI'EA-1259 A endix A Mr.R.J.Staudachcr 98-600-024 Pagc90f9 FIGURE 2.HA3ITATS.AND FEATURES AVITHIN SITE 8-'9 g~~qC<pg~'I~J cN S gg<C Q+g~J pC 6'>y,v'pc p a'~~~~0+Cl tI~S Ppir5~scp p>i~.Draft Envir'onmental Assessment A 9 August 1998~~
The stalked-pod milkvetch were observed both inside and outside the fence lines within both of the proposed sites, but all were in relatively disturbed sites.
U.S;De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Opcntsd tr!'",c'le hr ee U s.reyirt~cnt o.'Eneity May 21, 1998 Mr.Randall Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford;Inc.P.0, Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 RicMan1,%VA 99352 Dear Mr.Staudacher.
Animal species of concern included the Loggcrhcad shrike, (Washington State Candidate, former federal candidate), observed within Site B, and the Long-billed curlew (Washington State Monitor) observed in both Sites. Most of thc other bird species observed are protected under thc Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
BIOLOGICAL REVIEW OF THE NATURAL GAS LIKE TO THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES PROJECT, 600 Area, 498-600-024a.
Draft Environmental Assessment                                                                 August 199S A-2
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department         of   Ener y                                                             A   endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 3   of 9 Considerations and Recommendations:
No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species listed by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the, vicinity of the proposed site.
The majority of both of the sites consist of highly dcgradcd or otherwise low quality habitat. However, the estimated 5 ha of shrub land in the south eastern part of Site B would probably qualify as mitigablc habitat under the Hanford Site Biological Resources management Plan (DOE/RL l 996a) and Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy (DOE/RL 1996b)
        ~   Thc populations of Piper's daisy in both of the Sites consist of relatively few, widely scattered individuals in highly disturbed habitats. Piper's daisy. normally occurs with sagebrush on silty to sandy soils, but it does sporadically occur in disrobed settings. If one of these sites is selected for development, appropriate mitigation far this species in this situation would consist of attempting to transplant thc individuals prior to site development.
        ~   The stall ed-pod 'milkvetch occurs in sandy soils throughout the Hanford Sitt.-. The populations within thc proposed industrial sites arc sparse and arc primarily within disturbed habitats. Yo specific mitigation fog this species would be required.
          'he long-billed curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the Hanford Site, and the
          'oggerhead shrike       occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats ifsuitable perch'sites are available. Ifone of thcsc Sites is selected for
          'cvclopment, thc ground clearing should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with the migratory bird treaty act.
      ~   Development of either of the Sites would not result in serious impacts to species or habitats of concern. However, based on ecological considerations, Site A is preferable because Site B has slightly morc Piper's daisies, and approximately 5 ha of Site B is a relatively healthy Sagebrush/Bittcrbrush.community. that may require compensatory mitigation.
Sincerely, CA Brandt, Ph.D.
Project Manager Ecological Compliance Asscssmcnt CAB:mrs Draft Environmental Assessment                       A-3                                       August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De   artment of Ener y                                                           Ap   endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 4 of 9 REFERENCES' Bonham, Charles D. 19S9.
pp. 127-128..
e ~u e ent        e t 'alVe e t,   John Wiley A,Sons, fnc.
U. S. Department of Energy. 1996a. Draf't Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan.
DOE/RL 96-32.
U. S. Department of Energy. 1996b. Draft Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy. DOE/RL 96-88.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Revised List of Migratory Birds; Fina Rule. 50 FF',
13708 (April 5, 19S5).
Washington Department of Fish    and Wildlife.'994. Species of Special Concern in Washington.
(April 1994).
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. f'riority Habitats and Species List. (January 1996).
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Endangered, Threatened    A Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997),
              'raft Environmental Assessment               A-4                                   August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De   artment of Ener y                                     A pendix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 5 of 9 TABLE 1. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Species                   Common Name Site A Site B Achillea milli olium          Yarrow Agro 'ron cristatum           Crested wheat rass A ro ron das ~srach     ~um   Thicks ike wheat rass Ambrosia acanthica a         Bursa    e Amisincl ia resse ara         Tesselatc fiddleneck Amsinc/'ia l 'co soides       Tarv eed iddleneck Artemisia tridentata         Bi sa ebrush Ascle iass eciosa           Milkweed As ara uso cinalis           As aragus Astra a us caricinus         Buckwheat milkvetch Astra alussclerocar us       Stalked- d milkvetch Balsamorhiza care ana         are 's balsamroot Brodiaea dou lasii           Douglas c usterlil Brodiaea hoivellii           Howell's clusterlil Bromus tectorum             Cheat grass Centaurea di sa             Diffuse kna weed Centaurea re ens             Russian kna wccd Chaenactis dou asii         Hoa false arrow Chon   rilla 'uncea         Rush skeletonwecd C/i sotha>nnus nauseosus     Gra rabbitbrush Chr sothamnus viscidi orus   Green rabbitbrush Comandra umbellatum         Bastard toadflax Con za canadensis           Horsewced Cre isatrtbar a             Hawksbeard C tan tha circumscissa     Matted c tantha C 'mo teris lezebinrhinus   Tu entine s rin arslc Del hiniuni nuttalianu>n         landlar  s ur Descurainea innata           Tans    mustard Draba verna                 S  ring whitlow Eaea nusan usti olia         Russian olive E ilobium aniculataum               willoavherb Eri eron i erianus           Pi er's dais Eri eron olios ermus         Cushion fleabanc Eri eron uniilus             Shag gv fleabane Erio onum niveum             Snow buckwheat Erodium cicutarium           Fillaree E 'simumas erum                 cstern wallflower Fesruca octo ora             Barren six-weeks Fesluca ovina               Shee    escue Draft Environmental Assessment A-5                August 1998
 
                                                                                  ~ ~ ~
      ~ II I
                                                    ~    0            ~
j RRSRQ
                                                  ~  ~
            ~  r t      t  ~
                                ~    ~                ~    I  ~
    ~  t  ~  t      ~    ~                  ~      ~
J                                ~    ~
rt    JJ tt
                                ~    ~ ~          ~
                                      ~  ~        ~      ~
                                                          ~    r    t
                                                              ~    ~  ~
          ~  tt                  ~ ~   ~
  ~           J  tr t~t r tc    ~       tc                    0%        ~
                                      ~ r                ~
t         ~                                         ~ ~             ~ 0
    ~   J
                                        ~ ~       r            ~
                                      ~ ~ ~
            ~     J 0
a ~         ~
                                ~ .  ~       ~
                                                    ~         ~         ~
                                                                                        ~ ~
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S;  De  artment of Ener y                        A  endix  A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 7  of 9 TABLE 2. ANIMALSPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Common Name    Site A     Site 3 MAMMALS Badoer    .
Co ote Grassho     er mouse Jack rabbit Mule deer Pocket o her Pocket mouse REPTILES Go her snake Side-blotched lizard BIRDS American kestrel American robin Canada oose
    ~
Horned lark House finch House s arrow Lo~ erhead shrike Lono-billed curlew Os re Pheasant Savannah s arrow Sa 's hoebe Ves ers arrow
    %estern meadowlark
    %hite crown s arrow Draft Environmental Assessment   A-7               August 1998
                                                          'I
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department     of Ener y                         A endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 8 of 9 PICTURE X. HABXTATS ANZAC FEATURES WITHIN SXTE A-C7 0
                                                  ~gP-+
i,s Draft Environmenta1     Assessment                   August 1998.
 
DOEJI'EA-1259 artment of Ener y                                             A endix A U.S. De Mr. R. J. Staudachcr 98-600-024 Pagc90f9 FIGURE 2. HA3ITATS. AND FEATURES AVITHIN SITE 8-
                                                            '9 g~
                                                              ~qC<
pg~
                                                        'I S
gg<C Q+
                              ~J    g~J cN pC 6'>y,v' pc p a'~~~~     0+Cl     tI~S Ppir5 ~scp p>i~
.Draft Envir'onmental Assessment                                     August 1998 A 9
                                                                          ~ ~
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S;   De   artment of Ener y                                                                   A endix A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Opcntsd tr!'",c'le hr ee U s. reyirt~cnt o.'Eneity May 21, 1998 Mr. Randall Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford; Inc.
P. 0, Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 RicMan1, %VA 99352 Dear Mr. Staudacher.
BIOLOGICALREVIEW OF THE NATURALGAS LIKETO THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES PROJECT, 600 Area, 498-600-024a.
Project
Project


== Description:==
== Description:==


~Insta]]a natural gas line along the m]road tracks between'he 300 Area to the proposed WPPSS industrial sites adjacent to%'NP-l and WNP-4.Survey Objectives:
      ~   Insta)) a natural gas line along the m]road tracks between'he 300 Area to the proposed WPPSS industrial sites adjacent to%'NP-l and WNP-4.
~To dcterminc the occuirence in the project area of p]ant and animal species~otected under thc Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species]isted as threatcncd, cndangercd, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protcctcd under the Migratoiy Bird Treaty Act, To cva]uatc thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.Survey Methods:~Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of thc proposed sites werc conducted by C.A, Dubcrstcin, J.M.Bccker, J.L.Downs, and M.R.Sackschcwsky on 19 May 1998.Thc Braun-B)anquet cover-abundance sca]e (Bonham]989)was used to dcterminc percent cover of dominat]t vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following:
Survey Objectives:
Washington Department of Fish and iVild]ife (l994, 1996), washington State Department.
      ~   To dcterminc the occuirence in the project area of p]ant and animal species ~otected under thc Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species ]isted as threatcncd, cndangercd, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protcctcd under the Migratoiy Bird Treaty Act, To cva]uatc thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.
of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S.Fish and Vli]d]ifc Service (1985).Lists uf animal and p]ant species considered Endangered, Thrcatencd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFRS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12.Survey Results:~The vegetation between the, 300 Area and approximately 1 mi]c, north of thc intersection of the Rai]road a'nd Route 4 South consists of mature Sagebrush, Bitterbrush, snowy buckwheat, and rabbitbrush with an understory of cheatgrass and Sandberg's b]uegrass,~with sornc small stands of larger bunchgrasscs.
Survey Methods:
However, much of the vegetation within 50 meters of the rail road is relatively disturbed.
      ~   Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of thc proposed sites werc conducted by C. A, Dubcrstcin, J. M. Bccker, J. L. Downs, and M. R. Sackschcwsky on 19 May 1998. Thc Braun-B)anquet cover-abundance sca]e (Bonham ]989) was used to dcterminc percent cover of dominat]t vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following:
902 Battallc Soul!yard a P.O.Box 999 a Richland, WA 99352 Draft fnvironmental Assessment A-10 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOEgEA-12S9 A pendix A Mr, Randa))Staudacher 93-600-024a Page 2 of 6~From approximately I mile north of the railroad intersection with Route 4S to the%PPSS plants thc vegetation is dominated by cheatgrass, dune scvrfpea, Hoary aster, and pale cvcning primrose.~The access from the main rail line to Industrial Site Option A is highly disturbed, the vegetation is diverse but is primarily sparse cheatgrass.
Washington Department of Fish and iVild]ife(l994, 1996), washington State Department.
However, 2 Piper s daisies (%'ashington State Sensitive p)ant species)were observed near the tnmina)end of thc proposed gas line route, one at the western most junction on the north side of WNPA and the other just south of the, air intake structure at the cnd of the proposed gas line route.,~The access from thc main rail linc to Industria)
of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S. Fish and Vli]d]ifcService (1985). Lists uf animal and p]ant species considered Endangered, Thrcatencd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFRS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12.
Site Option B is parually disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush steppe in the south-east corner of the proposed industrial site.A listing of all of the plant species observed along the proposed gas line routes is auached as Table)..~Animal species observed along the proposed natural gas)ine routes arc listed in the attached Table 2.Loggerhead shrikes washington State Candidate, former federal candidate)werc observed between Route 4S and theWPPSS complex, and at thc southeast cerner of Site'ption B.A long-bi)led curlew was observed between Route 4S and the WPPSS complex.Considerations and Recommendations:
Survey Results:
~No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species)istcd by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site.~The gas line should be placed as near as possible to the existing rail lines and fiber optic cables.North of Route,4S there is probably adequate room between the rail line and the existing access rqad for placement of thc gas linc.This wou)d minimize thc amount of higher quality habitat that will bc disturbed.
    ~   The vegetation between the, 300 Area and approximately 1 mi]c, north of thc intersection of the Rai]road a'nd Route 4 South consists of mature Sagebrush, Bitterbrush, snowy buckwheat, and rabbitbrush with an understory of cheatgrass and Sandberg's b]uegrass,
The pipe)inc contractor should be required to minimize, to the extent practicab)e, the width of thc disturbance while insta))ing the gas line.~The only area along the proposed routes where significant habitat disturbance is likely to occur is near the southeast corner of the proposed Industria)
        ~
Site, Option'B.~Thc Piper's daisies that werc obscived near the terminus of the proposed route to Site A occurred in disturbed habitats, and both individuals werc probably outside of the area that would be disturbed by the installation of the gas line, If this linc is constructed, the area should be resurvcycd, and any individuals that may bc disturbed should bc, transp)anted as mitigation.
with sornc small stands of larger bunchgrasscs. However, much of the vegetation within 50 meters of the rail road is relatively disturbed.
~The long-bil)cd curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the, Hanford Site, and thc, Lo gerhcad shrike occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats if suitable perch sites arc available, Construction of the proposed natural gas line near thc existing railroad tracks should not significantly affec thc habitat for these species.Draft Environmental.
902 Battallc Soul!yard     a   P.O. Box 999 a Richland, WA 99352 Draft fnvironmental         Assessment A-10                               August 1998
Assessment A-11 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix A Mr.Ran'dali Staudacher 98-600424 a Page 3 of 6~Ground clearing for the construction of the gas linc should bc scheduled to occur between~August and carly April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with thc migratory bird treaty act.~'No adverse impacts to species, habitats, or other biological resources are expected to result from thc proposed actions.~This Ecological Compliance Review is valid until 15 April 1999.Sincerely, CA randt, Ph.D.Project Manager Ecological Comp]iancc Assessment CAB:mrs REFERENCES Bonham, Charles D.1989.~'e'e e', John Wiley 4 Sons, inc.pp.127-128.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1985.Revised List of Migratory Birds;Final Rulc.50 FR 13708 (April 5, 1985).Washington Department of Fish and.Wildlife.
1994.Species of Special Concern in Washington, p.(April 1994).Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.1996.Priority Habitats and Species Ust.(January 1996).Washington Department of Natural Resources.
1997.Endangered, Threatened Ec Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997).Draft Environmental Assessment
~A-12 August 1998
~~~~~I~~~~~.e~'~~$8RRRiRRSIRR
~~I~~~~~e~~o~~~~J~ri~~~'l~~4 t 4 C~~~
I.~.li's~~II~~'~~~~~j r r r~r i r r r r~~I'HH'R MRM~~~~MkM MRM~~~r r 0~tr rr~~~~0~~r r~~~r~r r~I~'~~~~~o~~\err r r r~~I~.e~~~~~~o~~~~~s~~~~~~~~I~
~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~'~~~~~RES RRm~~~I I~~~~~'I~~~~~~I 0~~
U.S.Department of.Ener y DOE/EA-IZ59
.A endix B APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEM Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.Department of Energy DOE/EA-1259
.A endix B Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Opcnlcdby saedtc for Ne u.s.Oep>Anent ol Energy April 27, 1998 hfo Historic Properties Mr.R.J.Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.P.O.Box 1000/H8-64 Richland, WA 99352-1 000 Dear Mr.Staudachen SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES pROJECT.HCRC&#xb9;98-06pp-024.
ln response to your request received April 7, 1998, staff of the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory (HCRL)conducted a cultural resources review of the subject project, located in the 600 Area of the Hanford Site.According to the Information that you supplied, tile proposed.project will involve two 150 acre sites that have been zoned for heavy industry..
'I*A literature and records review showed that the project area includes undisturbed ground that had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
A pedestrian'survey of the project area was conducted between April 21 and 23, 1998, by Laurle L.Hale.No historic properties were recorded during the survey.A survey repo'rt narrative is enclosed.The HCRL must be notified if any changes to project location or scope are anticipated..
This project Is a Class III case, defined as a project which Involves new construction In a disturbed,'ow-sensitivity area and as a Class V case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground.Copies of this fetter will be sent to D.W.Lloyd, DOE, Richland Operations Office, as officialdocumentation.
Ifyouhave any questions;please call me at 376-6098.Please use the HCRC&#xb9;above for any future correspondence concerning this project.Laurie L.Hale Cultural Resources Specialist Cultural Resources Project cc: D.W.Lloyd, RL (2)G.D.Cummlns'R.J.Swan File/LS Concurrence:
Darby pp, Projec ager Cultura Resources Project 902 Battelle Boulevard r P.O.Box 999 r Richland, V/A 99352 Draft*Environmental-Assessment
..B-l.--:----.-.August 1998 A U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-)2S9
--Appendix 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE HANFORD CULTURAL RESOURCES LABORATORY A.NAME AND FULL DESCRIPTIOH OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING Project Number: SSM00-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites The proposed project area has been zoned for heavy industry in the 600 Area of the Ha'nford Site, Two 150 acres sites compose the project area near WPPSS No.1 and WPPSS No.4 (Figures 1 and 2).Because portions of the two sites had not previously been disturbed, archaeologicaf survey of the undisturbed areas was necessaly.
B.LOCATION AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Hanford Site is located in South<entral Washinglon State and is managed by the Department of Energy, Richland Operations (Figure 3).The WPPSS industrial Sites project area is located near the Washington Public Power Supply System reactors No.1 and No.4.The southern part of the surveyed area was named Block 1 and the northern part was named Block 2 because of the order in which they were surveyed.Block 1 contains a large sagebr'ush community in the southern half and a bunchgrass and cheatgrass community in the northern half, This northern half was burned over Ndecade ago and ls now almost devoid of shrubs.The topography is composed of gently undulating stabilized dunes.Block 2 of the project area contains very few large shrubs.It also was burned over a decade ago,.The topography is mostly flat with remnant small-scale vegetation hummocks.Surface sediments in both blocks are Holocene eolian and fiuvial sandy sift.The cfo~st source of permanent water'is the Columbia River, approximatefy 2.6 km to the east.Elevation in the project area is about 143 m (470 feet).The vegetation in Block 2 and the norlhern half of Block 1 is a recovering steppe.shrub community (Daubenmire 1970)and is dominated by annual and perennial grasses, especially cheatgrass
{arm;,~r~)and Sandberg's bluegrass'~P~n~rii.Table 1 summarizes the plant species observed within the project area during the survey.Animals or Iheir sign that were observed within the project area include coyote~nf~fir~n, Meadowlark (Sturnelfa neglecta), White crowned sparrow g~nQri~hf hjg~h), Badger+a~~~, Curlew (NNm,~i~gag), Northern pocket gopher{Thang'~'dK"'i>>" 5 I i'able 1.Flora in the WPPSS industrial Sites Project Area.Annual rass Perennial rass AnnuaVbiennfal forbs Qi+~@~~rri f GaLKh hul'ggg~li
~lin ri~im~ri)m gl~i~im m~neth r~lli~>~inki b~~i~tm~~er rn mmnnm Cheat rass Sandber's blue rass Prick lettuce Russian thistle Narrowdeafed hacelia Tumble mustard Yellow salsi Jag ed chickweed White-stemmed evenln rimrose Tarweed fiddleneck Rou h wallflower Draft Environmental Assessment 8-2 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y OOE/EA-1259 Ap endix B CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites Table 1'.Continued.
Annuavbiennial forbs (cont.)~gla0~t Perennial forbs Qghhllt't~llt fi~tl~Lrrt~l sp.~~ni penh Qglghin~i s p.~hl x~In i~fli~rngg~ri tf,~rtjiinh~in g Tidytips Western tansymustard Carey's balsamroot Yarrow Vetch Prickly pear cactus Brodiaea Brodiaea Hoary aster Larkspur Lon leaf hlox Turpentine desertparsley Large-fruited blssuitroot Snow buckwheaf-Shrubs~i~if:t~ri~r~hl-t~ri n~t Big sage Bitterbrush v~li~ifi~Green rabbitbrush Aerial photograph(s):
EG&G 5675 ff 125, 05-07-87 (Scale 1:19900).USGS topographic map(s): Wooded Island, Washington 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, 1978 edition.Legal descriptions:
T 12 N, R 28E, Section 33 and T 11N, R 28E, Section 4.UTMs: (See Figure+~~I A B D'G H I J K L 1.)~n 11 11 11 11 11 11 11~Nothin 5149823 5149802'149373 5149332 5149509 5159600 5149400" 5149407 5149305 5149345 5149754 5149792~rn=~tin 322540 323536 323459, 323206 323212 293900 323140 322951 322953 322807 322821 322541 Dt aft Environmental Assessment B-3'--August-.1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix B CULTURAL RESOUFICES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites N 0 P Q R 11 1111 11 11 5148423 5148420 5148666 5148671 5147563 5147601 323233 323320 323340 323371 323394 323243 C.PRE-FIELD RESEARCH 1.Sources of Information checked:[X]Survey and Site Location Maps[X]Previous Reports pq Aerial Photographs
[X]GLO Plats[Xj Other GAB The General Land Office survey for T12N, R 28E and T11N, R 28E was conducted in 1867.Adjacent GLO plats were surveyed between 1863 and 1908.No roads or trails were shown ori the%.0 plat for the survey area.1'i W hin n r n I M No trails or roads went through the project area on the 1917 Pasco, Washington Quadrangle.
I Survey and site location maps were examined to determine previous surveys completed and sites and isolates known to be located within 1.0 km of the current project.This database contains the location of all known cultural resource sites recorded since 1947, project areas intensively surveyed since 1987, and sites, and Isolated artifacts located during those surveys.No cultural resources were found to have been recorded in the vicinity of the current project area.D.Rice conducted the only archaeological surveys near the project area in 1973 and 1974.He recorded no archaeological materials within,1 km of the proposed project area.D.EXPECTED HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC LAND USE AND SITE SENSITIVITY 1.Are there known sites in the general arear')Yes[X]No 2.Are sites expected']
Yes.pq No No historic or prehistoric sites or isolated finds have been found near the project area.E.FIELD METHODS 1.Areas examined and type of coverage: The survey followed procedures outlined in Chatters, 1989.Transects were spaced 20 m apart.Participants scanned an area 5 m to either side of the transect center line, thus having potential for 100%discovery of concentrations of surface artifacts larger than 10 m fn diameter, as well as most smaller concentrations.
The lowest estimated discovery rate, at 50%, was expected for single, isolated artifacts.
The surveyor walked 8 transects oriented north/south ln Block 1.The westernmost transect was located 1.64 km east of Geneva Junction on the Hanford Rail System with subsequent transects spaced 20 m apart lo the east.Block 2 was covered in 41 north/south transects with 2 east/west 3 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment of Energy~DOE/EA-1259 Appendix 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites transects along the north block boundary.The westernmost transect in Block 2 was located approximately 20 m east and 400 m south of the northeast corner of the perimeter fence of WPPSS No.4.Subsequent transects in Section 2 were spaced 20 m apart to the east except for the two transects walked east/west along the northern boundary of Block 2.'Total coverage by the survey for Block 1 was 12.6 ha and for Block 2 was 31.22 ha.A total of 43.82 ha was surveyed.2.Areas not examined and reasons why: The paved parking area, security training building, and associated physical fitness track were not surveyed because no bare ground surface was visible.All portions of the project area outside of the two surveyed blocks indicated in Figure 1 were highly disturbed and were not surveyed.3.personnel conducting and assisting in this survey: Laurie L.Hale, HCRL.4, Date(s}of sutvey: April 21-23.1998.5, Visibility on surface:-20%Visibility of subsurface:
<5%from animal diggings.6.Problems encountered:
None.F.RESULTS No'cultural materials were observed during survey of the project area.4 G.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
It fs the finding of the HCRL staff that there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area.The workers, however, must be directed to watch for cultural materials (e.g., bones, artifacts) during all work activities.
If any are encountered, work In the vicinity of the discovery most stop until an HCRL archaeologist has been notTiied, assessed the'ignificance of the find, and, if necessary, arranged for mitigation of the impacts to the find..The HCRL must be notified if any ch'anges to proJect location or scope are anticipated.
This is a" Class III case, defined as a project which involves new construction in a disturbed, low-sensitivity
'rea, and a Class V case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground.H.REFERENCES Chatters, J.C.1989 Hanford Cullurel Resources Management Plan, PNL-6942, Pacific Northwest'aboratory, Richland, Washington.
Daubenmlre, R.1970 Steppe vegetation of Washington.
Wash.Agric, Expt.Sta.Tech.Bull., 62,~131 pp, Rice, D.G.1973.Archaeological Investigation at the Washington Public Power Supply System Hanford No.f Nuclear Power Plant Benton County, Washington.
H.O.44724, prepared by University of idaho for U.S.Department of Energy.Draft Environmental Assessment 8-5.-August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y OOE/EA-1259 Ap endix 8 Project Number: Project Name: CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE 98~00-024 WPPSS Industrial Sites'I.ATTACHMENTS 1.Site forms for each site recorded?'2.Isolate forms for each isolate recorded?3.Overview location map 4.Quad map of surveyed brea?5.Other attachments?
'Xj)g J.CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS.I certify that I conducted the investigation reported here, that my observations and methods are fully documented, and that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
wl~~les Reporter.-Signature Date Reviewer c.Sf.~Concu ence (Signature), Date~/VI, Dt aft Environmental Assessment B-6 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Energy'OE(EA-1259 A endix B CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98.0600<24 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites WOODED ISLAND QUADRANGLE, WASHINGTON-7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 1978 T12N R28E I lt g3+o oo t I CO J I r~i I ei statal H is i~Q 0 M I I I'p I I 5r+47't: 3~i.~,.-!.I ('000.5 SCALE 1:24000 0 KILOMETERS
.1 0 METERS 1000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET 2 2000 Figure 1.Location of area surveyed for the WPPSS Industrial Sites project, HCRC 498%600-024.
---" Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Appendix 8 project h,'Urnb~c:~)~r gama: Cuu'uRAL r P.SOVRCES R PORT I" Rrcrr,'=-&II-K 00-92'PP 9S Iticv~~Q I Si,ec svrv::-cc br.x I~.'twjret Qovnrran~J sa nw>'cd A res Figure 2.Forb~i cl aeriai phoIoy;opN (CG'6 5vi5 8$25.05 01 m7, S"oa':19900)eho~ring Ihe project tevn4~r~and svr;>i>d a: a cI he V)PF S 8 Ir duster Iai Sile" pri e'ar es I Hr'RC'k96 C600-Qg w).Dr a f t Environmental Assessment 8-8 August 1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix B CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATivE Project Number: 98-0600<24 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites~Seslllo P SPoksns Wash ngton e rl Ysncovvet Potllsne Hanford Site Boundary H 0@ca Os%I~bull~200~r,-Wes t Q>q~(0 ts tt lesctot c'00 Areas osaI~SSOIInIstn r Qxazssi Project Area Fltzner/Eberh rdt Arid Lands Ecotot;y Reserve///1M wrrss~00 Ate~)00 Ates rsfr n N West Richland Richland r 0 10 Benton Ct ty 20 Kilometers 10 Mtes Paleo vZQM Kennewlck Figure 3.Overview map showing location of area surveyed for the WPPSS industrial Sites project, HCRC 096.0600-024.
Draft Environmental Assessment B-9 August.1998 U.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A pendix 8 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Ore:e'.ee."y
'.e"...e for tne V.S.Oe.eoment ot Enemy May 18, 1998 No Known Historic Propert/es Mr.R.J.Stavdacher Fluor Daniel Hanford, inc.P.O.Box 1000/HB-64 Richland, WA 99352 Dear Mr.Staudacher.
CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW OF THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES AND PROPOSED GAS LINE.HCRC 098-600-024A.
ln response to your request received May 8, 1998, slaff ot the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory (HCRL)conducled a cultural resources review ot the subject proJect in the 600 Area of the Hanford Site.According to the information that you supplied, the project will involve the installation of a natural gas pipeline parallel to the existing DOE-owned railroad from a point opposite Cypress Street in the 300 Area to the proposed WPPSS industrial sites, a distance of approximately 10 miles.~The pipeline would be installed within the railroad easerreent, within 25 feet from the track centerline.
Construction of the pipeline would involve excavation of a trench approximately 5 feet deep.Spoils wovld be stockpiled adjacent to the trench and then backfilled once the pipe had been Installed.
A review of our files showed that an archaeological survey was conducted prior to the installation of a fiber optic line (HCRCO 90-600-012) within the project area.The survey covered 30 m from the track centerline along one side of the tracks, on the west side ot the tracks from between the 300 Area and the intersection of Stevens Drive and the railroad and on the east side of the tracks from 1he intersection north to WPPSS.One isolated artifact, a 1924 Oregon license plate, was recorded and collected from the project area.No sites were identified during the survey, Within the WPPSS site, the pipeline would be installed within ground that has been previously, disturbed by the construction of the WppSS facilities and/or within ground surveyed for this project (HCRC tt98-600-024).
No archaeological materials were identified during that svrvey within the project area.Therefore, if the pjpeline is installed on the same side ot the 1racks as the fiber optic line and within 30 m ot the.tracks, it is unlikely 1hat any archaeological materials will be affected.~Additional survey of the project area and monitoring of the excava1ions by an archaeologist are not necessary:
However, if construction activities, including vehicle access and spoil stockpiling., occurs outside the area reviewed (e,g., on the opposite side of the tracks or greater than 30 m'trom the tracks)additional review will be required.lt is the tinding of the HCRL staff that there are no known historic properties within the proposed proJect area.The workers, however, should be directed to watch for cultural materials (e.g., bones, artifacts) dvring all work activities.
If any are encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery must stop until an HCRL archaeologist has been notified, assessed the slgniticance of the find, and, if necessary, arranged for mitigation of the impacts to the find.The HCRL mvst be notified if any changes to project location or scope are anticipa1ed.
This is a Class V and III case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground, and new construction in a disturbed, low-sensitivity
'area.902 Batlelle Boulevard a P.O.Box 999 a Richland, WA 99352 Draft Environmental Assessment 8-10 August 1998 U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 A endix C~STATt OI'I'ASICIICTQH QEPAIIThIFAT Of SCQIAOCY CERTEP1ChTE OP W'A~EP Rl GH~Qv sIIffact W>fnr INIvvetII rIC~<<II I A'aCvIVVNI
~I CTIIaur Ily, tevrr ef IreI cCrn fO TDT7, CNC evN~I~~, uvt D rrrtrr NIa reOIININII at TIN OIairrvNN eI CCTIarr I groctncf WeIcr a NNVNr a~IN~.~T<c rvIIemr ITTNIercra rt oe~nC I~I frecetra eaIOaITv OArc r~II 7 AAvl Ica IION IIvrr ace I'I'II etaAIIr Nuu Tta e'rrtTVICatt NI Natn OAIc~v'~l:4,QJ III.c..err, v~v!c Aooacsa Isr rsc ICI TT I T ISTATII I ITI<Caoat yhit Is to eartdy that the~nemMapnl ct<<I her mere INoor re the set afaet on OI Ihe oep'frnrntof gcornoyof a rrshl to tlta Irae 0 I&POOIIC Tratara Ol It e SI~tr Ol WtahlngtCn el hers Ih dettned snrI under en'fSPWIICrtty fuhfrC(to the PrOTISIOrIr earttalnedrrr Vreprrtrvflsruedbyrhr LtePatlment OIECOIDTIy.
endthtt Toldrl9ht IO lee rAS~OfSaldeet<<S neeaeenPrrfrctrd lnaccordrTTcr av'fn the crIrs or the sfett dt Ives htw>IDII, trIdts hereoy conIIrrrref oy ITIa DeoertmIITTI of fcotogy a.dentorrd of sreonf ae ah~.Out Is IIrtrrted to on aITIoml ectuauy oenrlfefatty u5rd.rIfftIC Itasot SD ar 4Fr asm SDuacl o TahtufAar Or III)uaIA CC NA ICvTI IvatlvuN Corn'~~T rta STCONO CDANTIttr Trrt Or Irrt rCIIDO Or Irtt~P 4 a ta 44LNIvg I Au,oal vs'NDIr uAIINVtr Aeat CT[t rag TCAV 41 200 C rr Ir&~r 2 0 cfo 200 aer Eeet ocr w'ar fot co o t dmotia oo tod beat1tification LGCATl 3tf OE OIVKIISIOII/WIOIOL'IIT AI.rrrvaoaINAT(I,ocATIDN or olvcasIDN; ITNDIIrIor~I Z'I t 0 foot aaa O.., ITa eerTt on IOCAf Co vITN III'ISVAL15ST
\lcAC, 5IIC OIVITIDIII Cavc~nt toto l nod 4~tcTICK ItivnrrNP N rA~rtt, I[, OC<<,I NP, ICP.I>COVIITV 2 lA'0.;40 bcn oa ILECCITOED PLArff 0.IIi~RTT Lot~Ocv Orr ICIVe Nar O DI KAtoa rIOOIt(ONI LEQAI-ftf XCRIFTIOM OF EIIOheIITY ON WHICH'KaTbo IS TO IIE-IISED lc5iTCOLTr at the SM-.Orner Of SCCCiaa 11, y.11 If.r"~25 K.If.'Y.~Said COrTVT haVf ng Ifasbinctoa Sta.c coordinated,$oocc, of.I 408I33$~30 anti E 2,301T 653, r0 tITcoec e 0 41 05'I 2 5T 055~25 (ac t to the rua Saint of be5$ntCOS, thence It 11 r,55~Sy feet~'ITencc S 01 rll 23N E, 3000.45 fact, tbcnc S'I5 53'54" II 5,2QIT<<6 feet;chrtcce IN 0 31I41" M 3690.)$fcctg thence E 1~fI30,00 feet, ttcnce!I L,SII5..9 fret;thcITcr If 5i 46 05c E 5 703 53 fart, therlcc S 01.01'23" E 1,6QQI25 fret;tharICa N.11,159-29 frat;tbeTTCa If Ol 01'23VI E 1,500.29 perte thaocc f 5 j Qy'sS" E 3,300 35 faac tu the liste af ITavisatioTI rrf tbt If bank of thrT conc hie 5eyar, thet5Ca aOTItITerly along raAC ltea Of eaViftatiOn tO a IICIittt that brara ff 89 15'21.N E fera tfua c~pc iot Df brgitcTLf5551 thaaca S 59'15I21" M 3+550 52 foot oara or 1cea, tct tha tXT54 faaiTLt Of ba5iOSTinre Percher BegitOTLqC at tha SM eOrtu.r Tsf SCCtiOn 11~T if lf)tr'25 E.Inter caid orttorr ItavinS Maahi515ton State coor<oatcar S ao.r oc I 405r335~30 cod y 2 30J,653 SQ)thence If 0 41'05 5 5,065~25 feat;c".=rt 59 15'21" E 3,550~32 feat to g.poit5c O55 cb>>lisltc af oavirattot5 of the u~of the colTTTabia L1Ttar rod the ttue po555t of baying~of the daaar<Nc'o 1 thence ccmtieI5ic0 II 59 1$'21 y 600.00 feat;thence It 10 0>I14N II Zsf 5 56 face thence 5 59 07 55 V.600i00 fcr't.to a point oct raid lice of Ttgvt southerly nlon5 nard liaa of oavitatiotl So tII~tree IID~rt of bcgiTTOln0 niI chio dcocription-Draft Environmental Assessment C-1 August=1998
'.S.De artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Ap endix C Zt tc 51 iota C thettht e tttt et 2 e late oI te tt2 5tatie 5 cr.a-h 1 e I~.tt tell 1':: t>>Zthh~h tahltt I Cc~Z'1 5 t tct teed*d 5.2 I el 5 tlc tt't 5*5th~Tctdit 5 tca ao>>e25 e 5 chat ia this c>>ttfi 5 hall 1 taa'~.ta2 tl pceitt>>T>>22ic>>~5th v~If ckhli I d tal 5 tc, 5 2%1 t t 5~, oTdta>>c~ltt e I I'rj2a rlghf to Ihc usa of tstf~asar afartAa2d haral2y confirmed tt rc ytrfatcd ttt tha ldulatt or p(sac uf hara!carat tltsf>55Af, Czct'Pf tts PM>Idcd Itt RC4'0.03,380.
90.03.390, and 90.<<.020.
'ybtn cectttscate of water ttt52t 4~jtlcslly atebfcat Lo tvttc25tttt~L ftif w~dlf wwMr>>52tavlded In Jtctr e CIa att under tny hand ancf the saa(of thts ofjdra at oj...,...,....,gab~.,...,.........,!9...,AX....
Takf.aah 54'cshtctglod2, thl-.>>...f M...~U , Dapartmenc of EcoIoa'C 252IJCCXneC2 22'A okda RAJSTEZL Ka TAXIA~ORBAL SUtACZR lU/0051NTY CISE OHCY Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 5, Ia eatryLng out tha Sonltsrlnt Proltas<<s de<<crib<<d in Attacbs<<snt I, ths Supply Systsn vill establish ss<<5tllnt Locations oa tba pro]<<ct sit<<aud vlthln prssint or future rations of bith population density located vlthla~tsn-eLLla radius of th<<pro]sct's reactor bulldlut so as to pzovHa a tsprss<<ntative sanpllng of anvlxomrantaL
<<ffsrts ln tb<<surrounding area.Sd Should any sls>>sat sf tha Supply Systin's tkeitotfnS yroStst<<vbich ls b<<fag P rfomsd by, or ln con]unction vlths any Ced<<ral, stats or locaL zev<<tr>>sntaL body ot auy other'uclear op<<rstot La tb<<X<<nfotd Cp<<rations hrsa b<<tsrnlnat<<d, ths apply Systsa aSrs<<s to ra-activate so each of stay such proSrssa ss is appropriate and n<<c<<ssary 7.Xhs Supply Systsu stress to sub<<lt te tha Council a~y or copL<<s of reports and data frou ths Invitees<<sntal Hooltsr-bg lrogrsaa ttqultsd to ba f L)sd by tha Atonic En<<rSy Coss<<L<<sion'e construction p<<z>>Lt, op<<rstlnS license ot oth<<t rstulatlons ta tb<<Council at th<<ss>>a tin<<as vb<<n subaittsd t<<tb<<Atoalr.
Instgy Coo<<<<lesion.
Yid LITMUS VNHISIOHS A.ro ect Visitation and%<<ct<<stion
'lhs Supply Sysksn sSrese to prorlde visitor Infotvn-tlon facilities at th<<pro]ect sita sub]sct to s<<cutlty r<<gdlations, snd rueh llnitatians as tha Supply Systsn dares reasonably necessary for the health, ssf<<ty snd v<<If<<ra of the pubLLc snd fot ptotectlon d of ths facLLLty.12+II',Q~$ocfkn Q~1.Ihs Supply Syst<<n ehreaa to provide tsplaesnant of r<<crsatiob<<L opportunltiss vblrh are shsvn to be adversely aff<<ctsd as a direct con<<<<spence of pro]sct activity vh<<n such adrersa~lf<<cte are substantial<<d by ths Council.L ltl s~s of Coo sot V<<tsr l.In tb<<avant that a state sS<<ncy of tbs State of Vsshlntton develops<~L<<ainte or sponsors plane Eor the mLtL us<<of ths coolant vat<<r fran tK<<Pro]act, tba Supply System air<<ss to supply at no coat to tha State vena vatsr to tha>>aalsavs practical extent, but not l<<ss than 4,000 Sellout per<<LLnut<<a't its source of diversion at an aSrssd-upon saute<<5,pro-vld<<d, that lt ls and<<rstood th<<t at tie<<s plant op<<ration say prsclud<<delivery sf such off lu<<nt vst<<t altbet ln a versed e'tata or Ln ths quantity>><<ntlon<<d above.In ths sv<<nt of that cltcun-ataoee and to snsbla tha early eomcnesnent or continuance of ths>>ulti~s pro]<<et vlth~r>>sd vatsr, ths Supply Syst<<n atra<<a to provide a valved outlet on the cooilnS>>at<<r supply systan capable af d<<LLvetylnS such vst<<t at n ra'te af at least 4,000 gallons psr>>Lmta.C, lfleatlon of rseecnt I,'Ibis C<<ttlfication Atra<<>><<nt nsy be anendod by initiation of clthsr ths Comall or the applicant.
Such>>send-atory actlvfty<<ball b<<aecoaplLshsd pursuant to CouncLl rules and ptoe<<dates tb<<n Ln effect Ln a Ilk<<waest upon forual C~>>c55 23.CA-O Cl>O m e m O sc Fo CJl A%
U.S.Department of Energy DOE/EA-1259 A endix C IL ENERGY FAClLlTY SITE EVALUATlON COUN,'.820~RITH AVEIIIJK Ot OPIA, WASHINGTON Qq$pC PHOIIE: 752 PJ'S~'~X Governor Qixy Lea Ray June 28, 1977 Ee.,R.K.Voodrufz Senior-Environmental Engineer-State T.iaison Vashington Public.Power Supply System P, 0.Box 968 Mchland, VA 993S2 Subject".MPPSS Puclear proj ect Ho.2 Hultf.purpose Use of Coolant Vater


==Dear Hr.woodruff:==
DOEgEA-12S9 U.S. De  artment of Ener y                                                                      A pendix A Mr, Randa)) Staudacher 93-600-024a Page 2 of 6
Please refer to your letter of May 18, l977, subject as above, 4xich requested renew and concurrence oZ a proposed agreement concerning the multipurpose use of the coolant water for a state spo'nsored project.Be advised that the Vashington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.1 at its regular meeting of June 27, 1977 did.adopt by Resolution No.-1.22, copy enclosed, a.five poMt stat,e-;,.eent regarding this matter.Sincerely, gQc~Roger Alzin Executive Secretary RP:els Enclosure t,'l)Resolution Mo.1.22 Dr aft Environmental Assessment August 1998 U.S.De artment
        ~  From approximately I mile north of the railroad intersection with Route 4S to the%PPSS plants thc vegetation is dominated by cheatgrass, dune scvrfpea, Hoary aster, and pale cvcning primrose.
        ~  The access from the main rail line to Industrial Site Option A is highly disturbed, the vegetation is diverse but is primarily sparse cheatgrass. However, 2 Piper s daisies
(%'ashington State Sensitive p)ant species) were observed near the tnmina) end of thc proposed gas line route, one at the western most junction on the north side of WNPA and the other just south of the, air intake structure at the cnd of the proposed gas line route.
        ~  The access from thc main rail linc to Industria) Site Option B is parually disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush steppe in the south-east corner of the proposed industrial site. A listing of all of the plant species observed along the proposed gas line routes is auached as Table    )..
        ~  Animal species observed along the proposed natural gas )ine routes arc listed in the attached Table 2. Loggerhead shrikes washington State Candidate, former federal candidate)werc observed between Route 4S and theWPPSS complex, and at thc southeast cerner of B. A long-bi)led curlew was observed between Route 4S and the WPPSS                Site'ption complex.
Considerations and Recommendations:
        ~  No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species )istcd by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site.
        ~  The gas line should be placed as near as possible to the existing rail lines and fiber optic cables. North of Route,4S there is probably adequate room between the rail line and the existing access rqad for placement of thc gas linc. This wou)d minimize thc amount of higher quality habitat that will bc disturbed. The pipe)inc contractor should be required to minimize, to the extent practicab)e, the width of thc disturbance while insta))ing the gas line.
        ~  The only area along the proposed routes where significant habitat disturbance is likely to occur is near the southeast corner of the proposed Industria) Site, Option'B.
        ~  Thc Piper's daisies that werc obscived near the terminus of the proposed route to Site A occurred in disturbed habitats, and both individuals werc probably outside of the area that would be disturbed by the installation of the gas line, Ifthis linc is constructed, the area should be resurvcycd, and any individuals that may bc disturbed should bc, transp)anted as mitigation.
      ~    The long-bil) cd curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the, Hanford Site, and thc, Lo gerhcad shrike occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats ifsuitable perch sites arc available, Construction of the proposed natural gas line near thc existing railroad tracks should not significantly affec thc habitat for these species.
Draft Environmental. Assessment                      A-11 August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De    artment of Ener y                                                                    A  endix  A Mr. Ran'dali Staudacher 98-600424 a Page 3    of 6
          ~  Ground clearing for the construction of the gas linc should bc scheduled to occur between
        ~
August and carly April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with thc migratory bird treaty act.
          ~ 'No adverse  impacts to species, habitats, or other biological resources are expected to result from thc proposed actions.
        ~    This Ecological Compliance Review is valid until 15 April 1999.
Sincerely, CA randt, Ph.D.
Project Manager Ecological Comp]iancc Assessment CAB:mrs REFERENCES Bonham, Charles D. 1989.
pp. 127-128.
                                        ~
e 'e ',  e        John Wiley 4 Sons, inc.
U. S. Fish and WildlifeService. 1985. Revised List of Migratory Birds; Final Rulc. 50 FR 13708 (April 5, 1985).
Washington Department of Fish and.Wildlife. 1994. Species          of Special  Concern in Washington, p.
(April 1994).
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Priority Habitats and Species Ust. (January 1996).
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Endangered, Threatened              Ec Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997).
Draft Environmental        Assessment            ~
A-12                                      August 1998
 
 
hydrocarbon gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized at the high cell temperatures and destroyed.
hydrocarbon gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized at the high cell temperatures and destroyed.
Emission rates of regulated pollutants are presented in Table D2-3.Draft Environmental Assessment D2-3 August 1998 U.S.Department of Energy DOE/EA-1259 Appendix D2 Paste plant (1)Baking (1)Furnaces (1 Roof Vents (16)Compound Potroom stack (2 Table D2-3.Per Emission Unit g/s emission rate (Number of units in parenthesis
Emission rates    of regulated pollutants  are presented in Table D2-3.
.CO SO TSP/PH 143.32 55.28 2.61 0.23 0.46 0.18 0.56 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.
Draft Environmental Assessment            D2-3                          August 1998
 
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of  Energy                                                        Appendix  D2 Table D2-3. Per Emission Unit g/s emission rate (Number              of units in parenthesis    .
Compound        Potroom        Roof Vents      Paste          Baking (1)      Furnaces stack (2        (16)          plant (1)                        (1 CO              143.32        0.46            0.00            6.18            0.57 SO              55.28          0.18            0.00            3.47            0.00 TSP/PH          2.61          0.56            0.38            0.38            0.01 0.23          0.15            0.00            0.19            0.00 The  final modeling analysis report will provide a map of the project vicinity, a scaled plot plan showing the Universal Transverse Mercator {UTH) coordinates, emission release locations, nearby buildings (including dimensions), property lines, fence lines, and roads. Cross-section diagrams showing the heights of each stack and nearby buildings                will'e      attached to the final reports U.S.. Geological Survey      (USGS)  7.5-minute topographic maps        will    be provided with the final modeling analysis report. This              map  will  show    the proposed site and all maximum impact locations predicted as              a result of themodeling analysis.
Nearby Sources If the pollutant-specific Significant Impact Level (SIL) is exceeded; additional      modeling will be done to 'include nearby sources for comparison with
                                                                                              ~      ~
the Ambient Air guality Standards {AAgS) and PSD increments. The modeling
              ~      ~
                                                                                ~
analysis will include nearby sources whose
~~M~HR~~W'S~W'l
~~M~HR~~W'S~W'l
~&#xc3;555IRREISmERIWK5%55RIR5I5EISR5IKRRQRI5EI)
~&#xc3;555IRREISmERIWK5%55RIR5I5EISR5IKRRQRI5EI)
~r555IR5R5IWa55IWI555WRI55W55mIWW5EW5EWamEE5
~r555IR5R5IWa55IWI555WRI55W55mIWW5EW5EWamEE5
~W5EWR55E5mk55WIRWW5E55%55kiiW5RRW5RRRRW
~W5EWR55E5mk55WIRWW5E55%55kiiW5RRW5RRRRW
%4RXQKCRQ%5iRQ%5KQ~KQ~RQR5@Qk mammummaummmunrauammmmum
              %4RXQKCRQ%5iRQ%5KQ~KQ~RQR5@Qk mammummaummmunrauammmmum
~WWQM55NWR55%KWK5E55WWRIWRE5EW5E5@R55iR
~WWQM55NWR55%KWK5E55WWRIWRE5EW5E5@R55iR
~mmlRI~~NWEIIIS~SK~KRHRIKlmiKRHI E~~~1.-)e~WIHI~~~~~KRl%1
~mmlRI~~NWEIIIS~SK~KRHRIKlmiKRHI E ~   ~   ~
1 . - )e
~WIHI~~~~~KRl%1
~WWE5RRIREIWW5Im5E55WIEQ5~RRtlWRilE5W555IW5EE5
~WWE5RRIREIWW5Im5E55WIEQ5~RRtlWRilE5W555IW5EE5
~mE5WRWRMR5IW5ERilWRRE5W5EW%555EW5'E5'5mR5I
~mE5WRWRMR5IW5ERilWRRE5W5EW%555EW5'E5'5mR5I
Line 622: Line 1,936:
~%55EURRE5IRIRWIRI5E5RHWRIRE5R5IRiREWNW55WIIWI
~%55EURRE5IRIRWIRI5E5RHWRIRE5R5IRiREWNW55WIIWI
~RWR55RRR~WEWmuaWauRWRWW5R5EW5ER5maW
~RWR55RRR~WEWmuaWauRWRWW5R5EW5ER5maW
~~
                                          ~
U.S.Department of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Appendix D3 Maximum 1-Hour Concentrations Distance Downwind (m)Transport sectOr 100 500 1000'2000 3000 4000 5000 10000 20000 NE SE 13.91132 81.5604'l 66.95666 12.89664 59.3981 29.42247 10.22997 55.41378 66.95666 12 89664 60,99804 29,42261 13.91132 83.75734 66.95666 12.89665 60.99812 29.4225C 13.91132 81.56041 60.83412 12.89665 59.39801 29.42266 C8.66806 42.75689 37'4545 14.23803 8.03825 5.23686 48'5806 42.75687 37.34544 14.23811 8.0383 5.2369 41.7896 C2.75689 37.34545 14.23807 8.03828 5.23688 41.7896 42.75689 37.345C5 14.23814 8.03831 5.23691 32.24324 17.46549 3.75212 1.46093 32.24323 17.46549 3.75212 1.97455 32.24324 17.46549 3.75213 1.46093 32.24324 17.46549 3.86173 1.92276 8.45686 0.67045 8.45686 0.96914 8.45686 0.6225 8.45686 0.94372 Another set of ISC model runs was conducted to focus at 100-m increments between 100 m and 1 km from the release location.The largest impacts generally occur at about 200 m from the release location.These impacts may be several times those at 500m, but for purposes of this assessment, the fenceline of the proposed facility is assumed to be 500 m from the release location.To determine the maximum pollutant emission rate that would not produce a ground-level pollutant concentration that should exceed ambient air quality standards or prevention of significant deterioration limits, we divide the regulatory limit by the maximum value reported for the appropriate time period in Table D3-1.These results are presented in TablEs D3-2.Assuming the proposed facility operates around-the-clock throughout the year at this maximum permissible emission rate, we also estimate the maximum permissible annual emissions for each pollutant.
                                            ~
Depending on where the facility fenceline is finally positioned and actual emissions pollutant emission, parameters (e.g., the number and height of emission stacks and roof vents, building dimensions, effluent temperature and exhaust velocity, timing of pollutant emissions), these estimates can change substantially.
 
Table D3-3 uses results from Table D3-2 to estimate maximum pollutant emission rates per metric ton of Aluminum produced.These values change as a function of the rate of annual production of Aluminum at the proposed facility.It should be noted that the assessments presented here focus only on the ground-level pollutant concentrations that would result from smelter emissions.
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department         of Ener y                                                                     Appendix     D3 Maximum 1-Hour Concentrations Distance Downwind (m) 100       500       1000       '2000       3000       4000       5000     10000       20000 Transport sectOr 13.91132 81.5604'l   66.95666   C8.66806  42.75689    37 '4545  32.24324    17.46549    8.45686 NE          12.89664   59.3981   29.42247   14.23803    8.03825    5.23686    3.75212    1.46093    0.67045 10.22997 55.41378   66.95666   48 '5806  42.75687    37.34544  32.24323    17.46549    8.45686 SE          12 89664 60,99804   29,42261   14.23811    8.0383      5.2369    3.75212    1.97455    0.96914 13.91132 83.75734   66.95666     41.7896  C2.75689    37.34545  32.24324    17.46549    8.45686 12.89665 60.99812    29.4225C    14.23807    8.03828    5.23688    3.75213    1.46093      0.6225 13.91132 81.56041    60.83412    41.7896   42.75689   37.345C5   32.24324   17.46549     8.45686 12.89665 59.39801    29.42266    14.23814    8.03831    5.23691    3.86173   1.92276     0.94372 Another set     of   ISC model runs was conducted to focus at 100-m increments between 100 m and 1 km from the release location.                             The largest impacts generally occur at         about     200   m from   the   release     location.         These impacts may be several times those at 500m,                 but   for   purposes     of   this   assessment,       the fenceline of the proposed             facility     is   assumed     to be   500 m   from   the   release location.
Other man-made or natural pollutant sources, including average background pollutant concentrations, are not considered.
To determine       the   maximum     pollutant emission rate that would not produce a ground-level pollutant concentration that should exceed ambient air quality standards or prevention of significant deterioration limits, we divide the regulatory limit by the maximum value reported for the appropriate time period in Table D3-1. These results are presented in TablEs D3-2. Assuming the proposed facility operates around-the-clock throughout the year at this maximum permissible emission rate, we also estimate the maximum permissible annual emissions for each pollutant. Depending on where the facility fenceline is finally positioned and actual emissions pollutant emission, parameters (e.g., the number and height of emission stacks and roof vents, building dimensions, effluent temperature and exhaust velocity, timing of pollutant emissions), these estimates can change substantially. Table D3-3 uses results from Table D3-2 to estimate maximum pollutant emission rates per metric ton of Aluminum produced. These values change as a function of the rate of annual production of Aluminum at the proposed facility.
In practice, background concentrations of pollutants are important in evaluating compliance with air quality standards.
It should     be   noted   that the assessments presented here focus only on the ground-level pollutant concentrations that would result from smelter emissions. Other man-made or natural pollutant sources, including average background pollutant concentrations, are not considered.                                 In practice, background concentrations of pollutants are                     important       in evaluating       compliance with air quality standards.               It is the sum       of   a facility     s   proposed     emissions and projected background concentration of                     pollutants       that   determine     whether ambient air quality standards would be violated. When background air concentrations of pollutants are exceptionally high (such as during inversions or when air mass stagnation conditions exist), levels of pollutant emissions below those provided in Tables D3-1 and D3-2 could result in pollutant concentrations above air quality standards.                         Information on stagnation conditions in the Columbia Basin are presented 'in PHL-4622.                                             4 Draft Environmental Assessment                                                                       August 1998 D3-4
It is the sum of a facility s proposed emissions and projected background concentration of pollutants that determine whether ambient air quality standards would be violated.When background air concentrations of pollutants are exceptionally high (such as during inversions or when air mass stagnation conditions exist), levels of pollutant emissions below those provided in Tables D3-1 and D3-2 could result in pollutant concentrations above air quality standards.
 
Information on stagnation conditions in the Columbia Basin are presented'in PHL-4622.4 Draft Environmental Assessment D3-4 August 1998 U.S.Department of.Energy DOE/EA-1259 A endix D3 Table D3-2.Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates,.and Annual Emission Totals.Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed AAgS , and PSD Limits..These preliminary values are.based on a set of very simple (and incomplete) characterizations of the proposed facility.Pollutant Time period Regulatory
DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department     of .Energy                                                           A   endix D3 Table D3-2. Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates,.and Annual Emission Totals. Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed AAgS
.limr~(ling/m)Governing standard Naximum pollutant emission rate (g/s)~Haximan annual pollutant emissions (mt)Particulates Annual 24 h 17 PSD 15D PSD 28 14 900 440 SO Annual 24'3 h 1 h 20 PSD 91 PSD 512 PSD 1,040 AAQS 33 13 12 1 000 250 400 400 CO 8 h 1 h 10,000 AAQS 40,000 AAQS 390 480 12,000 15,000..Draft Environmental Assessment E D3-5 August 1998}}
  ,   and PSD Limits.. These preliminary values are .based on a set of very simple (and incomplete) characterizations of the proposed facility.
Pollutant     Time period Regulatory
                                        .                   Governing    Naximum      Haximan annual limr~           standard    pollutant      pollutant (ling/m )                   emission rate   emissions (mt)
(g/s) ~
Particulates Annual                       17 PSD                        28              900 24 h                         15D PSD                       14             440 SO           Annual                       20 PSD                        33          1  000 24'                           91 PSD                                        250 3 h                         512  PSD                        13              400 1 h                     1,040 AAQS                       12             400 CO           8 h                     10,000 AAQS                   390            12,000 1  h                    40,000   AAQS                   480           15,000
..Draft Environmental Assessment E
D3-5                                     August 1998}}

Latest revision as of 10:16, 18 March 2020

Draft Environ Assessment for Wpps Sublease for Aluminum Smelter Plant.
ML17284A746
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 08/31/1998
From:
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:
Shared Package
ML17284A745 List:
References
DOE-EA-1259, DOE-EA-1259-DRF, NUDOCS 9809110077
Download: ML17284A746 (140)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:DOE/EA-1259 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (SUPPLY SYSTEM) SUBLEASE FOR THE 

                   , ALUMINUIVISIVIELTER PLANT U.S. DEPARTHEHT OF ENERGY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON AUGUST 1998 9809ii0077 9808i9 PDR  ADGCK 05000397.

P PDR

DOE/EA-1259 U;S. Department of Ener y Preface PREFACE This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to assess potential environmental impacts .associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Proposed Action of approving- a sublease/transfer by the Mashington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) to a company that would construct and operate a large 'aluminum smelter plant'on the subleased/transferred property., The Supply System leases the property from DOE for the generation of commercial nuclear power. Any sublease/transfer of the Supply System leased property for any purposes must be approved by DOE. Approval of the sublease/transfer would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail line. Information contained herein will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, to determine if the Proposed Action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. If the impacts of the Proposed Action are determined to be major and significant, an environmental impact statement would be prepared. If the impacts'f the Proposed Action are determined not to be major and significant, a Finding of No Significant Imp~t would. be . issued and the action could proceed. Criteria used to evaluate sig'nificance can be found in Title 40,. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27. This EA is prepared in compliance with the National Environs nial Policy Act (HEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental guality (CEg) Regulations for, Implementing the Procedural Provisions of HEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the U.S. Department of Energy Implementing Procedures for HEPA (10 CFR 1021). The following is a description of each section of the EA. 1.0 Purpose and Heed for Action. This section provides a brief statement concerning the problem or opportunity the U.S. Department of Energy is addressing with the Proposed Action. Background information is provided. 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action. A description of the Proposed Action with sufficient .detail to identify potential environmental impacts is provided. 3.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. .This section describes reasonable alternative actions to the Proposed Action, which would address the Purpose and Need. A no action alternative, as required by 10 CFR 1021, 

    .also is described.

4.0 Affected Environment. This section provides .a brief description of the locale in which the Proposed Action takes place. 5.0 Environmental Impacts. The range of environmental impacts, beneficial' and adverse, of the Proposed Action are described in this section. Impacts of alternatives are briefly discussed. 6.0 Permits and Regulatory Requirements. This section provides a brief description of permits and regulatory .requirements for the Proposed Acti.on. Draft Environmental Assessment P-1 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Glossary and Unit Conversion Chart GLOSSARY Acronyms AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards (federal or state) AC alternating current BACT best available control technology BPA Bonneville Power Administration (DOE) Btu British thermal units CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide DC direct current DOE U.S. Department of Energy EA environmental assessment Ecology State of Washington Department of Ecology EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species.Act of l973 kY kilovolts HACT maximum achievable control technology NM megawat'ts HAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards PHNL Northwest National Laboratory (formerly PNL) 

                                                                'acific PSD            Prevention of Significant Deterioration RL             U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office SO             sulfur dioxide TAks           toxic air pollutants TSP            total suspended particulates MAC           Washington Administrative Code WNP           Washington Nuclear Plant .

MPPSS Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) UNIT COHVERSIOH CHART. Into. metric units Out of metric units If you know HultiPly To get If you know 'p y To get by by Length Length miles 1.61 kilometers ki 1 ometers 0. 62 mil es Area Area square 2.59 squar e square 0.'39 square miles kilometers -kilometers miles square. feet 2.296 x acres acres 4.36 x square 10 1P4 feet acres 0.404 hectares 'hectares 2.47 acres Yolume Yolume cubic feet 7.48 allons allons 0.13 cubic feet Tem erature Temperature Fahrenheit subtract Celsius Celsius multiply Fahrenheit 32 then by multiply 9/Sths, 

                 ,by  5/9ths                                             then add 32 Draft Environmental Assessment                Gl<-1                                    August 1998

                                                                                  '           , DOE/EA-)259 U.S. De   artment of Ener y                                                            Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS P-1 PREFACE    .   .  .  .  .    .   .          . .  . .         -
                                        .                       ~                      ~    ~ ~  ~  ~ ~

GLOSSARY AND METRIC CONVERSION CHART Gt't-) 1.0 ,PURPOSE AND NEED FOR 'ACTION l-l lol, PURPOSE AND HEED o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-1 l-l 

                                               ~  ~ ~
        ).2 BACKGROUND 2.0   DESCRIPTIOH OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .                                                              2-1 2.1      PROPOSED        TIMING .                                                                 2-5
2. 2 ALUMIHUM St1ELTER IHFORt'IATION 2-5 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL It<FORHATIOH . 2-7 3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 3-1 3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIVE . 3-1 3.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT SITES 3-1 3.2.1 Alternate Aluminum Smelter Plant on the Hariford Site 3-1 3.2.2 Alternate Aluminum Smelter Plants at Hon-Hanford Sites . 3-1 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . 4-.1
4. 1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMEHT 4-1 4.2 SPECIFIC SITE EHVIRONt4Et<T.....*. 4-2 4.2. 1 Soils and Subsurface . 4-2 4.2.2 Hydrology 4-3 4.2.3 Air Resources 4-3 4.2.4 Endangered Species . 4-7 4.2.5 Plants and Animals . 4-7 4.2.6 Cultural Resources . . . . . 4-7 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS '. 5-1 5.1 CONSTRUCTION AHD OPERATION 5-1 5.).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 5-2 5.1.4 'adionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the Consequences 5-4 5.1.5 'ondangerous Solid Waste Generated and the
                           , Consequences 5.1.6         Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences                                                               5-6
              '5. 1.7        Consumption or Commitment of Resources                                     5-6 S. 1.8        Effects on Cultural Resources .                                            5-6
5. 1.9 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endahgered Species . 5-7 S. 1. 10 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland 5-7 5.1. 11 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area . 5-7 Draft Environmental Assessment TC-1 August )998

DOE/EA-1259 "U.S. De artment of Ener y Table of Contents 5.2 5.1.12 Reasonably Foreseeable Potential Effects SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS . Accidents Consider'ed and the 

                                                                        .   . .                                              ~

5-9 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS . 5-9 5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-9 5.5 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES . . 5-11 5.5.1 Implementation of the No Action Alternative . 5-11 5;5.2 'mplementation of Alternate Site . 5-11 6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY RE(UIREMENTS ~ ~ ~ 6-1 7.0 ORGANiZATIONS CONSULTED ~ ~ ~ 7

8.0 REFERENCES

      .                                                                         ~   ~    ~   ~  ~          8  1 APPENDICES A       BIOLOGICAL,RESOURCES REVIEWS .                                                                               APP A-1 B     CULTURAL RESOURCES           REVIEMS .                                                                        APP B-1 C      SUPPLY SYSTEM HATER RIGHTS AND RIVER REPORT                                                                   APP C-1 Dl     BACT/HACT PROTOCOL .                                                                                    . APP D1-1 D2     MODELING PROTOCOL                                                                                       ;  APP D2-1 D3     ESTIMATING AIR (UALITY IMPACTS USING THE INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX MODEL           . .   ...      . . .

1 

                                                       .-.      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APP D3-1 FIGURES Hanford Site Hap          .                                                                e  ~  ~
                                                                                                        '     ~  ~     ~  w1',

I.. 2 Southern Hanford Site Rail Line and Pro'posed Natural Gas Pipeline Hap . ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 

                                                                                                                           '1  3 3    Proposed      Siting for      Aluminum Smelter Plant                      .               ~  ~  ~     0   ~  ~     ~    2 2 TABLES
                                        ~     ~

1 Resource Estimates for Aluminum Smelter Plant' 2-3 Limits for Host Restrictive NAAgS and PSD Standards 4-4 3 Qashington State Fluoride Standards 4-5 4 Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant 4-6 5 Projected Haximum Poilu'tant Emission Rates and Annual Emission Total s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

                                                                                            ~ ~ ~   ~
                                         ~,
         ~  ~   ~ ~

Draft Environmental 'Assessment = TC-2 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Pur ose and-Seed for Action 1.0 PURPOSE AND HEED FOR ACTION The fo'llowing sections describe the purpose and need and provide background information concerning this environmental assessment (EA). I 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED. The vnderlying pvrpose and need for the agency to take the Proposed Action. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Richland Operations Office (RL) needs to consider a request from the Mashi.ngton Public Power Supply System (Supply System) for approval of a sublease from the Supply System, or transfer of fee simple title from DOE, for construction an'd operation of an aluminum smelter plant (Figure 1). The Supply System leases the property from RL and any sublease/transfer requires RL approval. In the event of fee title transfer, assets transferred would include both the aluminum smelter plant site and appropriate infrastructure. The construction and operation of the aluminum smelter plant would also result in the use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system (Figure 2). 1.2 8ACKGROUND. BACKGROUND inforaation on ihe pvrpose and need, that ted to the need for action. In response to a request from the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) for business recruitment, the Supply System offered either of two 60 hectare (150 acre) sites of their 404 h'ectares (1,000 acres) of property leased from DOE to attract a commercial aluminum company to locate in the Tri-City area. A commercial aluminum 'company screened a list of potential Tri-City area sites provided by TRIDEC to the two locations submitted by the As part of granting a sublease or transfer'ction, DOE 'upply-System. requires evaluation of potential impacts of the proposal under the Ii(ational Environmental Policy Act of l969 (HEPA). .Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Pur ose and Need for Action Washington State To Nattaw( 24 

                                          .f'           100 SCt 0 and Anat
                                        ~

100 tt I 1 

                                     ~

100 tt Ana' 

                         ..f'100          100 KW B      ~ nd KB
                                                                                                  '1 Q'dwey
               )  ubetal We et Area      200     Area US Eoofagy                Proposed Action
                                                                                                     ~

e 

                                                                                                         ~

Waehlnttton Pubtto Power Supply Syeleln e ttentoret Site Sound cry 400 Area lretn Re plde 000 Area 0 ' NI40 0 ~ Kftwn~ ittchta nd 700 Area Figure 1. Hanford Site. Draft Environmental Assessment 1-2 August 1998 P

li 

                      ~ 0 ~ I ~    ~
           ~ ~ ~

raif 

       ~ I I ~ ~ ~
                                ~    ~ ~ ~
                                   ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Description of the Pro osed Action

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Following RL approval of the proposed sublease/transfer, the Supply System would offer to a commercial aluminum company a long-term sublease or fee simple transfer df either one of two 60 hectare (150 acre) sites for siting, construction, and operation of a new aTuminum smelter plant (Figure 3). - Both sites are on the Supply System's 404 hectares (l,000 acres) industrial site located at -the unfinished Washington Nuclear Plants-1 and -4 

 ~

(WHP-I/O) site on the Hanford Site about 1.6 kilometers (I mile) east of the WHP-2. The Preferred Alternative would occur adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished WHP-'4.. According to the Supply System's records, the area is environmentally clean, radiation free, and has highway and railroad access, , water wells, waste water treatment facilities, and 230 kilovolts (kV) electrical power service from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Ashe substation located adjacent to the site. Extension of the existing Supply System infrastructure, utilities, railroad, and other services to the aluminum smelter plant would be provided by the Supply .System with assistance from Benton County. The sublease/transfer also includes the WHP-4 Containment Building and General Services Building structures for potential storage of raw alumina, spent potliners, and/or other uses. These two buildings would be surveyed for the presence of any endangered or threatened species prior to use.. The long-term sublease or transfer would be contingent upon approval by RL, SPA, and the Supply System Executive Board. If the initial aluminum company'fails to take the Supply System sublease/transfer offer, the Supply System could offer a sublease/transfer to another aluminum company. The 

 ,Supply System's current Official Statement 'of the estimated cost of site restoration for WHP-I and WHP-4 are S46 million and $ 30 million, respectively.

BPA could realize resource conservation cost savings by avoiding annual maintenance and eventual removal costs of those two facilities. The initial construction phase of the Proposed Action would build a 60-to 75-thousand (K) metric ton per year capacity aluminum smelter plant over an 18 month to 2 year period. This plant would be termed as a prebake aluminum smeltet (bringing in prebaked anodes), and would initially employ approximately I25 employees. If market demand for aluminum is adequate, tge. Proposed Action would include expansion of the aluminum smelter after initial construction to about a 120K- to 150K- metric ton plant that would include an anode bake production shop (making anodes). If the market demand continues to warrant further expansion, the capacity of the proposed aluminum smelter plant could expand to a 300K metric ton plant, with 600 to 1,000 employees The building height would be approximately 15 meters (50 feet) with prefabricated steel sheeting for the exterior with the color to blend in with the environment. Stacks and towers would be approximately 40 meter s (I30 feet) high. Initially, 75 parking spaces (three shifts) would be needed. At full production, 350 parking spaces (three shifts) would be needed; . The Supply System site currently is served by Ben Franklin Transit. All minor road and railroad extensions to service the Proposed Action would occur within the existing Supply System site. Construction time of the large, plant would take about the same. amount of time as initial construction. Draft Environmental Assessment 2-1 August 1998 I

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Description of the'roposed Action 

                                                              . P)opeood Silo Kl
                    ~

fJ I l Oi( I tK)O 

                                                                                                  ~ 4\
                                                                                   ';I ~

1lJ) L:. 

                                                                    ~y   ~
                                                                    ~ i~is' I
                                                       ~

t 

                                                         )tt CI ~        ~~

I I 

                                                     ~      ~

A((emote Sile 

                                                                               ~ &0 4C k     AN h Figure 3.         Proposed Siting for Aluminum Smelter                       Plant.

Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Description of the Pro osed Action k The proposed aluminum smelter plant would include the following elements: A single potline consisting of 120 prebake redu'ction cells (60K-metri.c ton capacity) An alumina offloading, handling and storage system including a 40K metric ton storage silo and suction unloader Fume treatment equipment to ensure that gaseous emissions produced by the reduction cells meet applicable regulatory requirement levels A complete anode bake production shop An electrical substation (supplied by BPA) for transforming the incoming 220 kV alternating current (AC) supply down to a variable direct current . (DC) voltage 

~     An  administration office including         a   canteen,            showers'nd locker      room.
                        ~                                            ~

The. following table (Table 1) estimates resources that may be used annually by the proposed aluminum smelter plant.'able

1. Resource Estimates for Aluminum Smelter Plant Aluminum roduction 60K metric tons/year 300K metric tons/year Alumina consumption 160K metric tons/year 800K metric tons/year Anode. handling Prebake plant only Anode bake production anodes from offsite sho make anodes Natural as consum tion 800 metric tons/year 9,700 metric tons/year Electrical consumption 900 gigawatt hours 4500 gW-hr/year

( W-hr /year Rail car traffic 42/week 210/week . Truck traffic 4 to 10/day 20 to 50/day Parkin spaces re uired 75 350 Em loyment. 125 600 to 1,000 

                                  ~                                                                   g1 Water needed   for the   proposed'aluminum smelter plant would be made available through the use of the Supply System's existing water rights (Appendix C) of water 'usage from the Columbia River for WNP-2. No new construction of water intakes or outfalls would occur at the Columbia River.

The Proposed Action would tie-in to the existing 16" diameter pipe off of WHP-2's intake water line from the Columbia River.'he discharge of industrial cooling water from the plant would exit through the existing WHP-1/4 outfall water line back to the river. =If it is determined that the industrial water requires treatment, the commercial al.uminum company would be responsible to treat the water before disposal. Industrial water would be treated in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and permits before any allowable discharge. Sanitary wastes would be disposed to the existing, permitted Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System. Draft Environmental Assessment 2-3 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of fner y Description of the Pro osed Action The primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to as dross. Dross is furnace slag which consists of aluminum metal and 

  ,aluminum oxide that floats,and has recycle value. The rate of dross generation is about 0 '% to ]N of the plant's primary metal production. Dross would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite for recovery. Cleaning the anodes produces small quantities of nondangerous solids, a fine carbon powder called blowdown, which consists of about 50Ã sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50K fine carbon.          Blowdown material would be

~ collected and sent offsite for disposal. All nondangerous waste would be disposed of offsite in accordance with applicable requirements. Small quantities of dangerous waste such as batteries would be generated during maintenance activities. It is planned to recycle these materials locally. The largest amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent potlining, consisting of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (fluorides, sodium, and calcium), and 0.5N cyanide. The dangerous waste would be staged before being shipped offsite for treatment an4 disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Approval of the sublease/transfer would result in use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system from Horn Rapids Road north to the Supply. System and the proposed aluminum smelter plant. Any modifications to the existing rail line to support the proposed action would occur on, for the most part, previously disturbed RL land leased to the Supply System. To support initial operations, approximately 42 rail cars per week would transport about 160K tons of raw alumina to the.. aluminum smelter plant from offsite. This increased rail traffic on the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc., a local food processing company. For the initial phase, freight shipments would involve 4 to 10 trucks entering and leaving the plant each day. Host of the finished product would be transported out by truck, with up to a third of the total sent by rail. At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values.- Because it burns cleanly and efficiently, natural gas would be used as fuel for most of the anode production process (anode baking and anode paste;. mixing), metal .casting, and utility heating. Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800 metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu). At full production that would include an anode bake production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 billion Btu. Delivery of the natural gas to the proposed aluminum smelter boilers, hot water heaters, and furnaces would require installation of an approximately 6 inch diameter, 250 pounds per square inch (psi), main carbon, steel pipeline and a distribution network of approximately 2 inch diameter pipes. The new pipeline would be tied into the existing natural gas main'pipeline near the Cypress Gate at the southwest corner of the 300 Area on the west side of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line (Figure 2). The main pipeline would cross under Route 4 South and the rail line where these intersect, about 1 mile north of the 300 Area. The main pipeline would be on the east side of the rail line corridor and terminate at 

 'the end of the. railroad line inside the Supply System property. The smaller Draft Environmental Assessment                 2-4                             August.1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y, Descri tion of the Proposed Action distribution pipeline would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed .areas on leased Supply System property. The main pipeline would be approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, and would parallel and be within the -existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line in . order to minimize potential impacts to the environment. The smaller distribution pipelines would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property. A control system would be installed to monitor and control the flow of natural gas. Construction of the pipeline route along the railroad right-of-way and within Supply System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 feet). The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 feet). Excavated material would be stockpiled next'o the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation. The ditch would be bedded.'with approximately 10 centimeters (4 inches) pf sand or. clean, rock-free. dirt. The pipe would be covered with approximately- 5 centimeters (2 inches) of sand or rock-free dirt and backfilled with the excavated material. All construction materials would be transported to the work site by common-truck carrier. The materials would be staged in a designated, previously disturbed laydown area. After completion of the construction, the .laydown area would be restored to its former condition and reseeded as appropriate. Appropriate areas may be sprayed to prevent noxious weeds from getting established. 2.1 PROPOSED TIMIHG. vining or schedule of the proposed Action (including phasing, if applicable>. The Proposed Action would be accomplished in approach. if thephased a An approximate timetable for the Proposed Actions, sublease/transfe'r is approved, is as follows: 

 ~   Sublease/transfer    approval of aluminum plant                   Summer    1998
 ~   Initial    60K- to 25K-metric ton construction                    Spring 1999
~    Potential expansion to 120K-. to 150K- metric ton                 2002 ot    after.
~    Potential expansion to 300K metric ton                            2006 or    after.

2.2 ALUMINUM SMELTER INFORMATION. Altninun smelter information that is related to the proposed Action. Primary aluminum is produced from alumina (aluminum oxide) refined from bauxite. for smelter use, it is calcined to drive off almost all bonded and free moisture and is delivered to the smelter in the form of a granular white powder similar in appearance to fine, white sand. This'lumina would be shipped by rail from offsite to the proposed site,to provide feed stock for the proposed aluminum smelter plant. To produce one metric ton. of aluminum, 1.89 metric tons of alumina are required. Draft Environmental Assessment 2-5 ~ August 1998

DOE/EA-}259 U.S. De artment of Ener y - Description of the Pro osed Action The alumina is dissolved in a=molten salt bath of cryolite (sodium aluminum. fluoride) and the dissolution of the metal and oxide is accomplished electrolytically. The molten cryolite bath is augmented with s~all additions of other salts (primarily 'aluminum fluoride) to reduce the melting point of the salt bath to 955 degrees Celsius ('C) (1751'Fahrenheit [F]). f The typical reduction cell consists of a large, steel shell. Insulation and refractory bricks are used to line the inside of the steel shell and carbon blocks are placed on the bottom and'sides to completely cover'all of the refractory. Joints in the carbon are sealed with a rammed mixture of carbon paste that is baked 'into a carbon bond by external heat. The carbon blocks on the bottom of 'the cell contain imbedded steel bars to carry electrical current from the cell. The assembled carbon cel,l'ining and steel electrical conductors are the cathode of the electrolytic reaction and is the electrically negative pole of a DC reaction. The electrically positive pole of the reaction is the anode, which is constructed of carbon. Electrical current flows from the anode into the. molten bath and into the cathode carbon blocks and out of thg cell via the steel cathode conductors. The cathode carbon is protected from exposure to air by the molten bath. Alumina dissolved in the bath is reduced electrolytically into aluminum and oxygen. The melting point of aluminum is about 680'C (1256'F). Thus, the aluminum metal produced is liquiB at the 950'C (I742'F) operating temperature of the reduction cell. 8ecause of the required conversion of electrical energy to DC, the most efficient arrangement of melting pots is to connect individual pots electrically in series so that the power loss because of rectification can be minimized by maximizing the number of pots requiring only one rectification. Typically, between 120 and 240 pots. are connected in series to form one potline operating at a nominal voltage of 700 to 1,000 volts DC. I Two measures are used for the relative efficiencies of aluminum reduction pots. The primary measure is energy efficiency expressed in DC kilowatt-hours per pound (kMh/lb) of aluminum produced. Energy efficiency is a straightforward measurement of the electrical cost of producing a pound of aluminum. A second measure used within the industry is current efficiency,'; expressed as a percentage of the theoretical maximum amount of aluminum be produced by the ampere-hours of electricity passing through the cell. that'an Energy efficiency is in the 300,000 amperes range to 5.8 kMh/lb for modern prebake pots. Current efficiencies 'in new aluminum smelter plant operations ~ under good control are as high as 93.5 percent, compared to about 88 percent efficiencies in older technol.ogy plants. The aluminum metal from the rooms containing melting pots (potrooms) is received into holding furnaces, alloyed and fluxed to customer specifications, continuously cast into rolling ingots or extrusion billets, heat-treated, sawed to length, and shrink-wrapped for shipment as final product to the customer. Draft Environmental Assessment 2-6 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Descri tion of the Pro osed Action 2.3 EHVIROHNENTAL IHFORNATIOH. other envfronnentaf fnformat fon that has been prepared, or sfll be prepared, direstly related to the proposed Actfon. Following a submittal for a special use permit, on May 4', 1998 the Benton County Planning 5, Building Department'nitially issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) provided that the Proposed Action would mitigate potential adverse air impacts through adherence to Benton County and Washington State permit conditions. However, Benton County has delayed a 'inal DNS for at least 60 days. Information on the existing Supply System . 'uildings and operation has been previously evaluated in an environmental statement (NUREG-0812). Two Biological Resources Reviews (Appendix A) and two Cultural Resources Reviews (Appendix B) have been prepared for the Proposed Action. Draft Environmental Assessment 2-7 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S; Department of fner y Affec'ted Environment 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment to be affected by the Proposed Action and alternate site. 4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONYiENT 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 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 (Figure 1). Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site are primarily agricultural lands. 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 duiing.the winter months'. Temperature ranges of daily maximum temperatures vary from no; mal maxima of 2'C (36'F) in early January to 35 .C (95'F) '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 s'ummer, averaging 14 to 16 kilometers per hour (8 to R miles . per hour) (PHHL-6415). Tornadoes are extremely rare; no destruct'ive 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 gualitg Standards (HAA(S) designed to protect the public health and welfare. During 1996, the Hanford Site and Supply System air emissions remained below all established limits set for regulated air pollutants (PHHL-11472). Atmospheric dispersion conditions of the area vary between summer and winter months. The summer months generally have good air mixing characteristics. 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 (PHHL-6415). 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. 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.'dditional information about the Hanford Site can be found in the publication entitled the Hanford Site Ilational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization report (PHHL-6415). Draft Environmental Assessment 4-1 August 1998

DOE/EA-1Z59 U.S. Department of Ener y Alternatives to the Pro osed Action 3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives to the Proposed Action are discussed in the following sections. 3.1 HO ACTION ALTERNATIYE. cga and god A<PA regulatfons require DOE to analyte the "Ho Action 'alternative,e f.e., to examfne what would happen ff nothing were cfone. Nate that generally this fs a contfnuatfon of the status quo. The No Action alternative'ould be RL disapproval of the Supply System proposed subl.ease/transfer. There would be no construction of an aluminum smelter plant. ~ 3.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLAHT SITES. other alternatives considered. cEQ regulations dfrect all agencfes to fdentffy reasonable alternatives that would achieve the purpose and need. Other,P'.~ernatives to the Propo'sed Action are described in the following sections. 3.2.1 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANT OH THE HANFORD SITE. The alternate site for the proposed aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished MNP-1. The process fl.ow for producing aluminum .requires a configuration that is uniform in shape (square in shape) similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped. The recommended site would use the existing Supply System infrastructure,to the maximum extent possible by locating the proposed aluminum smelter. pl.ant as close as practical to WNP-4, whereas the alternate site is further away from MNP-4. The alternate site would require longer extensions. to existing utilities and infrastructure than the Proposed Action because of the orientation of the 'Supply System site. Therefore, this alternate would be more costly to construct compared to the Proposed Action. 3.2.2 ALTERNATE ALUMINUM SMELTER PLANTS OH HON-HAHFORD SITES. The commercial aluminum company is considering other. locations away from the Hanford Site. These sites are not analyzed in this EA because they are not within the purview of DOE. Draft Environmental Assessment 3-1 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Affected'nvironment RL and its contractors are a large portion of 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,'ork 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-6415). Other counties are less affected by changes in Hanford employment. 4.2 SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONNENT All of the Supply System property for both proposed sites for the aluminum smelter plant is located on, for the most part, previously disturbed land designated for industrial use (DOE/EIS-0222D). Installation of. the natural gas pipeline would occur on previously disturbed areas along the Southern Hanford Site Rail Line, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way, and within the Supply System property. The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant is approximately 2.8 kilometers (1.75 miles) from the Cnlumbia River. The Proposed Action is outside of the Hanford Reach Study area. The Proposed Action is not located in the 100-year floodplain of the Columbia River, nor is it located within a wetlands area (NUREG-0812). The proposed site of the aluminum smelter plant averages about 115 meters (375 feet) above mean sea level and does not contain any prime farmland, state or national parks, forests, conservation areas, or other areas of recreational or aesthetic concern. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river several miles away to the south. The habitat at the site of the proposed aluminum smelter is typical of the general Hanford Site shrub-steppe habitat. The City of Richland (population approximately 32,000), located about 16 kilometers (10 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'upply System property is predominately loose to medium dense, fine to coarse eolian sand with scattered gravel (glaciofluvial sediments) to about 60 meters (200 feet) below the .surface. The geologic strata under the surface layer, in descending order, are upper and lower Ringold Formation ranging from about 60 meters (200 feet) to 365 meters (1,200 feet), and the Columbia River Basalt Group below 365 meters (1,200 feet). The upper Ringold Formation consists of very dense, sandy gravel with interbedded sandy and silty layers. The lower Ringold Formation consists of very dense, interbedded layers. of sandy gravel, silt, and soft sandstone (NUREG-.OS12). 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-6415). Draft Environmental Assessment 4-2 August l998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Affected Environment 4.2.2 Hydrology Mater needed for the Proposed Action would be delivered from the Columbia River via the existing MNP-2 intake water line provided by the Supply System. The Supply System has water rights for use of up to 56 cubic feet per second (f /sec) (about 25,000 gallons per minute [g/min]) for consumptive industrial use. In addition, the MNP-2 Site Certification Agreement and Resolution ~122 . (Appendix C) allows the Supply System to provide water of up to 8.9 fthm/sec 400D g/min) for commercial development. The Supp1y System currently uses about 34 ft /sec (15,300 g/min) during MNP-2 operations. Estimated maximum quantities of water to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter. plant would be maximum'of about 8.9 ft /sec (4000 g/min). The primary uses of the industrial water would be as a heat exchanger to cool electrodes, castings, anodes, and for air compressors. A maximum of about 8.02 ft /sec (3600 g/min) would be discharged through the existing MNP-I/4 outfall water line back to the river. Since the MNP-1/4 outfall water line currently is not in use, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimin'ation System (NPDES) water permit would be required for its use. Haximum sanitary water discharges are estimated at

0. 18 .ft /sec (80 g/min). Sanitary water would be discharged to the existing Supply System Sanitary Maste Disposal System. All water usa+ would comply with .applicable regulatory requirements.

The water table in the supply system area is approximately .R meters (30 feet) to 12 meters (40 feet) below the surface (NUREG-0812), and is unaffected by contamination plumes from the 200 East and 200 Mest Areas. 4.2.3 Air Resources An extensive database of. meteorological information exists for the Hanford Site. Meteorological monitoring began on the Hanford Site in l945. In the early 1980's, automated monitoring stations began monitoring winds, temperature, and other meteorological parameters at locations across the Hanford Site. Currently, 30 monitoring stations are in operation, including a station that is located in the vicinity of the MNP-2 plant. Data from this monitoring network provides a comprehensive database for modeling the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants and for estimating the likely air quality impacts from proposed facilities. 

                                     'I Atmospheric dispersion is a function of wind speed, duration and direction of wind, atmospheric stability, and mixing -depth. Dispersion conditions are generally good        if winds are moderate to strong, if the atmosphere is of neutral or unstable stratification, and         if there is a deep mixing layer. Neutral and unstable stratifications occur about'6% of the time during the summer. Less favorable dispersion conditions occur when the wind speed is light and the mixing layer is shallow. These conditions. are most common during the winter when moderately to extremely stable stratifications occur about 66A of the time. Less favorable conditions also occur near the surface in all seasons from about sunset to about an hour after sunrise as a result of ground-based temperature inversions and shallow mixing layers. Stationary high-pressure systems produce extended periods of poor Draft Environmental Assessment               4-3                            August l998

tl ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 

              ~
            ~
            ~ ~

I 

  ~   ~                                                                   ~  ~
                ~    ~                                         I      ~                       ~,      ~                                                       ~     ~
                                                            ~     ~
~   ~ ~         ~      ~                            ~                 ~                             ~ ~
                               ~      I                                                 ~         ~                                         ~     ~       ~     I
        ~ ~        ~   ~                                      ~  ~          ~    ~                                       ~       ~  <    ~
                                                                                   ~      I     ~                    ~      ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

                                                    ~ ~                                               ~ I    ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ . ~ 

        ~     ~                                                                                                                                   ~       ~
                                                                                                        ~    I ~
                                                                                                            I    .   ~
                                                                                                                             '                ~ .     ~
                         ~
                             ~
                                                        ~

I ~ I III 

                                                                                       ~

I III 

                                                                                                          ~      ~                        ~               ~     l     ~
                                              ~   I            ~                        ~     ~                                                             I   ~
                                    ~   ~   ~                                                                                        ~    t                   ~   I
                       ~       ~  .               ~       ~                                   ~       ~
                                        ~   ~   ~              ~
            ~ ~
                           ~     ~                             I          ~

I - ~- 

                 ~ ~       ~                                                   I     ~      I

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Affected Environment Federal regulations require the states to promulgate their own regulations to achieve or maintain compliance or "attainment" with ambient air quality standards.. State and local governments have the authority to impose standards for ambient air quality that are stricter than the national standards. Washington State has established more stringent standards for sulfur dioxide and TSP. Ih addition, Washington State has established standards (Table 3) for total fluoride (TF), and other pollutants that are not covered by national standards. Table 3. Mashington State Fluoride Standards Pollutant Time Period Primary (p /m Fluorides 12 3,700 (TF) consecutive hours 24 2,900 consecutive hours 7 consecutive 1,700 days 30 840 consecutive days llarch 1; 500 through'ctober 31 The Hanford Site and surrounding areas are in attainment with ambient air quality standards. On occasion, particulate concentrations can reach relatively high levels. in eastern Mashington State because of exceptional natural events (i.e., dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and large brushfires) and agricultural activities (e.g., field burning, plowing fields) that occur in the region. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} has exempted the rural fugitive dist component of background concentrations when considering permit applications and enforcement of air quality standards. Similarly, Washington State ambient air quality standards have not consider'ed "rural fugitive dust" from natural or some agricultural practices when estimating the maximum background concentrations of particulates in the area east of the Cascade Mountain crest.* To meet air regulatory requirements and keep within ambient air,quality standards, the emission collection systems used in the proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable best available control technology (8ACT) . and maximum achievable control technology (HACT} before operation of the proposed alumi,num smelter plant begins. Each 8ACT/HACT option is evaluated for its range of impacts and cost -effectiveness during the air permitting process. The control options providing the greatest control efficiency is selected unless eliminated on energy, environmental, or economic grounds. The commercial aluminum company would be required to obtain the appropriate PSD air permits .controlling criteria pollutant emissions under Washington Draft Environmental Assessment 4-5 August 1998

DOEIEA-}259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Affected Environment Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141. A Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) air permit would also be required under WAC 173-460. The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and EPA have promulgated emission limits applicable to primary aluminum smelter operations (Table 4). Hew aluminum smelters that would be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart S might elect to comply with either the requirements of'40 CFR 60 Subpart S or 40 CFR 63 Subpart LL. Table 4. Regulatory Emission Limits Applicable to Proposed Aluminum Smelter Plant. Re ulation Pollutant Emission limit MAC 173-415, <<Primary Fluorides Hinicxxn f tuoride collection Atumfnum Plants.<< efficiencies are prescribed for each pottfne primary emission controL system. A primary emfssion control system uith a design removaL efffcienc of at Least 95%. Particulates 15 pounds per ton of At produced on a daily basis SO2 60 pounds per tan nf Al produced an a monthly average fro all emfssions Visible emissions Shall not exceed 20X opacity fcr mare than 6 cansecutive minutes Fugitive omissions Reasonably achievable control technology to control em,'asians 40 CFR 60 Subpart S, Ftuorides 1.9 pounds per ton of At produced for "Standards of Performance potroom groups at prebake plants for Primary Atunfnun Reduction Plants."

0. 1 pounds per ton of AL produced for anode bake lants Visible emfssians 10X o acity from any patroam gro 20% o acit from an anode bake tant 40 CFR 63 Subpart Lt., 'Fatal fluarides Shall not exceed 1.2 pounds per ton of
    <<Hatfonal Emissfon Standards                          Al produced for Hatardous Air Pollutants for Primary Atunfnum Reduction Plants.<<

Shall not exceed 0.02 pounds per ton of green anode from anode bake lants Palycyclic aromatic Shalt not exceed 0.025 pounds per ton hydrocarbans of green anode from anode bake plants Each pitch storage tank shaLL be equipped ufth an emfssfon control system desfgned and operated to reduce fnlet emfssions of polycyclfc organic matter (POH) b 95X or greater Draft Environmental Assessment 4-6 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Affected Environment 4.2.4 Endangered Species Biological Reviews f98-600-024 and f98-600-024'Appendix A) were performed on the areas of the Proposed Action and the alternate location. Ho plant or animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on the federal list of "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants" 

,(50 CFR 17), or on Washington State       list  of threatened or endangered species were found.

4.2.5 P1ants and Animals Only a few species of plants and animals are found in the immediate proximity of the Proposed Action due to the area being mostly previously disturbed as indicated in Biological Reviews ~98-600-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix A). However, the long-billed curlew and Loggerhead shrike were seen on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. Under The Higratory Bird Treaty Act, it is illegal to take, capture, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such birds included in the terms of the 'mnventions. To avoid adverse impacts to any of these species, ground clearing activities should be undertaken between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. Flora observed in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are listed in the Biological Reviews.' 'total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the proposed site for the aluminum smelter plant. A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were identified on the alternate site. Two Piper s daisy individuals were identified near the terminal end of the proposed natural gas pipeline route, however both individuals were probably outside of the area 'hat would be disturbed by installation of the pipeline. All of the Piper's daisies were observed on previously disturbed areas. .The appropriate mitigation for this species in this 'situation would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development. An estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed " .aad probably would- qualify as mitigable (DOE/RL 96-32) and (DOE/RL 96-88). In addition, access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush. 4.2.6 Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews ~'98-600-024 and 498-600-024a (Appendix B) were conducted for the Proposed Action and alternate site. They concluded that, "....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area." Draft Environmental Assessment 4-7 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Environmental Impacts 5.0 EHYIROHMEHTAL IMPACTS The following sections describe potential impacts from the proposed action. Impacts are addressed in proportion to their potential significance. 5.1 CONSTRUCTION AHD OPERATION IMPACTS. Descrfptfon of potential fapacts from the construction and operatfon actfvitfes of the proposed action. The following sections describe potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action all on previously disturbed .areas. 5.1.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance Soil disturbance of previously disturbed soil would occur over the entire 60 hectares (150 acres), with structures covering about 50% of the area. This disturbance would be at a maximum depth of approximately 3 meters (10 feet). Soil:disturbance for all of the utilities and rail line would occur on the Supply System's highly disturbed grounds. The ilatural gas main pipeline would run approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, and would parallel and be within the existing and previously disturbed, 15-meter (50-foot) wide right-of-way of the Southern Hanford Site Rail Lime. The smaller distribution pipeline would be connected from the main pipeline to the aluminum smelter plant within previously disturbed areas on Supply System property. Construction of the pipeline route along the. railroad right-of-way and within Supply System property would involve excavating to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.3 foot). The width of the ditch would be approximately 0.5 meter (1.7 foot). Excavated material would be stockpiled next to the ditch and used for backfill after pipe installation. The ditch would be bedded with approximately '10 centimeters (4 inches) of sand or clean, rock-free dirt. The pipe would be covered with approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches) of sand or rock-free dirt and then backfilled with the excavated material. Most of the soil and subsurface activities would be temporary during construction, therefore the anticipated impacts to the environment expected to be consequential. are'ot

5. 1.2 Liquid Dischaiges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters There would be no discharges to the groundwater . All sanitary wastes would be disposed of to the existing Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System. Maximum sanitary discharges are estimated at 80 g/min. Ca'pacity of the Supply System Sanitary Waste Disposal System is 644,300 liters. (170,000 gallons) per day. Approximately 1,500 people from the Supply System and DOE currently use less than 30% capacity of the disposal system.

If it is determined during the HPDES permitting process that the industrial water requires treatment, the water would be treated to'PDES permit .levels by a water treatment facility provided by the aluminum smelter plant before disposal. 'It is estimated that industrial water discharge from the proposed aluminum smelter plant to .the WHP-'/4 outfall water line would be Draft Environmental Assessment 5-1 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Env>ronmental Impacts about 20'C (68'F}, similar to Supply System blowdown. 'Estimated maximum quantities of water to be used by the full buildout aluminum smelter plant would be about 8.9 fts/sec $ )000 g/min). The average river flow of the Columbia River is 120,000'ft /sec (53,859,744.0 g/min), with the minimum regulated flow of the river. is 36,000 ft /sec (16, I57,923.2 g/min}; In the therma1 plume ana3ysis of the environmental report for operation of WHP-I/4 and WNP-2 (MPPSS-ER), the maximum blowdown conditions projected from WHP-I/O into the WHP-'I/O outfall was 33.4 ft /sec (14,990 g/min), and 17.8 ft /sec (7,990 g/min) at normal conditions. The thermal plume from MNP-I/O blowdown or the industrial water from the proposed aluminum smelter would be dominated by the river flow within about 6 to 8 meters (20 to 25 feet) of exiting the WHP-I/4 outfall; During full MHP-I/4 operations, projected blowdown would have resulted in a temperature increment of less than -17.65'C (0.22'F) at minimum flow, and -17.77'C (0.01'F) at normal flow, in the Columbia River. The thermal plume analysis for WHP-2 blowdown discharges into the WNP-2 outfall at minimum river flow resulted in a heat load that would raise the bulk river temperature by less than -17.76'C (0.033'F),'nd -17.77'C (0.0067'F) at 'normal river flow. The temperature increment heat load on the Columbia River resulting from the Proposed Action would be less than. for MHP-I/O and WNP-2, due to the lower volume of industrial water (maximum of about 8.02 ft /sec f3600 g/min]) exiting the WNP-I/O outfall into the river. 

      'otential      impacts from existing aluminum smelters on the C&umbia River were 'analyzed      in a river report prepared for EPA (Appendix C). This study made observations, including bioassay expeyiments on adult salmon behavior, attributing elevated fluoride concentrations which might have a critical role effecting adult salmonids during migrati.on. The study concluded that the low, narrow range of concentrations measured throughout the study area of several aluminum plants along the Columbia River did not 'cause a particular problem with fluoride discharge to the river. The stu'dy also concluded that organic compounds emitted by upriver aluminum smelter plants have accumulated in sediments behind l<cHary Dam. It is not known           if the proposed aluminum smelter would contribute additional hydrocarbons to river sediments.               The environmental effects of these hydrocarbons has not been determined.
5. 1.3 Gaseous or Particulate Discharges to the Air ae Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities from typical construction activities (e.g., trucks transporting building materials and waste, operation of construction equipment, fugitive dust emissions from digging and backfilling) could be generated intermittently during the construction phase of the Proposed Action. Particulate emissions would be controlled by watering or other dust suppression techniques. In addition, small quantities of gaseous and particulate pollutants would be emitted by the transportation (via truck and rail} of raw materials for aluminum production, finished products', and waste. Potenti'ally substantial gaseous and particulate emissions might occur during smelting and related operations.

The emission of criteria air pollutants by the proposed smelter would have to meet the applicable AAgS (both federal and state), PSD limits, and Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Impacts other applicable regulatory limits (refer to Section 4.2.3). The point of regulatory compliance for air releases has not been determined. However for purpose of analysis in this EA, air emissions from the proposed facility have to meet air quality standards and PSD limits at the fenceline of the proposed aluminum smelter. This would maintain pollutant concentrations within permitted federal and state limits on publicly accessible roadways (including Supply System access roads), at Supply System facilities (including h'HP-2), 'and other portions of the Hanford Site. At this point in the planning process, site-specific information is not available on pollutant emission rates for the proposed facility. However, a BACT/HACT protocol (Appeadix Dl) and modeling protocol information (Appendix D2) were made available by Ecology during a meeting with'enton County discussing the SEPA checklist. The modeling protocol for the proposed Oregon site includes estimates of emission parameters. It is'assumed that the proposed facility on the Hanford'Site would have similar or reduced pollutant emissions. Options in the BACT/MACT protocol list various air emiuion control technologies that might be used in the proposed aluminum smeRer plant, such as wet scrubbing for SOa emissions and afterburners to control CO emissions. The BACT options for TF control in approximate descending order of control effectiveness include: dry alumina scrubbers, dry plus secondary .scrubbers, coated bag filter dry scrubbers, floating bed scrubbers, and spray towers. Host of the Tf control options listed also reduce TSP emissions. Inherent in the dry alumina scrubber system are high-efficiency bag filters for. particulate collection. This type of scrubber collects fluorides and particulate that are returned to the reduction cells and re-absorbed. Gases that ar'e not re-absorbed are primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, CO, and SO . Trace combustible hydrocarbon. gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized and destroyed. HACT options might require the capture of polycyclic organic matter (POH) emissions through a closed system cont'rol device with a reduction efficiency of at lease 95 percent. To assess the. maximum pollutant emission rates that. the proposed smelter could have and still remain in compliance with ambient air quality standar)s. and prevention of significant deterioration limits, atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted by Pacific Horthwest National Laboratory (PHNL) specifically addressing the Proposed Action using EPA's Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model (Table 5). The ISC model uses a Gaussian plume model. that offers a wide vary of options for configuring release characteristics and computing pollutant co'ncentration and deposition values for a wide, range of averaging periods. The model focused on particulates, SO<, and CO, and produced estimates of ground-level pollutant concentrations 'averaged over the year and estimates of maximum impacts for short-duration periods (e.g., I hour, 3 hours, 24 hours). The model estimates the maximum pollutant emission rates from the proposed facility that would not result in a violation of regulatory limits; refer to Appendix 03 for more details. Draft Environmental Assessment 5-3 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Impacts Table 5. Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates and Annual Emission Totals. (Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed NAQS and PSD Limits. These preliminary values are based on a simple, preliminary characterization of the roposed facility; pollutant Time Regulatory Governing Haximum Haximum period limit in standard pollutant annual 

                                       ,  (ug/m')                     emi ssi on    pollutant rate        emissions
                                                                         /sec           (MT Particulates        Annual                 17             PSD             28           900 24 hour              150              PSD             14           440 Soa,                Annual                 20             PSD             33         1,000 24 hour                91             PSD              8           250 CO                  8 hour             10,000           AAQS            390        12,000 1 hour             40,000           AAQS            480        15,000 Unmitigated airborne emissions of CO, So<, particulates, and fluorides from the proposed aluminum smelter plant may have significanWambient air quality impacts, however emission controls would bring the plant within.

compliant permit standards. Federal regulations set HAAQS for criteria air pollutants and require the states to promulgate regulations to a<ieve or maintain compliance or attainment with those standards. Emissions are limited by appl.icable PSD and TAP limits. Appropriate BACT/HACT emission controls would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all'ertinent air quality regulations. The emission control strategy to - be employed at the proposed facility has not been identified at this point in time, .however would, be evaluated during the applicable air permitting process. A hazard index approach was conservatively assumed (DOE/EIS-0189) for a large Hanford Site project called Tank Haste Remediation System (TMRS) which related noncarcinogenic health effects that would be additive for all 

 ,chemicals (i.e., all chemicals would have the same mechanism of action -and effect the same target organ). The hazard index represents the summation of hazards evaluated. 'A hazard index greater than or equal to 1.0 would be indicative of potential adverse health effects in the population of concern, from exposure-to multiple chemicals. Conversely, a hazard index less than 'i:0 would suggest that no adverse health effects would be expected.

All carcinogenic risks were assumed to be additive. Consequently, the total incremental lifetime, cancer risk (ILCR) would represent the summation of individual chemical cancer risks, from each emission source,,for each alternative analyzed. Regulatory agencies have defined an acceptable level of risk to be between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000, with 1 in 1,000,000 being the point of departure and referred to as de minimis (below which there is.no concern) risk. A risk below 1 in 1,000,000 was considered low, and a risk greater than 1 in 10,000 was considered high. The commercial aluminum company would have to meet air quality requirements and permit standards regulated under MAC 173-400 and MAC 173-460 and applicable 'federal regulations before operation of the proposed aluminum Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-I259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Im acts smelter plant. These standards are based on, for the most part,.cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants. Potential emissions from the source 

                                              ~

(see Table 5) must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulative exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects. ,The;applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more than one additional cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals continually exposed to an ail pollutant. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would use applicable BACT/HACT air emission controls to meet air quality requirements and standards.* The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have minimal health effects from mitigated air emissions. 

.5.1.4     Radionuclide Releases  or Direct Radiation Exposure Th'ere would be no radionuclide releases   or direct radiation exposure expected from the Proposed Action.

5.1.5 Nondangerous Solid Maste Generated It is expected that the only nondangerous solid waste generated during the construction phase of the'roposed Action would be typical construction debris. Existing offsite facilities would have .adequate capacity to accept all waste volumes from the Proposed Action'. All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements. The primary nondangerous solid waste that would be generated is referred to as dross which consists of:aluminum metal. and al'uminum oxide. Dross is furnace slag that floats and has recycle value. The rate of dross generation is about 0.5% to IN of the plant's primary metal p) oduction. During the initial operation phase of the proposed action, about 600 metric tons per year would be collected and stored in bunkers before transporting offsite. After blowdown from cleaning the anodes, small quantities of nondangerous solids would be collected. -This blowdown material, a fine carbon powder, consists of about 50% sodium and aluminum fluoride and 50% fine carbon. During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately. 32 metric tons per year. At full production, the numbers would be about f'ive times these values. In addition, other offsite facilities would be expected to have adequate capacity to accept all other waste volumes from the Proposed Action. All nondangerous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be inconsequential. .5.1.6. Dangerous Haste Generated Small amounts of dangerous waste could be generated (e.g., solvents, waste oil, etc.) during construction of the Proposed Action. These materials would be'managed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Draft. Environmental Assessment 5-5 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Environmental Im acts The largest. amount of dangerous waste expected to be generated during operation is the spent pot1ining, consisting of carbon, refractory brick, steel, aluminum salts (f1uorides, sodium, and calcium), and 0.5X cyanide. The WAC-303-'9904 classifies this dangerous waste as ~K088, "Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction." During the initial phase of operation, the plant is expected to produce approximately 1,500 metric tons per year. At full production, the numbers would be about five times these values. The waste would be staged in the unused WNP-4 reactor Containment Building or General Service Building before being shipped offsite by rail for treatment.and disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Small quantities of other dangerous material such as solvents and waste oil might be generated during maintenance activities. These wastes would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

5. l.7 Consumption or Commitment of Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, gravel, concrete, etc.) would occur for short periods dgring the phase of the Proposed Action. The amount of consumption is 'onstruction typical for construction of a modern day aluminum smelter.

Electrical energy would be used in the operation of the proposed aluminum smelter. Capacity needed is estimated at 107 megawatts (HW) and use 900 gigawatt hours (gM-hr) per year during the 60K-metric tons per year production phase of operatio'ns. At full production of the 300K-metric tons per year, electrical capacity would be approximately five times these values at 535 HW and use 4500 gW-hrs per year. Annual natural gas consumption during initial operations would be about 800 metric tons, or about 42 billion British thermal units (Btu). At full production that would include an anode production shop, annual natural gas consumption would increase to about 9700 metric tons, or about 510 bill-ion Btu. These impacts .to the environment are indeterminate due to the complexity of region-wide electrical usage planning. 5.1.8 Effects on Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Reviews $ 98-'00-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix B) were conducted .for the preferred. alternative. The reports concluded: "....there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area." Personnel would be briefed on the requirements of cultural resources, and would be directed to watch for cultural artifacts during excavation. If cultural features or artifacts are. encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery would stop, and the appropriate cultural resource staff would be notified. There would be no effects expected on cultural resources during the Proposed Action. Draft Environmental Assessment 5-6 August 1998 

                                                                     ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Im acts

5. 1.9 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species The Biological Revi'ews ~98-600-024 and ~98-600-024a (Appendix A) list the flora and fauna observed at the proposed project site. The reviews conclude, "No plant and animal species protected-under the ESA,. candidates for such protection, or species listed by the Washington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site."

However, the estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed and probably would qualify as mitigable habitat under (DOE/RL 96-32) and (DOE/RL 96-88). Access from the main rail line to the alternate'ite is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush. In addition, the reports indicated that the appropriate mitigation for the Piper's daisy would consist of attempting to transplant the individuals prior to site development. If the Proposed Action is constructed, the applicable areas should be resurveyed because the reviews are valid until April 15, 1999. Construction activities should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. 5.1.10 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland The proposed construction would not occur in the 100-year Tloodplain of the Columbia River, nor within any area designated as a wetland (NUREG-0812). I 5.1.11 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area The Proposed Action would be outside the Hanford Reach Study'Area, state or federal wildlife refuges, or specially designated areas. The proposed aluminum smelter plant would be in view from the river only along the 300 Area, which is about 16 kilometers (10 miles) away to the south. Intermittent odors and particulate matter in the air might be observers immediately east or 'south of the proposed plant along the river.

5. 1.12 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the Potential 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 identified during construction activities. All construction
                                                                         'ppropriately personnel would follow approved safety procedures for the construction and land clearing activities within the Proposed Action. Safety pr'ocedures would be followed for 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 would be 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, because Draft Environmental Assessment 5-7 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 V.S. Department of Ener y Environmental .Im acts the Supply System utilities generally are well charted. Excavation permits would be required before any digging is permitted. Such permits would identify. buried utiliti'es. Pipelines and utilities would be avoided by construction equipment. Typical construction hazards occur. However, the risk of severe accidents is small. Rail traffic on the southern Hanford Site rail line is expected to as materials are shipped to and from the aluminum smelter plant. 'ncrease Therefore, potential for collisions with vehicles on Route 4 South are expected to increase over current rail usage. However, warning signals, signs, and barriers would be maintained, and scheduling shipment during off-,peak travel hours would be enforced. Risk of all rail accidents involvina breach of containers for hazardous material on the Hanford Site is 1.49 x 10 accidents per train mile is based on rail crossings at about l40 locations on the Hanford Site. Mith an estimated rail usage of 42 rail cars per week, the Proposed Action would produce about 43,680 train miles on the southern Hanford rail line, and result in an 'estimated 0.00065 rail accidents per vear. Because the rail usage under the Proposed Action would occur only on the -southern 10 miles of the Hanford Site rail line and crosses a highway at only one location, risk of accidents from, the Proposed Action is more remote. In additio~, the Hanford Site and Supply System <<orkforce would be notified of the increased rail traffic. The risk of a severe railroad accident on the Hanford Site is small. The largest amount of dangerous waste (hazardous waste designation under federal regulations) produced by the Proposed Action would be spent potliners. About l,500 metric tons'ould be generated annually by the 60K-metric ton aluminum smelter plant and temporarily stage'd in the presently unused MHP-4 Containment Building or General Service Building. The two MHP-4 buildings are designed with much greater safety constraints to contain high-level radioactive materials than would be required to temporarily contain spent potliners before offsite shipment by rail for treatment and disposal. -. Recent analysis of offsite rail shipments of hazardous waste and various radiological wastes to and from applicable DOE sites across the country for,, DOE waste management activities has been conducted (DOE/EIS-0200-F). concluded that reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents are This'nalysis not expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse human health effects to minority or low-income populations. The total number of life-threatening effects from rail transportation is less than 0.5 for any hazardous waste alternative. The expected number of transportation accident fatalities from trauma is no higher than one under any hazardous waste alternative. These fatalities from potential rail accidents are independent of the shipments contents. The potential accidents within the scope of the Proposed Action of this EA are well within the accident scenarios. analyzed '(DOE/EIS-0200-F) . Because employees in the aluminum smelting industry work in an environment surrounded by very. large equipment and hot and molten metals, the most reasonably foreseeable accident considered during operation would be Draft Environmental Assessment 5-8 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Impacts serious burns to employees. Local emergency response teams and care providers are trained to address potential accident victims. 'Public health and safety would not be affected because the area is closed to the general public. 5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS. nescription of socioeconomic impacts that uoutd result from the Proposed Action. A construction crew of approximately 500 would be required to build the initial phase of the proposed aluminum smelter.. The contractor would bring a construction management team and hire the construction craft personnel local area. The initial workforce of permanent employees at the proposed from'he aluminum smelter ifould be 125. If the aluminum smelter is expanded to full-sized plant,'he workforce would be increased to about 600 to 1,000 employees. The addition of up to 1,000 employees and about 2,000 to 3,000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset much of the impacts of 1, 100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in 1997 and the 8% unemployment rate in the Tri-City area (Benton County Planning.

8. Building Department). Therefore no crucial impact to employment levels withi'n Benton and Franklin counties is likely. For example, .student gl.owth in Richland schools from 1990 to 1995 has been 2% to 3% per year, and from 1996 to 1998 has been 1% per year. The Richland School District is currently building a new elementary school to accommodate the existing student body and for projected growth. All Richland School District modernizations and expansions are designed to meet growth in 'student count for the next 5 to 10 years.

5.3 EHYIROHMEHTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. oescription of environmentai justice impacts that uouid resuit from the Proposed Action. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address'nvironmental Justice in Hinority Populations and Lo>u-1'ncome 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 (primarily Hispanic) populhtions and low income populations are present near the Hanford Site (PHHL-11472). The analysis of the impacts in this EA indicates that there .would be no adverse impacts to the offsite population from implementing the Proposed Action. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income portion of the community. 5.4 CUMULATIYE IMPACTS. oescriptfon of the cuwiative impacts that uould resuLt from the Proposed Action. During the initial phase of annual operation of'he Proposed Action, about 600 metric tons of nondangerous dross and 32 metric tons of nondangerous blowdown material from cleaning the anodes would be generated. In addition, the largest volume of dangerous waste type (K088) expected to be generated annually would be 1,500 metric tons of spent potlining. At full production, these numbers would be about five times higher.. These materials would be Environmental Assessment 

                                                                                                            'raft August )998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Environmental Im acts staged and managed within the Supply System's property and disposed of offsite by the commercial aluminum smelter company in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. As a result of the Proposed Action, waste disposal would not substantially effect any associated treatment or disposal sites. Federal regulations set HPDES for water pollutant discharges and require the States to promulgate regulations to achieve or maintain compliance with those standards. States also can create their own water quality standards 

. that are more restrictive than national standards.         Appropriate water treatment would be needed to ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with all pertinent HPDES regulations.        Ho new construction of water
 'ntakes or outfalls for industrial water would occur at the Columbia River, as existing Supply System piping systems would be used. Sanitary water would be disposed of into the existing Supply. System Sanitary Waste Disposal System, which is currently under utilized. The Proposed Action would bring the Sanitary. Waste Disposal System close to full capacity, the specific effects on the system would be evaluated through the HPDES permit that the commercial aluminum company would have to obtain from the state.
                                                                       \

A summarization was made (DOE/EIS-0189) of the noncarcinogenic health hazards and carcinogenic risks 'associated with air emissions for each TMRS alternative. 'he hazard indices for the maximally exposed individual worker maximally exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally exposed individual general public were well below the benchmark value of 1.0 for. all alternatives. Therefore, none of the proposed TWRS remediation alternatives were expected to .result in adverse health effects from air emissions. Air quality requirements and p'ermit standards regulated under WAC 173-400 and WAC 173-460 and applicable federal regulations would have to be met by the commercial aluminum company before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter plant. These standards are based on, for the most part, cancer risk standards for potential air pollutants. Emissions from the source must be sufficiently low to protect human health and safety for short-term, long-term, or cumulqtive exposures from potential carcinogenic and/or toxic effects. The applicable air quality requirements and permit standards are designed such that the proposed aluminum smelter plant may cause no more thorn , one additional-cancer above background cancer rate per million individuals. continually exposed to an air pollutant. Similar to the findings of the hazard indices for the'aximally-exposed individual worker, maximally-exposed individual noninvolved worker, and maximally-exposed individual general public for proposed remediation alternatives analyzed in DOE/EIS-0189, the propo'sed aluminum smelter plant would be expected to have no adverse health'ffects from mitigated air emissions. To support initial operations, approximately 42 rail cars per week would transport materials to the aluminum smelter plant from offsite. This compares to an average of 930 coal car shipments per year on the southern Hanford Site rail line from 1993 through 1996. This increased rail traffic adds to the approximate 900 rail cars per year shipped by Lamb-Weston, Inc. Draft Environmental Assessment 5-10 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Environmental Impacts If the aluminum smelter operations are expanded to a full-sized plant with a workforce of 600 to 1,000, traffic on South Power, Plant Loop Road, Route 4 South, and the streets of the Tri-City area would increase. However, when compared to the estimated 17,300 vehicles that pass the 300 Area each work day (DOE/EA-1178); the probability of traffic accidents per work day during full buildout of the proposed facility would be about equivalent or slightly less than those .analyzed in DOE/EA-1]78. The initial proposed aluminum smelter plant would involve temporary construction personnel from offsite and approximately 125 new operating personnel. The addition of up to 1,000 employees and 2,000 to 3;000 family members to the population within Benton and Franklin counties would offset some of the impacts of 1,100 people laid-off from the Hanford Site in ]997 and the 8X unemployment rate in the Tri-City area. Based on the analysis for Hanford work force and Tri-City nonfarm employment, the in'OE/EIS-0189 addition of the employment from the Proposed Action is expected to create no, adverse impact. 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 from operations of the Supply System, Hanford Site, or Tri-City area. 5.5 IHPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES The Ho Action Alternative and Alternate Site are discussed in the following sections. 5.5.1 Implementation of the No Action Alternative. Oualftative discussion on impacts that uould result from implementation of the no action alternative. The No Action Alternative would have no sublease/transfer for a company to construct and operate a large aluminum smelter plant on the 'ubleased/transferred property. There would be no increased use of the southern portion of the Hanford Site rail system, and no natural gas pipeline would be buil-t north of the 300 Area. Supply System property and the surrounding environs would continue with its current activities. No new impacts would be expected. 5.5.2 Implementation of'Alternate Site. cualftatfve discussfon on fmpacts that voufd result from implementation of alternate site. The alternate site for the aluminum smelter would be adjacent to the Supply System's unfinished WNP-]. However, the process flow for producing aluminum requires a configuration that is uniform in shape *(square in shape) similar to the Proposed Action site, while the alternate site is L-shaped. The alternate site is .not as close in its proximity to MNP-4 and to the existing BPA substation. In addition, an estimated 5 hectares (12 acres) of shrub land including sagebrush and bitterbrush in the south eastern part of the alternate site is undisturbed and probably would qualify's mitigable Draft Environmental Assessment 5-11 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Environmental Im acts under DOE/RL 96-32 and DOE/RL 96-88. Access from the main rail line to the alternate site is partially disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush. This alternative would cost more to construct compared to the Proposed Action, otherwise impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. Draft Environmental Assessment 5-12 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Permits and Regulatory Re uirements 

                   - 6;0   PERM1TS AND REGULATORY REQUIRENENTS The Hanford Site is   owned by DOE. The aluminum company would have  to coordinate with RL and the Supply System concerning emergency preparedness and training, environmental stewardship, and potential cultural resource issues.

The aluminum company would be responsible to obtain applicable HPDES permits and notify the State of Washington Department of Health per MAC 246-272 and provide a limited discharge permit to be submitted to Ecology per MAC 173-216 before making the proposed waste water tie-in into the existing permitted Supply System Waste Mater Disposal System. Before operation of the proposed aluminum smelter, the commercial aluminum company would be required to'btain the appropriate air permit{s) controlling criteria pollutant emissions under WAC 173-400-110 and WAC 173-400-141, .and a TAPs air permit under MAC 173-460. Environmental regulatory authority over the Supply System is vested in federal agencies and in Washington State agencies. The commercial aluminum company would comply. with all of these and other environmental requirements in a manner acceptable to the releva..+ regulatory agencies. Draft Environmental Assessment 6-1 August l998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Or a'nizam.ions Consulted

7. 0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Consultation has been made in the preparation of this draft EA with Benton County, the Supply System, TRIDEC, Ecology, and the potential commercial aluminum company. 4 Before approval
                    '   of this EA, a draft version will  be sent   for    a 30 day review period to:

Nez Perce Tribe, 

~ Confederated Tribes   of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
~ Wanapum 'People,
~ Yakama  Indian Nation,,
~ U.S. National Park Service,
~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 0 BPA,
~ Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council,
~ Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish   5, Wildlife,  and  Health,

~ Benton County, ~ Franklin County, Port of Benton, ~ City of Richland, ~ Supply System, ~ Hanford Education .Action League, ~. Heart of America, ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility, ~ available in the DOE reading room (Washington State University Tri-Cities), and placed on the Hanford Homepage. l All comments received during the comment period would be considered in the preparation'f the final EA, and in the DOE decision whether to resolve the EA as a Finding'f No Significant Impact (FONSI), or as a determination to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 

                                                                \

Draft Environmental Assessment  ?-1 ,August 1998 

                                                          - DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y                                    Ap endix A APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REYIEM
                   ~ ~

Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A pendix A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Cpcccrcd by Sc".eric loc tbc U.S. Ocpcctrocot ot Bevy April 28, 1998 Mr, Randall J. Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford; Inc, P. O. Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 Richland, WA 99352

Dear Mr. Staudacher:

BIOLOGICALREVIEW OF THE WPPSS INDUSTRIALSITES, 600 Area, 098-600-024. Project

Description:

        ~ Two 150 acre sites on thc eastern edge of the land managed by. the Washington Public Power Supply System are being evaluated as potential sites for an aluminum smelter. Site                 ..
           "A"is located   to the cast and northeast of the WhlP-4 reactor, Site "B" is located east and southeast of the WNP-1 reactor. Ifone of these sites is selcctcd as the, f5cation for the smelter, it is cxpectcd that thc entire 150 acres willbc cleared and leveled in preparation for facility construction.

Survey Objectives: 

        ~ To determine the occurrence in the project area of plant and animal species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species listed as threatened, endahgered, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,                                      I' To evaluate thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.

Survey Methods: Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of the proposed sites were, conducted by C. A; ~ Duberstein, J. M: Becker, C. A. Brandt, and M. R. Sackschcwsky on 27 April 1998. The Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale (Bonham 1989) was used to determine percent cover of dominant vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(1994,.1996), Washington State Department ~ of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S. Hsh and %'iidlifcService (1985). Lists of animal and plant species considered Endangered, Thrcatcncd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFWS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Survey Results: 

      .~  Lists of all plants and animals observed within each of the proposed industrial sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

902 Battelle Boulevard x P.O. Box 999 x Richland, WA 99352 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Appendix A Mr. R. J. Staudachcr 98-600-024 Page 2 of 9 The southern 2J5 and western 1/4 of Site A have been previously disturbed (Figure 1). Th Wcstcrn 1/4 is within a perimeter fenceline for lA'PA and appears to have been used as a construction laydown area, it is currently dominated by cheatgrass, hoary aster, and pale cnveningprimrose, v ith significant amounts of yanow and bur sage. The, southern 2/5 of 

        . the site (outside, the fence line) appears to have been used for borrow activities, it is currently dominated by needle-and-thread grass, cheatgrass, and hoary aster. The remaining portIons of Site A does not app~ to have been physically disturbed, although it has burned, probably in thc early 19SO's, The undisturbed portion of Site A is dominated by cheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, with a large number of additional species. Shrub cover is sparse, with small clumps of Big sagebrush, and scattered individuals of gray and grccn rabbitbrush. An inactive security training facility is located in thc center of Site A.

The eastern 200 m of Site B is relatively undisturbed except for fires that probably occurred in the early 1980's (Figure 2). Thc southern 5 ha of this portion of Site B has recovered. well and the shrub cover is between 15 and 20 Jo, with a relatively even Six of big sapebrush and Antelope bitterbrush, ard an understory of Sandberg's bluegrass and c'.;atgrass, Thc remaining areas ivitlJg the undisturbed portion of the site arc dominated by Sandberg's bluegrass, cheatgrass, and needle-and-thread grass. West of Qe undisturbed section is a strip, approximately 250 m wide, that consists of two large borrow pits, and an area between these two that appears to be an additional pit that has been filled in and revegetated. Vegetation in this a;ca consists primarily of cheatgrass; with an asso'rtment of other species, mostly weedy sp'ecies. The western portion of Site B is primarily within the existing fence linc around VÃP-1, except for a small area in'the northwest corner. The western portion of Site B has been higMy disturbed, and appears to have been used as construction lay down areas and for other construction support. Vegetation within the fence lines of Site B is primarily chcatgrass, with significant amounts of barren six-v, eeks and hoary aster, with an assortmetn of other, primarily ~vccdy species. One plant species on thc Washington State Sensitive plant list (Piper's daisy Erigeron piperianus), ahd onc plant species on the Washington State Watch list (Stalked-pod-milkvctch -AsIra'galus sclcrocarpus) were observed in both of thc proposed industrial sites. I A total of 6 Piper's daisy individuals werc identified within Site A, all of these werc within the western portion of the Site, inside of the%%P-4 fence line, (Figure 1). A total of 8 Piper's daisy individuals were, identified within Site, B, all of these v ere in the disturbed western section, 4 werc inside of the WNP-1 fence, and 4 were in the northwest corner of Site B (Figurc 2). The stalked-pod milkvetch were observed both inside and outside the fence lines within both of the proposed sites, but all were in relatively disturbed sites. Animal species of concern included the Loggcrhcad shrike, (Washington State Candidate, former federal candidate), observed within Site B, and the Long-billed curlew (Washington State Monitor) observed in both Sites. Most of thc other bird species observed are protected under thc Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Draft Environmental Assessment August 199S A-2

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 3 of 9 Considerations and Recommendations: No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species listed by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the, vicinity of the proposed site. The majority of both of the sites consist of highly dcgradcd or otherwise low quality habitat. However, the estimated 5 ha of shrub land in the south eastern part of Site B would probably qualify as mitigablc habitat under the Hanford Site Biological Resources management Plan (DOE/RL l 996a) and Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy (DOE/RL 1996b) 

       ~    Thc populations of Piper's daisy in both of the Sites consist of relatively few, widely scattered individuals in highly disturbed habitats. Piper's daisy. normally occurs with sagebrush on silty to sandy soils, but it does sporadically occur in disrobed settings. If one of these sites is selected for development, appropriate mitigation far this species in this situation would consist of attempting to transplant thc individuals prior to site development.
       ~    The stall ed-pod 'milkvetch occurs in sandy soils throughout the Hanford Sitt.-. The populations within thc proposed industrial sites arc sparse and arc primarily within disturbed habitats. Yo specific mitigation fog this species would be required.
         'he long-billed curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the Hanford Site, and the
         'oggerhead shrike       occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats ifsuitable perch'sites are available. Ifone of thcsc Sites is selected for
          'cvclopment, thc ground clearing should be scheduled to occur between August and early April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with the migratory bird treaty act.
      ~    Development of either of the Sites would not result in serious impacts to species or habitats of concern. However, based on ecological considerations, Site A is preferable because Site B has slightly morc Piper's daisies, and approximately 5 ha of Site B is a relatively healthy Sagebrush/Bittcrbrush.community. that may require compensatory mitigation.

Sincerely, CA Brandt, Ph.D. Project Manager Ecological Compliance Asscssmcnt CAB:mrs Draft Environmental Assessment A-3 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 4 of 9 REFERENCES' Bonham, Charles D. 19S9. pp. 127-128.. e ~u e ent e t 'alVe e t, John Wiley A,Sons, fnc. U. S. Department of Energy. 1996a. Draf't Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan. DOE/RL 96-32. U. S. Department of Energy. 1996b. Draft Hanford Site Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy. DOE/RL 96-88. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Revised List of Migratory Birds; Fina Rule. 50 FF', 13708 (April 5, 19S5). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.'994. Species of Special Concern in Washington. (April 1994). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. f'riority Habitats and Species List. (January 1996). Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Endangered, Threatened A Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997), 

             'raft Environmental Assessment                A-4                                    August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A pendix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 5 of 9 TABLE 1. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Species Common Name Site A Site B Achillea milli olium Yarrow Agro 'ron cristatum Crested wheat rass A ro ron das ~srach ~um Thicks ike wheat rass Ambrosia acanthica a Bursa e Amisincl ia resse ara Tesselatc fiddleneck Amsinc/'ia l 'co soides Tarv eed iddleneck Artemisia tridentata Bi sa ebrush Ascle iass eciosa Milkweed As ara uso cinalis As aragus Astra a us caricinus Buckwheat milkvetch Astra alussclerocar us Stalked- d milkvetch Balsamorhiza care ana are 's balsamroot Brodiaea dou lasii Douglas c usterlil Brodiaea hoivellii Howell's clusterlil Bromus tectorum Cheat grass Centaurea di sa Diffuse kna weed Centaurea re ens Russian kna wccd Chaenactis dou asii Hoa false arrow Chon rilla 'uncea Rush skeletonwecd C/i sotha>nnus nauseosus Gra rabbitbrush Chr sothamnus viscidi orus Green rabbitbrush Comandra umbellatum Bastard toadflax Con za canadensis Horsewced Cre isatrtbar a Hawksbeard C tan tha circumscissa Matted c tantha C 'mo teris lezebinrhinus Tu entine s rin arslc Del hiniuni nuttalianu>n landlar s ur Descurainea innata Tans mustard Draba verna S ring whitlow Eaea nusan usti olia Russian olive E ilobium aniculataum willoavherb Eri eron i erianus Pi er's dais Eri eron olios ermus Cushion fleabanc Eri eron uniilus Shag gv fleabane Erio onum niveum Snow buckwheat Erodium cicutarium Fillaree E 'simumas erum cstern wallflower Fesruca octo ora Barren six-weeks Fesluca ovina Shee escue Draft Environmental Assessment A-5 August 1998 

                                                                                  ~ ~ ~
     ~ II I
                                                   ~     0            ~

j RRSRQ 

                                                 ~   ~
            ~   r t      t   ~
                               ~    ~                 ~    I   ~
   ~   t  ~   t       ~    ~                   ~       ~

J ~ ~ rt JJ tt 

                               ~    ~ ~          ~
                                      ~   ~         ~      ~
                                                          ~     r    t
                                                             ~     ~   ~
         ~   tt                  ~ ~    ~
  ~            J   tr t~t r tc    ~        tc                    0%         ~
                                      ~ r                ~

t ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 

   ~   J
                                        ~ ~        r             ~
                                      ~  ~ ~
           ~     J 0

a ~ ~ 

                               ~  .   ~       ~
                                                    ~         ~         ~
                                                                                        ~ ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S; De artment of Ener y A endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 7 of 9 TABLE 2. ANIMALSPECIES OBSERVED IN SITES A AND B Common Name Site A Site 3 MAMMALS Badoer . Co ote Grassho er mouse Jack rabbit Mule deer Pocket o her Pocket mouse REPTILES Go her snake Side-blotched lizard BIRDS American kestrel American robin Canada oose 

   ~

Horned lark House finch House s arrow Lo~ erhead shrike Lono-billed curlew Os re Pheasant Savannah s arrow Sa 's hoebe Ves ers arrow 

    %estern meadowlark
    %hite crown s arrow Draft Environmental Assessment   A-7                August 1998
                                                          'I

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A endix A Mr. R. J. Staudacher 98-600-024 Page 8 of 9 PICTURE X. HABXTATS ANZAC FEATURES WITHIN SXTE A-C7 0 

                                                  ~gP-+

i,s Draft Environmenta1 Assessment August 1998.

DOEJI'EA-1259 artment of Ener y A endix A U.S. De Mr. R. J. Staudachcr 98-600-024 Pagc90f9 FIGURE 2. HA3ITATS. AND FEATURES AVITHIN SITE 8- 

                                                           '9 g~
                                                              ~qC<

pg~ 

                                                        'I S

gg<C Q+ 

                             ~J     g~J cN pC 6'>y,v' pc p a'~~~~     0+Cl     tI~S Ppir5 ~scp p>i~

.Draft Envir'onmental Assessment August 1998 A 9 

                                                                         ~  ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S; De artment of Ener y A endix A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Opcntsd tr!'",c'le hr ee U s. reyirt~cnt o.'Eneity May 21, 1998 Mr. Randall Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford; Inc. P. 0, Box 1000, MSIN H8-64 RicMan1, %VA 99352 Dear Mr. Staudacher. BIOLOGICALREVIEW OF THE NATURALGAS LIKETO THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES PROJECT, 600 Area, 498-600-024a. Project

Description:

     ~    Insta)) a natural gas line along the m]road tracks between'he 300 Area to the proposed WPPSS industrial sites adjacent to%'NP-l and WNP-4.

Survey Objectives: 

     ~   To dcterminc the occuirence in the project area of p]ant and animal species ~otected under thc Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidates for such protection, and species ]isted as threatcncd, cndangercd, candidate, sensitive, or monitor by the state of Washington, and species protcctcd under the Migratoiy Bird Treaty Act, To cva]uatc thc potential impacts of disturbance on priority habitats and protected plant and animal species identified in thc survey.

Survey Methods: 

     ~   Pedestrian and ocular reconnaissance of thc proposed sites werc conducted by C. A, Dubcrstcin, J. M. Bccker, J. L. Downs, and M. R. Sackschcwsky on 19 May 1998. Thc Braun-B)anquet cover-abundance sca]e (Bonham ]989) was used to dcterminc percent cover of dominat]t vegetation, Priority habitats and species of concern are documented as such in thc following:

Washington Department of Fish and iVild]ife(l994, 1996), washington State Department. of Natural Resources (1997), and for migratory birds, U.S. Fish and Vli]d]ifcService (1985). Lists uf animal and p]ant species considered Endangered, Thrcatencd, Proposed, or Candidate by thc USFRS are maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Survey Results: 

    ~    The vegetation between the, 300 Area and approximately 1 mi]c, north of thc intersection of the Rai]road a'nd Route 4 South consists of mature Sagebrush, Bitterbrush, snowy buckwheat, and rabbitbrush with an understory of cheatgrass and Sandberg's b]uegrass,
       ~

with sornc small stands of larger bunchgrasscs. However, much of the vegetation within 50 meters of the rail road is relatively disturbed. 902 Battallc Soul!yard a P.O. Box 999 a Richland, WA 99352 Draft fnvironmental Assessment A-10 August 1998

DOEgEA-12S9 U.S. De artment of Ener y A pendix A Mr, Randa)) Staudacher 93-600-024a Page 2 of 6 

        ~  From approximately I mile north of the railroad intersection with Route 4S to the%PPSS plants thc vegetation is dominated by cheatgrass, dune scvrfpea, Hoary aster, and pale cvcning primrose.
        ~  The access from the main rail line to Industrial Site Option A is highly disturbed, the vegetation is diverse but is primarily sparse cheatgrass. However, 2 Piper s daisies

(%'ashington State Sensitive p)ant species) were observed near the tnmina) end of thc proposed gas line route, one at the western most junction on the north side of WNPA and the other just south of the, air intake structure at the cnd of the proposed gas line route. 

        ~  The access from thc main rail linc to Industria) Site Option B is parually disturbed, but passes through mature sagebrush steppe in the south-east corner of the proposed industrial site. A listing of all of the plant species observed along the proposed gas line routes is auached as Table    )..
        ~  Animal species observed along the proposed natural gas )ine routes arc listed in the attached Table 2. Loggerhead shrikes washington State Candidate, former federal candidate)werc observed between Route 4S and theWPPSS complex, and at thc southeast cerner of B. A long-bi)led curlew was observed between Route 4S and the WPPSS                Site'ption complex.

Considerations and Recommendations: 

       ~  No plant and animal species protected under the ESA, candidates for such protection, or species )istcd by the%'ashington state government as threatened or endangered were observed in the vicinity of the proposed site.
       ~  The gas line should be placed as near as possible to the existing rail lines and fiber optic cables. North of Route,4S there is probably adequate room between the rail line and the existing access rqad for placement of thc gas linc. This wou)d minimize thc amount of higher quality habitat that will bc disturbed. The pipe)inc contractor should be required to minimize, to the extent practicab)e, the width of thc disturbance while insta))ing the gas line.
       ~  The only area along the proposed routes where significant habitat disturbance is likely to occur is near the southeast corner of the proposed Industria) Site, Option'B.
       ~  Thc Piper's daisies that werc obscived near the terminus of the proposed route to Site A occurred in disturbed habitats, and both individuals werc probably outside of the area that would be disturbed by the installation of the gas line, Ifthis linc is constructed, the area should be resurvcycd, and any individuals that may bc disturbed should bc, transp)anted as mitigation.
     ~    The long-bil) cd curlew inhabits grassy areas throughout the, Hanford Site, and thc, Lo gerhcad shrike occurs primarily in association with shrub lands but forage in other habitats ifsuitable perch sites arc available, Construction of the proposed natural gas line near thc existing railroad tracks should not significantly affec thc habitat for these species.

Draft Environmental. Assessment A-11 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix A Mr. Ran'dali Staudacher 98-600424 a Page 3 of 6 

         ~   Ground clearing for the construction of the gas linc should bc scheduled to occur between
       ~

August and carly April to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and to assure compliance with thc migratory bird treaty act. 

         ~ 'No adverse   impacts to species, habitats, or other biological resources are expected to result from thc proposed actions.
        ~    This Ecological Compliance Review is valid until 15 April 1999.

Sincerely, CA randt, Ph.D. Project Manager Ecological Comp]iancc Assessment CAB:mrs REFERENCES Bonham, Charles D. 1989. pp. 127-128. 

                                       ~

e 'e ', e John Wiley 4 Sons, inc. U. S. Fish and WildlifeService. 1985. Revised List of Migratory Birds; Final Rulc. 50 FR 13708 (April 5, 1985). Washington Department of Fish and.Wildlife. 1994. Species of Special Concern in Washington, p. (April 1994). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Priority Habitats and Species Ust. (January 1996). Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Endangered, Threatened Ec Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington (August 1997). Draft Environmental Assessment ~ A-12 August 1998 

       ~       ~

~ 

    ~  ~ I
             ~     ~
                            ~   ~             ~ . e ~
                                                      '         ~
                                                                  ~
                                                        $8RRRiRRSIRR

~ ~ I ~ ~ 

                                     ~  ~
     ~     e     ~   ~ o            ~       ~
                                  ~       ~

J 

  ~   ri
                           ~          ~
                           ~ 'l      ~
  ~ 4 t

4 C 

                                                                     ~ ~ ~

I. li' 

            ~   .                                                                                                          s ~

II 

                                                                                                     'R
    ~
                                                              '                                                ~
                                           ~    ~                                 ~ ~   ~                          ~

HH MRM~~ j i r ~~MkM MRM~~ r r ~ r r r rr ~ 

                                                      ~   I '
                    ~  r    r tr rr 0  ~
                                                                ~   ~   ~
                                                                  ~   0   ~
        ~  rr                           ~ ~
              ~   r     ~

rr ~ I~ ' 

                                                                          ~ ~
                                            ~     ~ ~

o ~ 

                                            ~     \
                                      ~     ~

err r r r I~ . e 

                               ~ ~ ~                                                     ~ ~          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~     ~
                                                                              ~ o ~   ~  ~   ~ ~ s ~

I ~ 

 ~
       ~

~ ~ ~ ~ 

   ~ ~   ~
                                 ~ I ~ ~
                                         ~   ~ ' ~ ~ ~
                                                       ~
                                                         ~
                    ~   ~

RES RRm 

               ~ I         I ~ ~
               ~ ~
           ~ '           I
                 ~    ~
           ~   ~   ~    ~

I0 

                                                           ~ ~

DOE/EA-IZ59 U.S. Department of .Ener y A endix B APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEM Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 . U.S. Department of Energy A endix B Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Opcnlcdby saedtc for Ne u.s. Oep>Anent ol Energy April 27, 1998 hfo Historic Properties Mr. R.J. Staudacher Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. P. O. Box 1000/H8-64 Richland, WA 99352-1 000 Dear Mr. Staudachen SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE WPPSS INDUSTRIALSITES pROJECT. HCRC ¹98-06pp-024. ln response to your request received April 7, 1998, staff of the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory (HCRL) conducted a cultural resources review of the subject project, located in the 600 Area of the Hanford Site. According to the Information that you supplied, tile proposed . project will involve two 150 acre sites that have been zoned for heavy industry.. 

  'I
  • A literature and records review showed that the project area includes undisturbed ground that had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A pedestrian'survey of the project area was conducted between April 21 and 23, 1998, by Laurle L. Hale. No historic properties were recorded during the survey. A survey repo'rt narrative is enclosed.

The HCRL must be notified if any changes to project location or scope are anticipated.. This project Is a Class III case, defined as a project which Involves new construction In a disturbed, 

'ow-sensitivity area and as a Class V case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground. Copies of this fetter will be sent to D. W. Lloyd, DOE, Richland Operations Office, as officialdocumentation. Ifyouhave any questions;please call me at 376-6098. Please use the HCRC¹ above for any future correspondence concerning this project.

Laurie L. Hale Concurrence: Cultural Resources Specialist Darby pp, Projec ager Cultural Resources Project Cultura Resources Project cc: D. W. Lloyd, RL (2) G. D. Cummlns 

       'R. J. Swan File/LS 902 Battelle Boulevard    r P.O. Box 999 r Richland, V/A 99352 Draft *Environmental -Assessment                ..

B-l .--:- ---. . August 1998 A

DOE/EA-)2S9 U.S. Department of Ener y -- Appendix 8 CULTURALRESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE HANFORD CULTURALRESOURCES LABORATORY A. NAME AND FULL DESCRIPTIOH OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING Project Number: SSM00-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites The proposed project area has been zoned for heavy industry in the 600 Area of the Ha'nford Site, Two 150 acres sites compose the project area near WPPSS No. 1 and WPPSS No.4 (Figures 1 and 2). Because portions of the two sites had not previously been disturbed, archaeologicaf survey of the undisturbed areas was necessaly. B. LOCATION AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTALSETTING The Hanford Site is located in South<entral Washinglon State and is managed by the Department of Energy, Richland Operations (Figure 3). The WPPSS industrial Sites project area is located near the Washington Public Power Supply System reactors No. 1 and No.4. The southern part of the surveyed area was named Block 1 and the northern part was named Block 2 because of the order in which they were surveyed. Block 1 contains a large sagebr'ush community in the southern half and a bunchgrass and cheatgrass community in the northern half, This northern half was burned over Ndecade ago and ls now almost devoid of shrubs. The topography is composed of gently undulating stabilized dunes. Block 2 of the project area contains very few large shrubs. It also was burned over a decade ago,. The topography is mostly flat with remnant small-scale vegetation hummocks. Surface sediments in both blocks are Holocene eolian and fiuvial sandy sift. The cfo~st source of permanent water 'is the Columbia River, approximatefy 2.6 km to the east. Elevation in the project area is about 143 m (470 feet). The vegetation in Block 2 and the norlhern half of Block 1 is a recovering steppe. shrub community (Daubenmire 1970) and is dominated by annual and perennial grasses, especially cheatgrass {arm;, 

 ~r~)       and Sandberg's bluegrass '~P                      ~n~rii    . Table 1 summarizes the plant species observed within the project area during the survey. Animals or Iheir sign that were observed within the project area
                 ~nf include coyote
      'dK" 'i>>"

hjg~h), Badger +a~~ 5 

                                 ~,
                         ~fir ~n, Meadowlark (Sturnelfa neglecta), White crowned sparrow g~nQri ~hf I

Curlew (NNm,~i ~gag), Northern pocket gopher {Thang'~ i'able

1. Flora in the WPPSS industrial Sites Project Area.

mmnnm Annual rass Cheat rass Perennial rass Sandber 's blue rass AnnuaVbiennfal forbs Qi+~ @~~rri f Prick lettuce GaLKh Russian thistle hul'ggg~li 

                                                         ~lin  ri                Narrowdeafed hacelia
                                 ~im~ri )m gl~i~im                    m         Tumble mustard Yellow salsi Jag ed chickweed
                                 ~neth             r        ~lli                White-stemmed evenln      rimrose
                                 ~>~inki                  b~~i~                 Tarweed fiddleneck tm               ~~er   rn             Rou h wallflower Draft Environmental          Assessment 8-2                                      August 1998

OOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix B CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites Continued. 

                                   ~

Table 1'. Annuavbiennial forbs (cont.) gla0~t Tidytips Western tansymustard Perennial forbs Carey's balsamroot Qghhllt 't~llt fi~tl Yarrow 

                                   ~Lrrt~l sp.                             Vetch
                                   ~~ni         penh                       Prickly pear cactus Brodiaea Brodiaea Hoary aster Qglghin~i          s p.                 Larkspur
                                   ~hl x ~In i~fli                         Lon leaf hlox
                                   ~rngg~ri           tf,~rtjiinh~in g     Turpentine desertparsley Large-fruited blssuitroot Snow buckwheaf-Shrubs                           ~i~if:t~ri                              Big sage
                                   ~r~hl-t ~ri         n ~t                Bitterbrush v~li~ifi   ~   Green rabbitbrush Aerial photograph(s): EG &G 5675 ff 125, 05-07-87 (Scale 1:19900).

USGS topographic map(s): Wooded Island, Washington 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, 1978 edition. Legal descriptions: T 12 N, R 28E, Section 33 and T 11N, R 28E, Section 4. UTMs: (See Figure 1 .) 

     +~~I                ~n             ~Nothin                  ~rn =~tin A                 11           5149823                   322540 B                 11                                     323536 5149802'149373 323459, D '                            5149332                   323206 11           5149509                   323212 11           5159600                   293900 G                  11           5149400                   323140 H                  11           5149407                   322951 I                 11           5149305                   322953 J                             5149345                    322807 K                              5149754                    322821 L                              5149792                    322541 Dt aft  Environmental Assessment                            B-3
                                                                                             '   -- August-.1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix B CULTURALRESOUFICES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites 5148423 323233 N 11 5148420 323320 0 11 5148666 323340 P 11 5148671 323371 Q 11 5147563 323394 R 11 5147601 323243 C. PRE-FIELD RESEARCH

1. Sources of Information checked: [X] Survey and Site Location Maps [X] Previous Reports pq Aerial Photographs [X] GLO Plats [Xj Other GAB The General Land Office survey for T12N, R 28E and T11N, R 28E was conducted in 1867. Adjacent GLO plats were surveyed between 1863 and 1908. No roads or trails were shown ori the %.0 plat for the survey area.

1 

    '                     i W hin       n       r n I M No trails or roads went through the project area on the 1917 Pasco, Washington Quadrangle.

I Survey and site location maps were examined to determine previous surveys completed and sites and isolates known to be located within 1.0 km of the current project. This database contains the location of all known cultural resource sites recorded since 1947, project areas intensively surveyed since 1987, and sites, and Isolated artifacts located during those surveys. No cultural resources were found to have been recorded in the vicinity of the current project area. D. Rice conducted the only archaeological surveys near the project area in 1973 and 1974. He recorded no archaeological materials within,1 km of the proposed project area. D. EXPECTED HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC LAND USE AND SITE SENSITIVITY

1. Are there known sites in the general arear') Yes [X] No 2.Are sites expected'] Yes . pq No No historic or prehistoric sites or isolated finds have been found near the project area.

E. FIELD METHODS

1. Areas examined and type of coverage:

The survey followed procedures outlined in Chatters, 1989. Transects were spaced 20 m apart. Participants scanned an area 5 m to either side of the transect center line, thus having potential for 100% discovery of concentrations of surface artifacts larger than 10 m fn diameter, as well as most smaller concentrations. The lowest estimated discovery rate, at 50%, was expected for single, isolated artifacts. The surveyor walked 8 transects oriented north/south ln Block 1. The westernmost transect was located 1.64 km east of Geneva Junction on the Hanford Rail System with subsequent transects spaced 20 m apart lo the east. Block 2 was covered in 41 north/south transects with 2 east/west 3 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 

                                                                                                ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Energy Appendix 8 CULTURALRESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98-0600-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites transects along the north block boundary. The westernmost transect in Block 2 was located approximately 20 m east and 400 m south of the northeast corner of the perimeter fence of WPPSS No. 4. Subsequent transects in Section 2 were spaced 20 m apart to the east except for the two transects walked east/west along the northern boundary of Block 2.'Total coverage by the survey for Block 1 was 12.6 ha and for Block 2 was 31.22 ha. A total of 43.82 ha was surveyed.

2. Areas not examined and reasons why: The paved parking area, security training building, and associated physical fitness track were not surveyed because no bare ground surface was visible. All portions of the project area outside of the two surveyed blocks indicated in Figure 1 were highly disturbed and were not surveyed.
3. personnel conducting and assisting in this survey:

Laurie L. Hale, HCRL. 4, Date(s} of sutvey: April 21-23. 1998. 5, Visibilityon surface: -20% Visibilityof subsurface: <5% from animal diggings.

6. Problems encountered: None.

F. RESULTS No'cultural materials were observed during survey of the project area. 4 G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It fs the finding of the HCRL staff that there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the proposed project area. The workers, however, must be directed to watch for cultural materials (e.g., bones, artifacts) during all work activities. If any are encountered, work In the vicinity of the discovery most stop until an HCRL archaeologist has been notTiied, assessed the 

'ignificance of the find, and, if necessary, arranged for mitigation of the impacts to the find.. The HCRL must be notified if any ch'anges to proJect location or scope are anticipated. This is a Class III case, defined as a project which involves new construction in a disturbed, low-sensitivity and a Class V case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground.                    'rea, H.REFERENCES Chatters, J. C. 1989 Hanford Cullurel Resources Management Plan, PNL-6942, Pacific Northwest Richland, Washington.                                                                           'aboratory, Daubenmlre, R. 1970 Steppe vegetation of Washington. Wash. Agric, Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull., 62,                ~

131 pp, Rice, D.G. 1973. Archaeological Investigation at the Washington Public Power Supply System Hanford No.f Nuclear Power Plant Benton County, Washington. H.O. 44724, prepared by University of idaho for U.S. Department of Energy. Draft Environmental Assessment 8-5 .- August 1998

OOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number: 98~00-024 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites 

   'I. ATTACHMENTS
1. Site forms for each site recorded?
2. Isolate forms for each isolate recorded?
3. Overview location map Xj
4. Quad map of surveyed' brea? )g
5. Other attachments?

J. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS 

   .I  certify that I conducted the investigation reported here, that my observations and methods are fully documented, and that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

wl~~les Reporter . Signature Date

c. Sf.~ ~/VI, Reviewer Concu ence (Signature), Date Dt aft Environmental Assessment B-6 August 1998
                                                                                            'OE(EA-1259 U.S. De   artment of Energy                                                               A   endix B CULTURALRESOURCES REPORT NARRATIVE Project Number:        98.0600<24 Project Name:         WPPSS Industrial Sites WOODED ISLAND QUADRANGLE, WASHINGTON- 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 1978 T12N R28E I

lt g3+o oo CO H r~i I I J is i~ Q I ei I statal I t 'p 0 I I M I

3~i.~,.-! .

I 5r +47 

                   't

('000 SCALE 1:24000 

                                 .5              0    KILOMETERS  . 1                      2 0      METERS        1000                    2000 CONTOUR INTERVAL10 FEET Figure 1. Location of area surveyed for the WPPSS Industrial Sites project, HCRC 498%600-024.

---" Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Appendix 8 Cuu'uRAL r P.SOVRCES R PORT I"Rrcrr,'=- project h,'Urnb ~ c: &II-K00-92 

       ~)~r     gama:             9S Iticv~~Q I Si,ec
                                         'PP svrv::-cc br.x I
                         ~.
                                                                                 'twjret Qovnrran
                              ~ J sa nw>'cd A res duster Figure 2. Forb~i cl aeriai phoIoy;opN (CG'6 5vi5 8 $ 25. 05    01 m7, S"oa     ':19900) eho~ring Ihe project tevn4 ~r~ and svr; >i>d a: a cI he V)PF S 8 Ir        Iai Sile" pri e'    ar es I Hr'RC'k96 C600-Qg w).

Dr a ft Environmental Assessment 8-8 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix B CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT NARRATivE Project Number: 98-0600<24 Project Name: WPPSS Industrial Sites 

                                                                                                 ~ Seslllo P                SPoksns Wash ngton Ysncovvet e                                           Potllsne rl Hanford Site Boundary 0

ts tt lesctot H Areas c'00 0 @ca Os%I ~ bull ~ osaI ~ SSOIInIstn r 200 ~r,- Wes t Q>q~( Qxazssi Project Area Fltzner/Eberh rdt Arid Lands wrrss Ecotot;y Reserve ~ 00 Ate ~ 

                                             ///

1M )00 Ates rsfr n N Richland West Richland Benton Ct ty Paleo 10 20 Kilometers vZQM r 0 10 Mtes Kennewlck Figure 3. Overview map showing location of area surveyed for the WPPSS industrial Sites project, HCRC 096.0600-024. Draft Environmental Assessment B-9 August .1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A pendix 8 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Ore:e'.ee."y '.e"... e for tne V.S. Oe.eoment ot Enemy May 18, 1998 No Known Historic Propert/es Mr. R. J. Stavdacher Fluor Daniel Hanford, inc. P. O. Box 1000/HB-64 Richland, WA 99352 Dear Mr. Staudacher. CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW OF THE WPPSS INDUSTRIAL SITES AND PROPOSED GAS LINE. HCRC 098-600-024A. ln response to your request received May 8, 1998, slaff ot the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory (HCRL) conducled a cultural resources review ot the subject proJect in the 600 Area of the Hanford Site. According to the information that you supplied, the project will involve the installation of a natural gas pipeline parallel to the existing DOE-owned railroad from a point opposite Cypress Street in the 300 Area to the proposed WPPSS industrial sites, a distance of approximately 10 miles. The pipeline would be installed within the railroad easerreent, within 25 

                              ~

feet from the track centerline. Construction of the pipeline would involve excavation of a trench approximately 5 feet deep. Spoils wovld be stockpiled adjacent to the trench and then backfilled once the pipe had been Installed. A review of our files showed that an archaeological survey was conducted prior to the installation of a fiber optic line (HCRCO 90-600-012) within the project area. The survey covered 30 m from the track centerline along one side of the tracks, on the west side ot the tracks from between the 300 Area and the intersection of Stevens Drive and the railroad and on the east side of the tracks from 1he intersection north to WPPSS. One isolated artifact, a 1924 Oregon license plate, was recorded and collected from the project area. No sites were identified during the survey, Within the WPPSS site, the pipeline would be installed within ground that has been previously, disturbed by the construction of the WppSS facilities and/or within ground surveyed for this project (HCRC tt98-600-024). No archaeological materials were identified during that svrvey within the project area. Therefore, if the pjpeline is installed on the same side ot the 1racks as the fiber optic line and within 30 m ot the. tracks, it is unlikely 1hat any archaeological materials will be affected. ~ Additional survey of the project area and monitoring of the excava1ions by an archaeologist are not necessary: However, if construction activities, including vehicle access and spoil stockpiling., occurs outside the area reviewed (e,g., on the opposite side of the tracks or greater than 30 m ' trom the tracks) additional review will be required. lt is the tinding of the HCRL staff that there are no known historic properties within the proposed proJect area. The workers, however, should be directed to watch for cultural materials (e.g., bones, artifacts) dvring all work activities. If any are encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery must stop until an HCRL archaeologist has been notified, assessed the slgniticance of the find, and, if necessary, arranged for mitigation of the impacts to the find. The HCRL mvst be notified if any changes to project location or scope are anticipa1ed. This is a Class V and III case, defined as a project which involves undisturbed ground, and new construction in a disturbed, low-sensitivity 'area. 902 Batlelle Boulevard a P.O. Box 999 a Richland, WA 99352 Draft Environmental Assessment 8-10 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A endix C 

                                                                  ~       STATt OI'I'ASICIICTQH QEPAIIThIFAT Of SCQIAOCY CERTEP1ChTE OP W'A~EP                                      Rl GH~

Qv sIIffact W>fnr INIvvetII evN ~I ~, ~ rIC~ <<II I A'aCvIVVNI~ I CTIIaur Ily, tevrr ef IreI cCrn fO TDT7, CNC uvt D rrrtrr NIa reOIININIIat TIN OIairrvNN eI CCTIarr I groctncf WeIcr a NNVNr a IN~. ~ ~nC eaIOaITv OArc r~ II7 I 'I 

                                                                 ~

AAvl Ica IION IIvrrace 

                                                                  'II T<c e'rrtTVICatt rvIIemr ITTNIercra rt oe etaAIIr Nuu Tta I ~ I frecetra NI  Natn OAIc
 ~v'~l:4,QJ rsc III.c..err, v            ~v!c
                                        ~

Aooacsa Isr ICI TT I ISTATII ITI< Caoat T I yhit Is to eartdy that the nemMapnl ct <<I her mere INoor re the set afaet on OI Ihe oep'frnrntof gcornoyof a rrshl to tlta Irae 0 I&POOIIC Tratara Ol It e SI ~ tr Ol WtahlngtCn el hers Ih dettned snrI under en'fSPWIICrtty fuhfrC(to the PrOTISIOrIr earttalnedrrr Vreprrtrvflsruedbyrhr LtePatlment OIECOIDTIy. endthtt Toldrl9ht IO lee rAS ~ OfSaldeet<IDII, trIdts hereoy conIIrrrref oy ITIa DeoertmIITTI of fcotogy a .dentorrd of sreonf ae ah~. Out Is IIrtrrted to on aITIoml ectuauy oenrlfefatty u5rd. rIfftICItasot SD ar 4Fr asm SDuacl o TahtufAar Or III )uaIA CC NA ICvTI IvatlvuN Corn' ~ ~T rta STCONO 44LNIvg I Au,oal vs'NDIr uAIINVtrAeat CT[t rag TCAV 41 200 CDANTIttr Trrt Or Irrt rCIIDO Or Irtt 

            ~P      4                     a       ta C rr Ir&~

r 2 0 cfo 200 aer Eeet ocr w'ar fot co o t dmotia oo tod beat1tification LGCATl 3tf OE OIVKIISIOII/WIOIOL'IIT AI. rrrvaoaINAT( I,ocATIDN or olvcasIDN; ITNDIIrIor~I Z 'I t 0 foot aaa O.., ITa eerTt on IOCAfCo vITN III 'ISVAL15ST \lcAC, 5IIC OIVITIDIII Cavc~nt toto Lot l nod 

                                          ~

4 Ocv 

                                                                      ~ tcTICK 2

ILECCITOED lA '0 ItivnrrNP N rA~rtt, I[, OC <<,I NP, ICP.I> PLArff0 . IIi~RTT Orr ICIVe Nar O DI KAtoa rIOOIt(ONI 40 COVIITV bcn oa LEQAI- ftfXCRIFTIOM OF EIIOheIITY ON WHICH 'KaTbo IS TO IIE- IISED lc5iTCOLTr at the SM -.Orner Of SCCCiaa 11, y. 11 If. r "~ 25 K.If.'Y. Said COrTVT haVf ng ~ Ifasbinctoa Sta .c coordinated, $ oocc, of .I 408I33$ 30 anti E 2,301T 653, r0 tITcoec e 0 41 05'I 

                                                                                              ~

2 5T 055 ~ 25 (ac t to the rua Saint of be5$ ntCOS, thence It 11 INr,55 ~ Sy feet ~ 'ITencc S 01 rll 23N E, 3000.45 fact, tbcnc S 'I5 53'54" II 5,2QIT <<6 feet; chrtcce 0 31I41" M 3690.)$ fcctg thence E 1 ~ fI30,00 feet, ttcnce !I L,SII5..9 fret; thcITcr If 5i 46 05c E 5 703 53 fart, therlcc S 01. 01'23" E 1,6QQI25 fret; tharICa N. 11,159-29 frat; tbeTTCa If Ol 01'23VI E 1,500.29 perte j thaocc f 5 Qy'sS" E 3,300 35 faac tu the liste af ITavisatioTI rrf tbt If bank of thrT conc hie 5eyar, thet5Ca aOTItITerly along raAC ltea Of eaViftatiOn tO a IICIittt that brara ff 89 15'21.N E fera tfua c~ pc iot Df brgitcTLf5551 thaaca S 59'15I21" M 3+550 52 foot oara or 1cea, tct tha tXT54 faaiTLt Of ba5iOSTinre Percher BegitOTLqC at tha SM eOrtu.r Tsf SCCtiOn 11 ~ T if lf 

   )tr '25 E.Inter caid orttorr ItavinS Maahi515ton State coor<oatcar 15'21"
                                                                                                   =             S ao . r oc        I 405r335~30 cod y 2 30J,653 SQ) thence If 0 41'05 5 5,065 u~ 25 feat; c".
g. poit5c O55 cb>> lisltc af oavirattot5 of the baying~
                                                                                  ~                       rt 59               E 3,550 ~ 32 feat to of the colTTTabia L1Ttar rod the ttue po555t of of the daaar<Nc'o 1 thence ccmtieI5ic0 II 59 1$ '21 y 600.00 feat; thence It 10 0>I14N II Zsf 5 56 face thence 5 59 07 55 V. 600i00 fcr't. to a point oct raid lice of Ttgvt southerly nlon5 nard liaa of oavitatiotl So tII~ tree IID~rt of bcgiTTOln0 niI chio dcocription-Draft Environmental Assessment                                                                                                             August= 1998 C-1

  '.S.         De    artment of Ener y DOE/EA-1259 Ap    endix C Zt   tc 51 iota C thettht                    e   tttt et      2     e   late oI te 1':: t>> Zthh~h                                    tahltt I~Z' tt25tatie 5 cr .a- h                                    tttell Cc 1   5      t       tct teed *d 1   e 5 . 2 I~ .

I el 5 tlc tt't 5 e

  • 5th ~Tctdit 5 tca ao>>e25 5

5th chat v ia this c>>ttfi 

                    ~Ifckhli I            d tal 5       hall 5 tc, 1

5 2% 1 taa' tt 

                                                                                      ~

5 

                                                                                         . ta2
                                                                                         ~,  oTdta>>c tl   pceitt>>
                                                                                                                       ~ltt  T>>22ic>>               ~

e I I 

                    'rj2a rlghf to Ihc usa  of   tstf ~asar afartAa2d haral2y confirmed tt rc ytrfatcd ttt tha ldulatt or p(sac            ufhara!carat tltsf>55Af, Czct'Pf tts PM>Idcd Itt RC4'0.03,380. 90.03.390, and 90.<<.020.

cectttscate of water ttt52t e 4 ~jtlcslly atebfcat Lo tvttc25tttt~L ftif 'ybtn w~ dlf wwMr>> 52tavlded In Jtctr CIa att under tny hand ancf the saa(of thts ofjdra at Takf.aah 54'cshtctglod2, thl-.>>...f M... ~U oj ...,...,....,gab~.,...,........., !9...,AX.... 

                                                                        ,   Dapartmenc    of EcoIoa'C 252IJCCXneC2  22'A okda                                                                      RAJSTEZL Ka            TAXIA      ~ORBAL SUtACZR lU/ 0051NTY CISE OHCY Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

5, Ia eatryLng out tha Sonltsrlnt Proltas<<s de<<crib<<d in 

                                                                                +II',Q~$ ocfkn 1.

Q~ Ihs Supply Syst<<n ehreaa to provide tsplaesnant of CA-Attacbs<<snt I, ths Supply Systsn vill establish ss<<5tllnt Locations r<<crsatiob<<L opportunltiss vblrh are shsvn to be adversely aff<<ctsd oa tba pro]<<ct sit<<aud vlthln prssint or future rations of bith as a direct con<<<<spence of pro]sct activity vh<<n such adrersa population density located vlthla ~ tsn-eLLla radius of th<<pro]sct's ~ lf<<cte are substantial<<d by ths Council.

reactor bulldlut so as to pzovHa a tsprss<<ntative sanpllng of L ltl s~ s of Coo sot V<<tsr O anvlxomrantaL <<ffsrts ln tb<<surrounding area. l. In tb<<avant that a state sS<<ncy of tbs State of Sd Should any sls>>sat sf tha Supply Systin's tkeitotfnS Vsshlntton develops< ~L<<ainte or sponsors plane Eor the mLtL yroStst<<vbich ls b<<fag P rfomsd by, or ln con]unction vlths any us<<of ths coolant vat<<r fran tK<< Pro]act, tba Supply System Ced<<ral, stats or locaL zev<>sntaL body ot auy other'uclear air<<ss to supply at no coat to tha State vena vatsr to tha op<<rstot La tb<<X<<nfotd Cp<<rations hrsa b<< tsrnlnat<<d, ths apply >>aalsavs practical extent, but not l<<ss than 4,000 Sellout per Systsa aSrs<<s to ra-activate so each of stay such proSrssa ss is <<LLnut<<a't its source of diversion at an aSrssd-upon saute<<5,pro-appropriate and n<<c<<ssary vld<<d, that lt ls and<<rstood th<<t at tie<<s plant op<<ration say

7. Xhs Supply Systsu stress to sub<<lt te tha Council a prsclud<<delivery sf such offlu<<nt vst<<t altbet ln a versed e'tata

~y or copL<<s of reports and data frou ths Invitees<<sntal Hooltsr- or Ln ths quantity>><<ntlon<<d above. In ths sv<<nt of that cltcun-bg lrogrsaa ttqultsd to ba fL)sd by tha Atonic En<<rSy Coss<<L<<sion'e ataoee and to snsbla tha early eomcnesnent or continuance of ths construction p<<z>>Lt, op<<rstlnS license ot oth<<t rstulatlons ta tb<< >>ulti~s pro]<<et vlth ~r>>sd vatsr, ths Supply Syst<<n atra<<a to Council at th<<ss>>a tin<<as vb<<n subaittsd t<< tb<<Atoalr. Instgy provide a valved outlet on the cooilnS>>at<<r supply systan capable Coo<<<<lesion. af d<<LLvetylnS such vst<<t at n ra'te af at least 4,000 gallons psr >>Lmta. Yid LITMUS VNHISIOHS C, lfleatlon of rseecnt A. ro ect Visitation and %<<ct<<stion I, 'Ibis C<<ttlfication Atra<<>><<nt nsy be anendod by 'lhs Supply Sysksn sSrese to prorlde visitor Infotvn-initiation of clthsr ths Comall or the applicant. Such>>send-tlon facilities at th<<pro]ect sita sub]sct to s<<cutlty r<<gdlations, atory actlvfty <<ball b<<aecoaplLshsd pursuant to CouncLl rules snd rueh llnitatians as tha Supply Systsn dares reasonably necessary and ptoe<<dates tb<<n Ln effect Ln a Ilk<<waest upon forual C~>>c55 for the health, ssf<<ty snd v<<If<<ra of the pubLLc snd fot ptotectlon d of ths facLLLty. Cl >O m 12 23. e m O sc Fo CJl A% DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Energy A endix C IL ENERGY FAClLlTY SITE EVALUATlON COUN,'. 820 ~RITH AVEIIIJKOt OPIA, WASHINGTON Qq$ pC PHOIIE: 752 PJ'S ~ '~X Governor Qixy Lea Ray June 28, 1977 Ee.,R. K. Voodrufz Senior-Environmental Engineer-State T.iaison Vashington Public. Power Supply System P, 0. Box 968 Mchland, VA 993S2 Subject". MPPSS Puclear proj ect Ho. 2 Hultf.purpose Use of Coolant Vater

Dear Hr. woodruff:

Please refer to your letter of May 18, l977, subject as above, 4xich requested renew and concurrence oZ a proposed agreement concerning the multipurpose use of the coolant water for a state spo'nsored project. Be advised that the Vashington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.1 at its regular meeting of June 27, 1977 did. adopt by Resolution No. -1.22, copy enclosed, a. five poMt stat,e-;, . eent regarding this matter. Sincerely, gQc~ Roger Alzin Executive Secretary RP:els Enclosure t,'l) Resolution Mo. 1.22 Dr aft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Appendix C Resolution No. 122 WHEREAS, Section VX.B. 'of the, Si te Certification Agree-ment for the 2Washington thatPublic Power Supply System's Nuclear the certificate holder condition-proj ect No. to prove.des ally agrees supply 4000 gallons per minute of warm water forl a state sponsored project; and WHEREAS, the certificate hol.der and the state recognise ehe desixeability of formulating further definition of this agreement; and WHEREAS, the certificate holder by its letter of WPPSS Nu'cleax Pxo ject No. 2 Multi-ofay lS, L977 subject: puxposa, Use of Coolant Mater did request the Council to agree upon a statement of the certificate holder's commit-- mont; and WHEREAS, a Technical Committee vas appointed with repre-senLatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Ecology, and Social and. Health Services; and the. State Energy Office', and Office of Program Planning md Fiscal Management +o met with xepxesentatives of the ce tificate hoLder and who did provide recommendations to the Council; tg NOM, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED that the Enexgy Fa~lity Site Evaluation Council agzees that,. The agreed upon source of diversion of heated water is a flange on the circulating water (CW) system between the condenser and the cooling towers as shown on Attachment l. The speci.fic source point is the flange located iuxaediatoly downstream from the divexsion tee.

2. The agreed upon source for unwarmed water is the tower makeup (TMtJ) water line east of the spray ponds,.also .

shown on Attachment L. The Supply System will supply and install'he diversion tee and a. valve for this part of the sys tem. The specific source 'poine. for this water is imme-diately downst earn Crom the valve. 1

3. The Supply System .will design, construct, and finance these tie>>in~ s but will not be required. to construct these itemsi',.
     'ntil     such time as an appropriate state agency.is ready piping for use of the cold and/or hot water.             to'onstruct When a pxogram is developed 'and assured,         the Couzicil will pxovide wxx,tten notice to pzoceed The Supply System wi1L design and construct upon receipt of this written notice, t.he length of pipe. I.'hat runs from the waxy water source point to just outsx.da'he WppSS security fence, however, the state agency          utilizing 'the water will be .esponsible financially fox'oth. design and cons truction cos ts.

5, >E the cons true cion of the diversions for the Warm Water Uti.lization Program is desired during constxuctS.on of MNP-2 itj will be scheduled so thxt the pxo ect s taxtup date. lf it does not impact . the construction o 6 the Draft Environmenta1 Assessment C-5 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Energy A pendix C diversions is desired after startup it wil1 be scheduled the first possible outage so that plant operation 'or 

         >gill not be -impacted..The Council. will supply informa-tion on desired Sastal3.ation       schedules as far in advance as possible'in order     to" assist in minimizing impact upon construction/operation      schedu1es   oE WNP-2 as weLl as the warm  water  utilization   pro)act.

Dated this 27th day oE June 1977. 

                                       - WASHlNGTON*STATE ENERGY FACKLXTY SXTE'VALUAT10H COUNCXL Lawrence .B. Bradley 4.x Chairman ATTEST:

Roger Phlzin Executicre Secretary APPRO D AS TO FORM: ( II: T'omas 'E. Carr Assistant Attorney General Draft Environmental Assessment C-6 August 1998 

                                                     'I IV(   lite V CONSTR. 8         d.

3TAT10N NPPSS, Cp& WAREHOUSES 

                                  'Ce4gHL' IIC DI Db yPp                                                                    O II I5 KY SHIELDED t                                                  BrG, '~2 eVa                         M<KL UP P/I W<)I/b                                                            OIREGT Ouf)IEO                     . 8ATEI<

(FUTURE ) LINF ran I pDI rI CT OT fOrlCI cT. & -III.IccIIIIIAI I 36 TMU 

                                                                                              ~----K~M                EXISl ING cT'.

T bI/r:< t 

                        )

GT fGT ~ 

                                                                                                                'TEEL          PIPE
)"a CN
ISTING STEEL l C ~

PE IB, AYELDOLET l ', 5'Dlh, I"If'E BUTTERFD I I 8" GS (2)- I  : VALVE I maOM ePTEI> (FUTUI'E) I 

                                                                                              .;,      . (PI~0POSED)

I" NFLDCL.I=T Nf IGO ~" Xi%~'~ ~= (1LTI..D B,F. I Tc',

f'BOfIOSI'f))

ivntw ivntF t I FRo',iFcr nTTActmmr > C) Wo 

                                                                                             /                                          cD  m
                                                                                           /F                                           CL I

                                                                                                    <<r. Angola otxnuvsxo Pago 2     ct  i Rgb Janus'a.                                                                     COL-1 S-R Washlnplon Public Pawnr Supply Syslom A JcNNI orseABN4 xal<<cv                                      The    veils are located botvssn thc plants, appruxloLstely 900 feeL north of NP-I reactor en4 12,DOO fcct frcn tha Coluohla River. Iha conc of ground

(' <<ster influence ls expected to Lava sn approxlnsta re4lus of I.ROO - 2,000 Ae feet, The exact extent <<ll'I ba ~ stsbllshe4 by actual drs<<-dove test. 0 .t. ~ . coo ~ so oooo wo neo nnwo vw anwno. <<Iwwono wns rww no ~ S ~e~ ~ 1hls drxu <<ill not affect Iha prevailing ground <<ster con4ltlons. Cunstaa't usage of the <<elle <<ill not ba requlrc4 during construction, but vill pro-Docl ~ t lb. 60-4CO January 20 ~ 1976 vide Lhe necessary vster through a storage tank to the Retch Plant. Cire ro 10-113 COI-15-( Loop (IDIP-I/O). etc. After construction, the <<ella <<ill ba cxppc4 and noL used (or penesnont facilities. QEQor~C t (Saa DES SecLion S.l) A visitor and InforxLst ton cenler ls planned for IRIP-2 and vill also serve Hr. Angelo Clvsbusso HHP-I and IRIP-q. At this tine (January 1915), tha site o( the ccnlcr Is Deputy Director for Reactor tro]acts .expected to ba ln tha City of Richland and noL on thc Hsnford Reservation. Directorate o( Llccns lag V. $ . Huclesr Regulatory Conotssion ~tate~De g (Sea DES Scctlon 3.4.3) Hsshlngton, D.C. 20$ $ $ The DES Indicates that the 3/0 Inch dlsneter boles of tba outer sleeve ul v cover one third of tbe sur(sca ares. The present 4cslgn shout Lhst these Sub]SCLS MPPSS HUE)EAR PRM(CTS IRIS. I AKD 4 s perforations cover (0 percent o( tha outer slcevc. COIgi(HTS OH THE 'ORAf 1 THY IROHHEHTAL STAT(K(K( RT THE DIRECIORAIE Of Seed n of ed A eas (Sca DES Sections 4.4.1 and 4.5.2) LICIKSINC AitsIIC 1 RERGI MgtISS IOH RLLAT(O TO IHE PROPOS(D VASHIXCIOH Study of tha alta ares over the psst year as wall as experience <<lth the tul)lc rou(R Sutptz slslEH Huctfhh lair-2 construction arcs shove that rcsecdlng disturbed areas <<lth any ee!LIICIS Ntt. I AN) Ai row~rclxIIy avxttxhle seed ls hnth unnecessary snd vnild prove sn ha fuL lie. Disturbed areas sra qulc')'ly rcvegetate4 naturally vith tunbtc nI

Dear Hr. Gisxbussos custard,

Russian thistles, snl cheat grass. Cheat grass quickly becoecs the doninsnt speci ~ s sn4 serves sha purpose of soll stsblilsstlon very Co Me have received a.copy of tha above subiect docunont sod are sending to vali. 1Le cileeta at this site ls too 4ry and tha soll too sandy for your office tha (olla<<log c~nts on tha Draft Envtro~xtsl Ststanent. conoerclal ly ave liable sccds Lo thrive. C sn~ (Sse DES $ ecllons 3.1 sn$ 1.2,3.2 and figure 3.1) IL ls the IntenL of the Supply Systen to restore all disturbed cress, ss near'ly as possible to thc regional topography snd top soll con4ILlons It <<ss deternlned earlier that Lbe inta)a sn4 out(all structures (or QIP-I 'In or4er to pronate lbe revegetation o( natural spcclcs ss quickly as California snd Htit I vouid be of tha seas design ss that (or IRIP-2. The HHP-2 dis- pose Ibl ~ . charge vss recently changed Lo ref lac'I Ihs ceo+cuts af'federal sn4 State agencies. Ihlt ne<<jet dlffuscr design hst no<<been accepted for Ieit-2. Soc oeconoa r. I sct of Construe snd ierat o (Sec OES Section 4.6.1) h dlsgra ~ o( that syt ten ls Included. The Nt-I and IIIP-{ discharge Iysten <<ill ne<<ba radas(gne4 accordingly. The Supply Systen bss contre<<tcd Hoodvsrd-Clyde Consultants of San francisco, 

                                                                                                                      , Lo do an In-depth study en4 cvalustlon of Ihe probabl ~ soclo-econonic effects o( the proicct. Iha reporL. <<Lich ls to be cooplctcd 'In hprll 1515,     <<ill  assess pro)cct Ispsct on housing schools      lfe((lc, transportation, snd conanlty health sn4 social services. Ihe study Mhi)a 'Ihe Env(rorwenta) Report discusse4 tha peed (ol'ster during con-                             ~ res'ill     include the lrl-CILy arcs an4 other coeounltles <<lthin cou-struction. (I did not ttsta vhst the source of that vstsr vouid ba. At                             xuLlng proxlnlty to thc pro)ect. 1he final rcport         <<ill  ba svsllsbla the present tine HPPSS           lt planning to use tvo veils for lts constructloq                  to cooMuni ay(planners snd govsrrxocntal agencies.
     <<ster. 1hsss <<elle are expected Io ba spproxlnstely 350 (aet deep and yoduce e nlnlcuo of 250 gpx asch. 1he vatsr fran )Lese <<elle                vill ba aste4 for nlnsrsi. chaaicsl, bsclsrlologlcs), snd hydrogen sulphida content. 1hs quality shall ba ln accordance <<1th V. S. tub) lc Iles) Ih
    'nf    Welfare Service 5tsndsr4t for drln)ing <<ster.                                                                                                                                      C7 PO CI 731                                                                                                ea Cl  I Wo W X cfl A-5                                                                                        A pcs

tlat Hr. hntele Cfsohosso Pays 3 of dsnssry 30, 3 19FS 001-1 4-8 --lP ~~ores t~hsn as (Sce DES Pate I snd Sections 4.lv 10.1.1.4 and 10.4.1.IF) 5laca tha Envtronecntsl Rcport ass Issued, a ncv ronpooar forecast for DRP I snd Iafp-4 hss bean nada, lha chants In the oatnltude of nanh~s forecast In the Envtrosnsntst Report and this recant forecast reflects net constroctton 

~ sttrwtcs. this forecast Indicated that constroctlon of WP-I ntlt bc5ln In hprll 19I5 snd wflt ba cceqIctcd In coty f580 htth a pash force of 1500 pgss
                                                                                                                                                             $ ,icosa'- p vorlars In ~ arly ltlt>> Constroctton of IDIP-4 snnsld baoln In Aotost 19FS                                                                                                   O snd he c6vofattd ln dancery Itst wtth ~ pca'L force of ls00 norkcrs In 1919.                             rrnnK AorrVS>>r lha coobtnsd past constroctlon force of both plants Is expected to le epprox-laotaly 3300 nor'ters snd      ~td    secor In 19)8 tor a parted af several months.,
                                                                                                           ~>> 236     0 aha coobtnad sort force noold nosher sore than 2000 ~tars for a pcrtod of ra than  30   rnnlhs   fran Itarch 19ff to Daccnbcr 1979.                                     I n.zi s-o fh~vlroAI             I ter              (Scc  DES  Sections 4.1  5 I~  4 I 5  fg Esststons have barn asde by lhe sppllcsnl In the arast af anvlrorsaantat                                                 DEThIL nonttorlnf.      1he chsnfes Rich ne Intend to Inctode tn the Envtr~ntst i.l.l.t, Report srs Included herein ~ s 5cctlons >> ~ ~ ~ 4.1.4.3     ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,3
                                                                      ~ ~ snd Falls   S,E>>I.

Vary trnly years, 

                                              )>> ~   ~ <JL n.>>                                                           RIPER FLOII       .

0 J. elf IK R x 37. hECFhht ncn>>( Itans5 nl Director >>IEI OII RIYER 00f IOII 435iSLEsvln >> ~4 Enclosvras W>>O 

                                                                                          .. ~ .~ >>c-cq
                                                                                                     \ )

c j;~ SCIII3ttfIC FDR 

                                                                                                                   'PPSS   IIOCLENI PlDJECT   II0. 3 (Dfnanslors  nlll he   sdJostcd   tor                       POC3 Np-I   snd Op-4 dlschsrtc.)                                  m rn m CL I
                                                                                                                                                                               >C O  lO 0

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Energy A pendix C INDUSTRIhLLY-POLLUTED SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUM Ih ~ER NEhR VENATCRKE~ WASHINGTON FlLE copY AfR 'C3 WATER/SOL(D c ~M h.QZ. WASTE I-i ~VCU by David M. Damkaer 24 1990 and JUL Douglas 8 ~ Dcy Preliminary Report to Environmental protection Agency ( Interagency Agreement DM13931749-01-0) 

         ~

Coastal Zone aud Estuarine Studies Dfvis fon Northwest and Alaska Pfshcrfcs Center National Marine pf she,ries Scrv ce National Oceanic and htmospherfc Administration 2725 Montla'ke Boulevard East Seattle, washington 98112 

                                                \

October 1986 Draft Environmental Assessment C-10 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C CONTEhTS 0 Page pggROUND ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

                                                                                                                   ~ ~ ~  \~~~~      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l6THODS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 8 RESULTS A}lD CONCLUSIONS ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ll Ph)l'gical Chaz'actcristics ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ll Pluoridc'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a l1 Organic Pollutants.... ~ ......,..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 LXTERhTURE CITEDaa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 23 ggg00883 Dr aft. Environmental. l Assessment C-'11 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix C BACKGROUND Bamifications of this investigation impact three regional fisheries and habitat priority issucss (1) dans aad hydroelectric pover generation; (2) point and non-point source. industrial vesta discharge; and (3) vacervay development (including dredging, filling, and dredge disposal) . Thc National Marine Pishcricc Service (NHPS)'as long'oca involved ia research on these particular issu~s ~ In the Columbia River Basin, information ie needed on industrially-discharged materials, particularly organic con pounds, heavy metals, fluoride, and cyanide. This information vill contribute directly tovsrd improved ealmonid and habitat management in tha Basin by NMPS, Environmental protection Agency, U.S. hrny Corps of Engineers (COB), 

 "Dcparcmcat of Interior, Bonneville Povsr hdminis t ration, Nor Chvcst Povcr P

I Planning Council, state fishery agencies ~ sad interagency groups such as the h Columbia River Inter-tribal. Pish Commission. In c fish-passagc-delay study funded by the COE; recent observations by NHFS related thc fluctuations in fluoride concentrations ct John Day Dms (Columbia River M.le 216) to fluoride dischargee from a primary aluminum-production plant (Fig, 1) (Damkacr 1983; Daakacr and Dcy 1984, 1985, 1986) Purchcr dbservationc, including bioaasay experiments on adult salmon behavior, 6 attributed significant increased passage times cnd. deer'cased survival of salmon co these fluoride concentrations Fluoride seems co have a cricical role during the migration of adult aalmonidr, es pccially in their Wllingness co negotiate fishvayn~dame In addition, chc rce carchcr e determined the concentrations of a large number of inorganic and organic compounds in Chc vatc'r and sediments of the John Day Dam rcgioni Draft Environmental Assessment C-12 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C O1 

       , Waihbgton                                                      02 Qs          4 Kp,tKIKOTOK              01D s

Qn ~NOgyhlyCP ohEOON mo o Figure 1.Study area for adult salnonid passage-delay program, John Day Dam region, Columbia River. Circled numbers indicate sampling sites (sampling sites on downstream side of The Dallcs and Bonneville. Dams not shown) ~ Draft Enviro'nmental Assessment August 1998 C-13

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap 'endix C awhile the fish-passage-delays appeared to have a lax'ge and critical it 4 component related to fluoride concentrations upstream from the dam, is possible chat lesser effects vere due to some .heavy metals (cadmium, copperf ~ lead, and zinc) and some aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons The concentrations of aromatic hydxocarbons vere much higher in the river "sedinent collected near the aluminum plant outfall and in the nearby lagoon (Stations and L2) than from upriver stations, thereby implicating the aluminum plant as a source of aromatic hydrocarbons (Table 1)o Xt is intexes ting to coszparn the concentrations of'he arocatic hydrocarbons in sediment sanplcs from the John Day Dam region~th those <rom other Pacific Northwest sites The average and the range of concentxation are comparable to concentx'ations in ~haeeRs frasa the Duvami+ Vatcrvay (Seattle), and they approach the concent'xations found in Hylebos Vatcrvay (Tacoma) (Table 2). These latter sites arc deemed .among thc most-polluted aquatic areas in the V S~ It is apparent that a number of toxic compounds related to an aluminum-production plant are accumulating in the sediments in the forebay and associated areas of John Day Dam. Even though the 'at.umfnum plant generally meets the Vash1.ng ton State Depaz tment of Ecology (DOE) a tandards for specific discharges ~ the presence of pollutants in the nearby rivex.'ediments's undoubtedly due to the rapid adsorption of pollutants onto sue pend. particulates and the high rate of sedimentation in the reservoir of the dam. There are seven primary aluminum-production plants on or near the main Colunbia River {Fig 2) - Souo of these like the complex xccently studied at 

                                                    ~

John Day Dam, arc associated with hydroelectric dams ~ The plant at John Day Dam is )ust upstream from the dam The aluminum plant at Vcnatchce, Draft Environmental .Assessment C-14 August 1998' 

  , lD                                                                                             in       Qediment and       eater collected Pv Table  l.~oncentrations of aromatic            compounda
 '1                                          froa the John 1)ny 7)am    re)lion, Columbia River.

m 

     ~e O

fn Std)sent n nr vt1 ht Iattllat pool 1%ter Stat)on Z " Stctfan Stat)on Slat)on 10 SLIL)an )Op Stat)on ).2 (ogle)) 4 10 10 a L.L Coepooa4 II))II1 4 Zi b2 4 Zi 82 4 24 82-1 4 24 82 Z 6 Ll 82 6 ll 82 6 1) 82 6 1) 52 Lcaptepzllcncena <+OI <.83 <.63 (.83 <.53 (.5 3.Q 13 <1.0 n-prapyllaataae <.09 (-92 (.92 <.92 <.92 C.S 1.S () 1'.1 Cl.o In(an <.0 I (.57 * (,87 Y. (.87 < bl (.5 '1.2 tctraacthylbcncana C.O I <.83 C,53 <.83 Cubi . <.5 <.5 (Leo Cl.o naphthalene <.nz . <.76 C.76 . 13 12 (.5 C.S 42 29 baatachcephaea C.ln (Lol <1.1 (lal (),1 4.0 lu 3.4 4.7 1 eath'zlnaphthalene <eni <.55 <,85~~ S.l 6.1 18 13 20 9 l l~atbz)naphtha)coo <.ny <,40 <.70:<'.50 

                                                                                                        ~

Ziy. 3.2 6.6 11 LY 33 llpheayl Caoi <obo  !; <abo C,eo <,5 ,8 6.3 1,6<leachy)naphthalene . Con I (.82 <.5Z i <.5Z (ebZ <.5 0.8 Ze9 C,l aceaaphthaae Cony C.13 (.13 .. 16 ')3 840 5,6 110 55 trlecthylaapbthalcaa <<onb <.12 3.4 <172 (.72 C,S 4a4 (.7 C.l Ileorane <.nz (.52 c,eZ Z3 20 13 8.2 78 44 tllcaaathtephana C eOI (ISO <.60'4 10 10 )al <.S 39 phaaaatbreae <t1 16 250 230 100 66 830 460 

                                                                                                                                                                              ~
            . aathraccna                     C,01                      <.85            C.55      ~      1 40           140             37              16           200            85 l~thzlphananthranc            0,64                      <.5             <abi                30            30            27              22             59           43 3,6&)acthy)phcoanthraae llearaathcna 0,15 Ooi9 CZ.3          (2.3                    Z5            25            ll            '1'L             53           26
                                         ~

49 13 1)OD 1200 340 lio 2000 1401 pyfaac baattalanthrataoe 0.51 0.51 49 li 1100 )ZDO 360 150 Zluo 1500 20 150o 2000 Zbo 100 1200 l20 chrylcaa )o5 39 12 4000 Seoo leo 310 Zluo 15vo banco/a)padrone 0+93 6.9-". 7.3 1800 2400 330 180 1300 770c banco[a)pytcna 0.37 'l9 pcrylcae <0,07 4.l lluo 2100 'lo 150 lzou 720 4)bcnccathriccac 28 13 400 460 "83 78 . 320 lbo 0.10 7.4 ~ <1.9-- 630 700 140 94 ~ 430 25Q 

                                                                                                    ~

I a ggPQ083V 00 0

S

2. Thc suns of concentrations of selected 1 through 5-ring aroaatic coapounds in scdiaent saaples fron the Coluabia River (near John Day 'able m Dan) and Puget Sound (ngIg dry ucight)

Me O B Columbia R. stations Pu ct Sound aitcn ID Du>)anish 11ylcbos Port 4 10 Mater>)a MaterMa Mndison~ bi'j Suas of concentrations '50 86 8,300 11>000 18,000 480 of selected 1-S ring [range l)300" [range 4,100- [range, 5)000 [range 200-aronatic coapound's l6,000] 22,000] 39,000] 640] listed in Table 3 i) Svas of concent'rations 240 .,82 8}000 10,000 13,000 340 

     'of    -, 4-, and 5"ring                       [range 2,6M        [range 3,700-               3,800-          [range 160-
     . coapounds Table 3.

listed Ln 16>000] 20,000] 33,000] 

                                                                                                    'range S10]  '

CZI a/ Average for Sour sanplcs (Dankaer 1983). Dwaaish Waterway) Seattle, Mh) average for lour ignplce (Halins et el. 1980, 1982). Hylebos Rater>)ay) Taconn, Mh) average for six sanplcs (Malins .et nl, 1980, 1982) ~ di Port Madison) Puget Sound) Mh) avcre'ge for tvo saaplcs (Halins et al. 1980, 1982) ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A pendix C 4 Ro cky R ch D Rock Island Dam Mf A S H I N G T.O N Wanapum Dam Priest'Rapids Dam 8 70llold g,ijdr 

                        'oaf                                               'Riudp y.alan;.

Rs I 

                                                                                    .'e Her'y
                                                                                         'e sW
                                                                                                               ~ ~ k.'

( Darn'l M ~ j t1 John Darn IIIA OLU~ Gonne 'Ile Dam Tha Dallas Dam PORT ND 

                                                                  'Y a                                     ~4 C                 0     R'EGOH O

g Cl Figure 2.hluminum-production planta 13 on the Columbia River ayatere. iiB00939 .Draft Environmental Assessment C-'17 

                                                                                                 -    . August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De portment of Ener y A endix C washington, is between two nearby dana ~ The aluminum plant at,The Dalles, Oregon, is gust downstream from The Dailcs Dam. Other aluminum plants, near Spokane, Vancouver, and Longviev, Vashington, and Troucdale, Oregon, arc noc 

'd] scent       to    ma)  or  dams      Undoubtedly     the             location of      an  aluminum plant 's discharge,       relative to an ad]scent dam, would have'mportant ef fects on the distribution of any pollutants in che water and in the sediments.

Xt is well known that sedimentation and siltation are occurring upstream from the ma) or dams to such an extent that some dams in cha Columbia"'iver Basin vill be non-functional in about 100 years unless the forebays {reservoirs) are dredg'ed; obviously', 'these areas'ill be dredged. 'Because of the pollutant content, it is likely that this material would be rcsuspended on a large scale, and disposal on land would be required ~ The more that is known about the pollutants aad. their distribucionp in thc Columbia..River. sediments, I the more rationally vill the'problems be addressed.'n view of the likely critical situation of pollutant accumulation in the river sediments near aluminum plants, as described from the NMFS preliminary investigations ac John Day Dam, it was proposed to examine other likely sites co document the nature and extent of these sedimented industrial pollutantsi Our previous investigation ceaccred on John Day Dam and particularlv'n fluorides. Ve related many organic pollutants to the aluminum-production process and have assumed that fluoride could be an index of this activity.,~o. Pluoride samples from the mouth of the Columbia River to Rocky Reach Dam (RH 474) (Pig 2) showed relatively high fluoride concentrations ad)scent to A each aluminum plant. It is possible, therefore, that an assessment of river would also 

                         ~         show  extraordinarily high concentrations                        of .organic l'edimencs pollutants around these sites.

Draft Environmental Assessment C-18 August 1998

DOE/EA-'1259 U.S. De artment of Energy Ap endix C A proposed saapling site +as the aain Columbia River near Menatchee, I Washington (RM 465) Thc Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) primary aluminum, smelter is locaccd about 10 miles south of Venatchec on thc Mast bank of I Columbia River (Fig 3) ~ The plant is situated 1 8 miles upe cream from Rock Xsl,and Daa and 19 miles helot Rocky Reach Dam. Built in 1952 and capable of producing 625 tons of aluminum per day, thc ALCOA plant has been 

                                                                                              'L in operation I

about 20 years longer, than the Commonwealth Aluminum plant I (production capacity! 500 tons per day) at John Day Daa Over the past 33 years, the 1 aluainua plant at Venatchee has been discharging 10-15 million gallons of ' e vastcvaccr per day directly into the Columbia River (comparing co 9 million gallons per day at the John Dey facility) ~ Because of thc location of the ALCOA. plant between the tMo dans, it Mes believed that. organic pollutants, f particularly aromatic hydrocarboae, would be in high 'concentrations ia thc P river sd5accnt to the aluminua plant. The specific objectives of this study Mere to: 1) collect sediments anc1 general environmental'ata froa the Columbia River near Mcnatchce, John Day Daa, aad other sites of active eediacntacion or industry along thc river aad

2) document thc nacurc and extent of sediaenced industrial pollutants at these sites.

METHODS Thc sampling plan for the 'Vena t chec area included collecting sediment'I r samples ac 11 ecations within thc Rock Island pool, as Mell ae ar. 2 stations each above Rocky Reach Daa <<ad belov Rock Island Dam (Figi 3) ~ Even though 0 J there <<ro tea primary aluminum plants in the Columbia River Basin upstrcaa from Veaatchec (onc near Spokane, Maahingtoa, and one near Columbia Pails, rt Montana) ~ by sampling above Rocky'each Daa and above Rock Island Daag wc could separate tbc pollutant contribution of the Venatchec plant'he'samples ii200241. Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 h

OOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C 

                                                                                       ~   ~
                                                                                                                             ~

Muddy sand 2 ~ y 2~~~ 20 I'\ ~ 

                                                                                                                     ~  ~

nyy Sr raSy s'Sa Muddy sand:. \~ ~ ~ I 2 ~ ~ 

                                                        ~ ~
                                                   ~    ~                                   ai ~ ~    ~

Rocky Raacls: I'- Dana, 

                                          ~     ~     ~                             ~    ~     ~

Or a son 

                                      ~     ~   ya
                                  ~     ~
                                ~     ~
                              ~        ~                             Rocks
                                                                       ~          ~
                              ~     ~                         ~y
                       ~     ~
                             ~     ~
                                                                ~ ~

a 4/ ~ ~ ply 

  ~~
 ~    ~ t ~ I ryr '       ~ 'v                                    Sand, grsvsl
           ~ ~          ~    ~
               ~ ~
                    ~, ~

y 

                                ~    I                             ~         ~

y 

                                                                     ~     ~

J I r ~ ~ 

                                ~
                                                                       + ~
                                                                          ~
                                                                               ~
                                                                                ~
                                                                                     ~

y ~,,I 0 I <<y ~ 

                                     ~    ~

0 << O ~ 

     'LYGNATCftEE                                                                'c

22 

                                                      ~          rCI
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~ <<y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~
                                                        ~

i ~ 

                                                                ~
                                                                                                  ~rs                     ~                                                                            ~ ~y
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~I
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ..'   ~
                                                                  'I                                                                                                                                     '
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~

Rocks" , 

                                                                                                                       '.r P ock             ~
                                                                                                                                               ~ ~       ~     ~

tmudd y sand.'c, ~ ~ near sbors) 

                                                                                                                                                                       ~ y ~ ~~        I~
                                                                                                                     ~ ~ ~ ~

26 

                                                                                                             ~                    <<
                                                                                                                                                                 +
                                                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                                                     ~      ~ ~

27 Sand, /lava 0 Aluminum ~ ~ Plans 2 

                                                                                                                                                            ~
                                                                                                                                                                "r                            Rock island' Muddy aan                                Clam,
                                                                                                                                                                                           ~~
                                                                                                                                                                                         '.Rocks
                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ ~

a~ 

                                                                                                                                                                                           'Sand, 2rsvcl I
                                                                                                                                                                                           , Muddy sand
                                                                                                                                                                         ~  0 I~

Figurc 3.Study area'or industrially<<polluted sedinents nearrVcnritchce, washington; Colusobia River. Circled nusabers indicate sescpling sites. giBOOQ42 Draft Environmental Assessment C-20 August 1998

DOEIEA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix C 10 dovnstreca frorL Rock Zsl and Dam vould,give some indication of thc distribution of these polluted sediments beyond the dam~ Hazardous currents, 'the generally rocky bottom found along this stretch of thc Columbia River, and thc necessity of sampling from a small vesseI. px'ecluded the use of gravity-corers or heavy greb samplers. Sediment samples for organic analyses vere collected using a 6-1/2-inch OD by .6-inch long caet iron pipe'redge vith a clean cloth bag clamped over one end This sampler vas dragged along the bottom of the river until sufficiently filled vith sedinent ~ Sedf-enr, vas scooped from the dredge using a stainl.ess steel spoon and placed fn pre-rinsed (CH2C12) sample bottles ~ Samples vere immediately frozen vith dry fce, transported vith dry ice. and stored at --18'C until analyzed ~ All organic chemical analyses vere dona by the Natfonal Analytfcal Facility, Ror thves t and Alaska Pf sheries Center. Analytical.. methods 

                                                                                                               .0 and instrumentation for organfc analyses are discussed in                        MacLeod   et'al    '(1985)  ~

Basfc physical characteristics vere measured at each station vhere conditions alloved using a Montedoro-Mhftncy Naxk VA Mater Quality 0 Analyzer 1/ . This fs a self contained portable system for in situ measurements of depth and up to five factors as functions of depth fin this study: (1) temperature, (2) dissolved oxygen, (3) 'pH, and (4) conductivity1. Purther information x'egarding specifications and capabilities of this instrument is fn Damkaer (1983) ~ Vater samples fox fluoride and turbidfty measurements vere collected O using N fskin 1 ~2-1 f tcr closiag vater bottles constructed of teflon-lined PVC. Pluoridc concentrations 'ex'c determfned vith a HACH Company fluox'ide I Reference to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National" Marine Pisheriea Service, HOAA. 

                                                                                           ~ V Draft'nvironmental           Assessment                 C-'21                                       August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U..S. De artment of Ener y A pendix C meter wfth an fon-selective electrode. 'Rrbfdfty measuremants were made immediately after sample co1lection with an HP Instruments portable turbfdfmoter .(model DRT-15) ~ RESULTS AD CONCLUSIONS Physical Characterf st fcs I Dates, times,'ocations, depths of 'easurement, and corresponding physical characteristics of rfvcr water fn the Venatchee regfoa for July 1986 axc shown in Tabl.e 3. Because of the danger to the analytical probe posed by swift currents and the rocky bottom, environmental fact'o~ other -than turbidity vere not measured at some statfons,: Where measurements were made, however, only very smail differences vere detected vertically and hqgfroataiiy in the well~xod, river water, C Pluoride During a prelfmfnaxy trip to thc Venatchee region in hprfl, surface water 

        \

samples were collected for fluoride analys f s (Table 4) Mhflc the hfghest fluoride concentration was found 'ear 'the aluminum plant outfall (pfg "3, Station 28) the Iow, narrow range of concentrations measured throughout the study area did not suggest a particular problem with fluoride dischaxge to the river. Pluorfde concentrations determined from July w<<ter saapics were 'even lower and narrower in xange (Table 5). In 1985, the Venatchee alumina plant convex ted air-emis sion control sys tea<< on three pot-rooms from vet to dry scrubbing; this eliminated a large water discharge from those systems ~ With this new equfpmcnt, the Wenatchce plant, while retaining a greater production capacity, is still able "to comply with Iover DOE diach<<rge limitations than 

                                   \ ~

the aluminum plant near John Day Dam. Nevertheless, the fluoride 

                                                                                 .  ~iaoo844 Draft Environmental Assessment                     C-22                                    August 1998

Table 3. General Physical characteristics ot rkver Mater near Menatcheee Vachingtoh; Coltlttbia River, July 23-24 '986 (sce'ig 3 for station locations) ~ Celuabl ~ tsear %Eat Maaatcbace Sae'hlal tea July l)-14, l)IC Caaatel lb)ELCAL CbareC'tafletlCA O B DI~ ESLT<i CD Data Tlsa Tetel 5 aaple Tee)acetate ~ Cesiuctlalty eazlau Turbsilty s'ca\I@A Itl) Izs ie tb( I Je thtu) c . 4 . I heel .. NnC O n 10 2) OTL O)40 7)00 0 l)ofI 10 0012 ta4 001 5 ~ 1)0)l ) 'l Ool 2 fa) IO l)0)0 )f Oel 2 to) 0.2 15 1)0)0 y f 00lt f04 20 l)oll ) t dell fo) 25 l)0)l 40 0& 12 tel 01

2) JEL II)0 . SD00 0 l)0)5 )t 0012 tet 0 1 5 l)0 f 1 I ~ dell )05 IO l)ell ) 4 Oo I2 tol 02 IS I)0)4 ) 4 doll to) 20 I)~ ))

I)ofI 

                                                                                      )04         del2           t,l 25                     )0)         dell                         002 lie                24  Jul   0)40         40P         a.                                                            002 2)a                24  Jal   0120       !500                                                                        Oot
       ~   14 ~               24  Jul   0)00       I)00                                                                        00 I
2) Jul 110) lod 00)

LC 1) Ju'L 1))0 1100 0 I boa) Iield 

                                                                                      )ef
                                                                                      ~ 00 0

00 Il ll 

                                                                                                               <ff fel Ool IO        lie ll       lol         0012           fot IS        lie 1)       lel         0011           fot            Oal
2) J ~ L l)00 I boa 0 Oal IS 0.1
2) JaL ISIS 1200 0 lloDC IIel) loa 0 ll ).l D. IS 400 Doll tel 10 Ile)l 1.0 0011 IO 0 O,I5 2)0 2) Jul illa 2200 0 002 IO Ool)
2) Jul !400 l 400 0 0.1)

Ool) 

           )la                2)  Jul'SSO        ~    feS        0                                                              001 l                              0 Ool)
           )la                    Jul               000 o

ID 14 IOSO Ool %O m tO t/a 24 JTL L IOO I 1500 ld IS Ilodl l4 el) 

                                                                                      )of
                                                                                      )0)       'elllt 0              t Idod 4           0  )

CD f+ 54 24 Jul OIOO )00 ~ I Ool O I XM 

        ~ Kxcrceely hererceue 'curreece eacler rect) Ceccau                                                                             A cs)

DOE/EA-1259 U.S.. De 'artment of Ener y A pendix C 13 P Table 4.Fluoride concentrations of rfvcz vater near Venatchce, washington; Columbia River, hptil 16, 1986 (aee Pig. 3 for station locations) Columbia River washington near'enatchee, hpril 16, 1986 Fluoride (ppa) Statfon Su'rface (shor'e)- 21 0. 18 22 0+ 15 23 0. 16 IJ ~ J 4 ~ 

               'I ~

l 0 15 26 Oo 15 0 15 28 Oo 20 

      '0 0 ~ 15 32                                                                '0. 17 V

33 Oo14 Columbia River upstream.from confluence Mfth Venatchee River 0.18 

~cnatchee River upatrcam from confluence Mfth River                              'olumbia   ~       Oo   06 1

j <SOD~46 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C Table 5.Fluoride concentrations of river eater near Venatchee, Maahington; Colunbia River, July 23"24, 1986 (see Pig.. 3 for station locations). 

                                                                                                     ~ .

Columbia Mver near Venatchee, Mashin8ton July 23-24, 1986 Tluoride (ppn) 

  -"-'- Station                                  cotton       HidMe th           Surface 20                                      0.10         ~ 0.10               Oslo 21                                      0+09           0.10               0.10 22                                                                        0.10 23                                                                        0.09 24                                                                        0.10 25                                                                        0.10 26                                      0 10                              0,10 27                                      Qolo                              Oo 10 28                                      0.'10                             0 10 29                                      Oe 10                             0.1o 30                                      0.10                              OoOB 31                                      0.10                              Oslo Oo 10 33                                                                        0. 10
0. 03 ii200347 Draft Environmental Assessment C-'25 , August .1998 II
                                                                                     .,        DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department      of Ener y                                                                  A  endix  C 15 concentrations      in  the   Columbia     Rivar near Venatchee         likely represent a measurable     indicatioa of the influence          of indus trial activity on river~at er.

'quality For comparison, fluoride coacoatrationi,vere considerably 1over in the @snatches River in hpril (Table 4) aad at the mouth'of the Wenetchee River in July (Table 5, Station 34) than at the main Columbia River stations. Organic Pollutants Concentrations of aromatic and chlorinated compounds in the sediment samples collected in the Vonatchce area arc shovn in Tables 6 and 7 The sume of concentrations of aromatic analytes vere noticeably elevated in sediments collected at Stations 29, 30, and 31 (guet dovnriver from, the aluminum-plant outfall; in the forobay of Rock Xeland Dam); and at Station 33 Qbelov Rock Xsland Dam) ~ Among the moat concentrated compounds, .fluoranthene, pyrene, E P fa Jaathraccne, chrycene, aad bcnso f cl sad bcnzo fal pyrone vera lover in I'boas conceatration here than in the, highly polluted sediments collected near the 

                                                 ~

aluminum-plant out fall above John Day Dam (Table 1 Station 10) . 8ovcver, phoaanthronc ind anthraceae vere found in comparable concentrations at th'e tvo study sites, and aceniphthcne at Station 33 (Sediment 013). vas considerably II higher .than at Joha Day Dam. As in the John Day Dam area, very fcv chlorinated hydrocarbons vere present in measurable concentrations at the Venatchce stations Despite the differenccs in concentrations of individual compounds at the tvo sites, the general. similarity in the overall aromatic hydrocarbon profiles of the tvo, areas implicates the aluminum plant at Menatchee as an impor'tant source of those materials ~ The concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments near Wonatchoe appear'o be somevhat lover than in 'sediments near the aluminum-plant at John Day De'a 'because .of shallow vatei, ctrong currents, 

                                                                            ,. g<20O248 Draft Environmental       Asses'sment C-26                                            August l998

Table 6~ onccntrationo of aromatic corepobnds in sediment i lcctcd near Mcnatchcc, Maebington; oiushia River, 23-24 July. 1966 '(scc Fi6urc 3 Eor ation locstiono). 

                                                                                                        &,,C concontrallons of aromatic hydrocarbons tn cotumbta fttvor socfunont samples. ngrg (ppb) dry weight      .

dimeric'9 station ir 20 21 24 26 27 28 ., 25 so 1 2 11 6 7 3 . 6 sample 8 61 1t 61-2 61 ~ 10 614 61-7 61-3 61.6 O naphlhalono 7 c 14 c 7 c 8 9 0 13 Z.methytnaphthatene 8 ~ c 15 c 6 8 c 9 9 14 1-melhylnaphthalono 8 jc 14 8 8 c 9e 9. 13 biphenyl c 7 c 13 7 7 c 9 c 8 12 2,6.dim othytnaphthalono  ?' 13 7 7 c 9 9 13 acenaphthone c 8 <.14 c 6 8 c 10' 9 c 13 lluorene 7 13 7 c 7 9 8 34 phonan'lhrono 7 13 c 7 << '7 c 8 8 150 anthracone ~ .c '7 7 'c 12 7 7 6 c 7 160 l.methylphenanthrono 12 7 7 c 8 c 7 11 fluoranthapo c 7 74 94 7 6 c 7 260 pyre no c 7 49 22 I c 9 6 160 bonz'ja]anthrace no 9 .< 16 9 c 8 c 5 c 10 110 chryseno IO < 17 10 c 9 10 11 160 bonzo]e]pylene. 1'I c 19 10 10 12 c 12 = 72 benzota]pyr one 11 19 c 10 c 10 12 c" 12 30 porytone 11 20 11 c 12 12 25 ~ dtbonzfa,h]anthracono- 11 20 10 16 12 12 15 Sum of tho concentrations ol the above analytos 140 1200 

 'A, recovery et naphthalene<f6 aconaphthonecf tg                     85               83                  69              83                 66            84               76 porytenocfl2                          89               88                  92              86                 ?0.           90               84 73              76                  69              89                 75            75               93 sample wolghl, g 7i dry weight                               10.06            10.07              '10.01           10.04             10.06          10.09           10.07 61.3            4Q,Z                73.1            75.6             y5.3            65.0             54.1 a The concontratlons of analylos from napthatono lhrough 1-mcthytnaphthatono wore catcuta! od using naphlhalonedS as the Irrtornat standard; anatytos lrombtphenyl through pyro no wore calculated using aeon a phthonocf 1 0;                                C7 anatytos from benz]a]anthraceno through dbonz fag]anthracono were cafcutatod using peryfone'ct12.

b Tho 'loss than symbol (c) indicates lhat tho anatyfe was nest dotoctod in concentrations above tho stated value., n%D m c Concentrations andNta1idontlttcations woro dotormfnodusfng Camo fontzatfon dotoctfon GC.'. e m CL I 

                                                                                                                                         ~48008e9           >C A&

                                                                                                               ~-                              ) -P Table      6.cont.
                                                                                     ~      -  ~           v                                        C/7,
                                                                  ) lt                                                     ,. a,b.c m
concontrallons of aromattc hydrocarbons In Cotumbta Rtvor sodimont sarvpbs, nglg t E (ppb) dry wolgtrL, . U ID '

y J Me I stat!on 8 30 31 = 33(sand] 33(mud) 34 O sodlrnont fr 5 12 13 10 V ID sample 8 61-5 1 61+ 61 11 61.12 61-9 IO naphthalene 8 c 6 8 c 11 0 

          '-mothytnapbthafeno                              8           c   8             "8                                          12 t-mothytnaphthalene                       c     8              8         c    8          c    11                          12 btphonyl                                        8-             8              8               15                          10
         ; 2,6 dtmethytnaphthatono                          8              8              8               10 .                        10
aconaphlheno 38 8 8 120
                                                                                                                 '1 ffuorono                                        8          c   7              7               10                          10 phonanlhreno                                   58            100              7               14                     c     9
         ] anthracono                                       9              13        c    7                0                           9 l.melhytphananihr one                         10          c   7               I              'lo                          9 guoranlheno:                                 'f20            180             7              350                           9 pyrona                                         72             l50              7              41                           9 beru[a]anth!aeons                             27             120        c    '9              80                     c    14 chrysono                                      61            260              10              37                          15 I            bonzo[e]pyrono                                38            110         c    1'l         c   18                         20 co            bonzo[a]pyrene                                45             130   '0 11               18                         97 poryfono
                                                         '29                              12               19                         80
                         'ibs'(a,h]anthracono-        <-    11             tg             11               17                         17 Sum ot tho concantratbns ol lhe above anatytos                     510           1100                             680                         180
             '/ recovery of:

naphthalene<f8 acenaphtheno<t10 samph walgM, g 96 95 97 10.03 

                                                                '6         81" 06 t0.05 84 90.

81 10,08 82 90 70 10.02, 

                                                                                                               'aiybno<t12 57 67 52 10.05 y f dry wstght                                65.5           72.5            69.8            55.5'.                     78.7
                                                                                                            ~         C ICI '.      a Tho copcantratfo(is of analytes frornnapthatono thmugh t-mo thytnaphthabna were catcutoIeAping naprlhilone<fSao thelnfomal standard; anatytos frombtphonyt through pyrono wore Calculate using acenaptltttano<<tto; analytes frcmbenr(a]silt! lricone throvgh dbont(a.h]anthracono wars calculated ustng Oo@orioct 12.

b The less than symbol (<<) trxAcatos that the anatyta was not detected tn concantratbns abdvI()ha stalod value. c cancentr5tbns and tntttat identtticattons wore dIttormrnad vslng lama lankattan detect!an Gc '~ CO

Table 6.- i~ E aP.c concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons lnbtanks, ngrg (ppb) average d0r weight, and percent recovery ol analytos fn spiked blank samplos, d sodlmont 4 sarrpto 8 blank 61-14 '. '1-t3 splkodbtank naphthalono c 9 100 2-methylnaphlhalono c 9 100 t.methytnaphthatena c s9 100 blphonyt 8 99 2,6<<ftrnethytnaphthatono 8 100 aconaphlhene 9 99 ~ lluorono 8 100 phenanttueno 6 100 anthrace no 8 100 1.molhylphananthro no 8 110 ~ ftuolanthana <<.6 110 pyrene c 8 1IO bonz[aJanthracono 11 120 chrysono 12 120 benzo[oJpyrono c 14 '110 bonzo[a)pyrono c 14 110 porylono c 15 100 dlbenz[a,h]anthracene c 13 110 Sum of lho concontratbns of!he above anslytes 

. 5 recovaryof:

naphtha)eno<<f6. 90 89 aconaphthe~t0 93 91 poiytsntHft2 . 76 82 sample wot9tl, 9 

     '/. dry wotght a The concentrations of analyles fromnspthatsne through1<<nothyfnaptihateno woro calculateduslng naphthalene<<t8 ae lhe fntemit standard; analytes frombfphonyt lhrough pyreno were calculated.ustng aconsphtheno<<tt0;                     %O anatytes frombenz[a]anthrocone through dbenz[a,h)anthr4cone were calculated using peryfeno<<ff2.

b The toss than'ymbol (c) tndtcatos that the analyte was not detected ln concontrat tons abave'the stalod value. ru c Concontratlons andMlat idontlttcatfons were determined using ttsme hntzatton dotoctton GC. d percent recovery ol enalyte stsndards added ttr a blank sampte whfch was then prepared and analyzed as a sample. a r P) lO

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C rr of chlotinated coiopounda in sediment collected neat Fi Mcnatchee, Vashinttton; Colucbia River, 23-2 u y for station locations) ~ socdAent 1 stathn 4 sample j 

                                                    ~
                                                   '16 29 6

30 5 61 5 

                                                                          '1 concetsrathns of cMorfnatod anafytes fn coNmbfa Sver sedtment samples, ng/g {ppb) dry wetg<
                                                                                    ~

c 4 614 a,b,c,d 

                                                                                                      ~

c 33(mud) 13 61-1 2 hezachtorobenzono 1 c 1 L'ndane (gamma BHC) 1 c 1 c 1 1 heptachfor c 1 c 1 1 1 atdrtn c 1 c 1 c c 1 he ptachhre p oxide 1 c c 1 c alpha chlordane c 1 c c 1 transaonachfor c c 1 c 1 c c 1 dfofdrtn mLex 1 1 c 1 c f" o,p'-DDE c c 1 .c 1 p,p'<DE 8 3' 7 c,p'~Do 4 1 1 2 p,p'ADD 8 1 1 8 o,p'DDT c c 1 c ~ p,p'-DL'7 c c 1 dhhfcrstlphonyfa c 1 c 1' c c'1.: 

                      .'rhhforooiphenyfs c      1                            c                  c tetrachlorobfphenyfs                             c             c                     c                  c      1 pentachlorobfphony}s                             c                    1              c    1 hexachloroblphenyts                              c      1      c      1              c    1             c      1 heptachforobfphenyfs                             c      1       c     1              c octachhrobiphenyte                               c      1       c                    c                  c nonachloroblphenyfs                              c      1      c      1              c    1                    1 dhhlorobutadlenes                                c      1      c                          1             c trhhforobuta<6enes                               c             c                          1             c      1 tetr'achlorobutadle neo                          c      1      c      1              c                        1 pentachhrobutadlonea                             c              c                    c    1            c hoxachforobuladfenes                             c 1

c 1 c'1 c Sum of Ihe coraontrattons 20 of the above anafytea 

% recovery ot.

aceneptehonocf t0 90 sample weight. 0 10.07 10.03 10.05 10.02 

% dry weight                                         54.1        ~  65.5                72.5                 55.5 a The concontrattons of analytes woro cahutatodushg% rocovory of acenaphthenocfl0.

b The 'toss lhan'rnbot (c) Indicates thai the Lwfyto was not detected h cence ntrattons above lhe stated v>><<" c Concontrathns and fnttfaf fdentiftcatfons were dote~~ using eleven capture dotectton GC. d These four samples wore selected to cahu'tale concontrattons 0 f chhrfnated anafytos because they had tho htghest concot tfathns ct anafttos of tho twelve samples anafyaed for arornath hydrocarbons. 

                                                                                      ~   '\

Draft Environmental'Assessment C-30 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C 20 Table 7. cont ap,c ons af chlartnated anafytos f1,f sodlmont g bfanft sample g 61-14 hoxachforabo nzo no c 1 Ifndano (gamma-BHC) 1 hepfachlor akfrtn 1' twptachtoropoxido atphaMfordano trans nanachlar dlokfrfn c rnffox 1 o,p"DDE 1 py'-DDE c o.p'ADD p,p'ADD 1 o,p'DDT. p,p'NDT c dfchtorabfphonyfs c trtchforobfphonyfs 1 tetrachlcroblphonyls c 

                           'entachlcroblphonyfs c   1 haxachforcblphenyta hoptachfarobfphenyfs                         c octachloroblphenyls                              1 nanachforobfphenyfs                           c   1 dfchforobutadfonos                            c   1 trtchforobvtadfonoe                           c   1 totrachfofcbutadfenos pentachlorabutadfonos                         c hoxachforobut adfonos                         c Sum of tho concontratfons of tho abave anafytos
  % recovery of:
       ~

aconaphtho noel t 0 93 sample wefght, g A,dry weight a The concentrations of analytos wore catcufatod usfng /i rocovory of acenaphthone& to. b Tho less than symbol (c) fndfcatos that tho analyfo was nat dote<ed ln concontratfans abave tho statod value. c Concentratfcns and fnltfal Idontftfcaifons wore dotormtnod ustng otoctron capturo detection GC. . Draft Environmental Assessment C 31,. August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 

   -U.S. De   artment of Ener y                                                                A    endix                                    C 21 and   little     sedimentation       in the    Wenatchee     area     In contrast  ~     the large reservair      of relatively slo~oving water behind John Day Daza encaurages sedimentation.          ht the aluminum plant near J".n Day Dam, sediment collected right at theoutfall contained high concentrations of organic material since the slawer movement of water dispersed                these materials    much less effectively downriver          Of course,      even   though   thc   river currents near    Wenatchee                arcc apparently,          reasonably      effective     in     flushing discharged      contaninants dawnxivcri        it    is   quite     possible    these materials have accumulated significant canccntratians            at nearby locations.         Elevated concentrations                              of organic     compounds      vere  found   downriver     fram   thc  outfall at Rock Xs land Dan where limited sediment at ian is pao a ible i However, the mas t likely sites of accumulation would include areas just upriver fram the major dams. Xt is aaw bclievacb that the bilk of pollutants from the upriver alcuccinuza plants .are .

A yc sedimentcd in McNazy Dam reservoir vith lesser amaunti in Wanapum'and c...'robably Y Priest Rapids reservoirs ~ because these areas will inevitably be dredged; it is"important that possible'toxic organic "hot spots" within them bc located hlthough analytical results ere aat yet available we Save recently ~ ~ completed the collection of sediments from the McNary Dam reservoir (RE 292) 

                          ~

and at several other davno trcam sites adjacent to aluminum plants, including: (1) John Day Dan reservoir; (2) The Dallcs, Oregon (RM 186) j (3) 

                                                                                                                               ,~i~ ~

Troutdale, Oregon (RM 120); (4) Vancouver,- Washington (RM 102); and Washington (RM 62) hnalyoca of these samples MiD increase'ur (5)'angviev, of thc nature, origin, and crtcnt of industrial pollution in the 'nderstanding Columbia Q.vcr. 

             ~e motivation for           continued and expanded        investigations of'ndustrial
                                                                                             ~ . L pollutants in the Columbia River system is thc protection of t: he valuable salmanid resource and related habitat.                   The information fram these studies

~ . Dr aft Environmental Assessment C-32 August 1998 

                                                                            ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix C 22 couM optimire'he understanding oE re1ationshipa between point-aource pollutionMischarge and dane, and contribute considerably to planned construction ot new indus trial/ hydroelectric complexee. State end federal Pacific Northvcat fiaheriea and habitat management agencies vou1d rapidly incorporate information from this Teaearch ~ L 

                                                                          'ii200255 0

Draft Environmenta1 .Assessment . August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of-'Ener y A endix C 23 LXTKRATURE CZTED DaaDcaer~ Di Mo 1983 f f Ef ect s of wat er-borne pollutant s on ish-passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River. U- S. Dep. of Coamer., Natl ~ Oceanic htmos. hdain., Natl Mar Fish. Serv., Northwest and Alaska Pish 'Cent o > Seattle, 

            .Mh      77 p (Report to U.S. Arsy Corps of Engineers, Contract DhCQ57-82-F-0373) ~                                       4 E

Dankaer, D- M. and D. B. Dey. 1984 ~ Adult fish delay. at John Day Dan ~ U S. De: 

                                                                         ~    of Conner., Natl, Oceanic htnos hdnin., Natl. Mar. Pish. Serv, Not thwest and Alaska Fish Cene, Scatt1e, MA. 36 p. plus Appendix (Report to U.S. Arny Corps of Eagincers, Contract DhCM57-83-FW323).

Dam%acr, D- M. and D. B. Dcy. 1985 ~ Effects of water-borne pollutants on salmn~assape at John Day 

     ~

Dam, Columbia River (1982-1984'). Q. S. Dep of Coener. ~ Natl Oceanic htcos ~ hdnin., Natl. Har. Fish. Serv., Northwest a~d Alaska Fish. Cent , Seattle, Vh. 85 p. (Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACV57-84-F-0173). Darner~ D M and Di B Dey, 1986 Effects of water-borne pollutants on ealmoa~aesage at John Day DMIN Columbia River ( 1982-1986) . tJ S. Dcpo of Coaau:r ~, Natl'ceanic Natl Mari Fish e Serv', Northwca t and Alaska 7 she 

                                                          ~

Atmos, hdoLin ~ Cent., Seattle, Mh 42 p. pius Appendix (Rcport. to U S, Arly Corps of Engineers i Contract DACM57 85-H-0001) ~ MacLeod, V D et a1. 1984 Standard analytical proceduree of the NOAA National Analytical Facility, 1984-1985- NOAA Tech. Heno. NHFS F/NMC-64:1-110. MacLeod, V D et al 1985 ~ Standard analytical procedures of the Nohh National Analytical Facility, 1985-1986 NOAA Tech. Hero. NHFS 7/NMC-92-1-121 Malins, D. C-. et al ~ 1980 'hcnical contaainants and biological abnormalities in central and southern Puget Sound. NOAA Tech. Mano. OKPA-2:1,-295. Meline, D. C et ali 1982 ~ Chemical contaainants and abaornalitics in fish'nd invertebrates fzoa Puget Sound~ Nohh Tech Mcao, OHPh-19:1-168i Draft Environmental Assessment C-34 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A pendix C 24 PICURES Figurc 1.Study area for adult salmonid passage-delay program, John Day Dam region, Columbia M vere Circled numbers indicate 'and sampling sites (sampling sktea on dovnstream side of The Da11cs Bonneville Dems not shown), 

   'i,gure  2   Aluminum-production plants            on thc Columbi.a River system.

Figure 3 ~ Study area for industrially-polluted numbers sediments near Mcnatchee, indicate. sampling Vashington;,Columbia River. Circled 9 i'tes ~ 

      ~"

gggQQQSV , .Draft Environmental-Assessment C-35 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Appendix C 25 ThBLKS 1,Concentrations of aromatic compounds in sediment and eater collected from the John Day Dam region,,Columbia River Table 2. The sucLs ofconcentrations of selected 1 through 5-ring aroiratic compounds in sedi=ent samples from the Columbia River (near John Day Dam)-and puget Sound (ng/g dry weight) ~ Table 3 Cenera1 i physical characteristics of river vater near Venatches, Washington; Columbia River, July 23-24, 1986 (see Fig 3 for station locations) . Table 4 ~ ->>Fluoride concentrations of river Mater near Wcnatchee, Washington; 

          ~  Columbia River, hpril 16, 1986 (sea Fige 3 for station locations)    ~

Table 5. Fluoride concentrations of river Mater near Wcnatchee, Was'hington; columbia River, July 23-24, 1986 {see Fig 3 f or station locations) i Table 6.Concentrations of . aromatic compounds in sediment, collected near Wcnatchee, Washington; Columbia River, 23-24 July 1986 (sce Figure 3 for station'ocations). Table 7,~oncentrations of chlorinated compounds in sediment collected near Venatchee, Washington; Columbia River, 23-24 July 1986 (see Figure 3 for station locations) ~ j ~PQg)58 Draft Environmental Assessment C-36 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 ~ U.S. Department of Energy A endix Dl BACT/HACT Protocol Determination of BACT and HACT for the Proposed A'luminum Reduction Smelter Project Boardman, Oregon Introduction The purpose of this protocol is to provide EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements for control technologies and emission limits for proposed aluminum smelter in Boardman, Oregon. Based on preliminary emission 

                                                                                            'he estimates for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO<), total fluorides (TF) and.total suspended particulates (TSP), the company must determine Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for the proposed anode bake plant and potrooms. By the time    the'acility        is in operation, the proposed Haximum Achievable Control Technology (HACT) requirements for primary aluminum reduction plants are expected to be finalized. Emissions from the proposed smelter must be evaluated against the  HACT     limits for    TF and  polycyclic .organic matter,(POH).

BACT Demonstration BACT is demonstrated for each pollutant using EPA's top-down approach consisting of five major elements: 

        ~    Identification of all control strategies available for the pollutant and equipment under     evaluation           'I
     ~  ~    Elimination of those strategies determined to       be technically infeasible
        ~    Ranking   of technically feasible options in descending order of control efficiency
        ~    Evaluation of cost per ton of emissions controlled for each technically feasible option and identification of other impacts of each strategy (i.e., increases -in other pollutants, increased energy consumption, other environmental impacts, etc.)
        ~   .Selec4ion of    BACT.

Once the list of technically feasible options is prepared, each option is evaluated for its range of impacts and cost -effectiveness. The control option providing the greatest control efficiency is selected unless eliminated on energy, environmental, or economic grounds. At a minimum, BACT selection must meet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Subpart S. This NSPS requires the following emission .limits': 

        ~  'Potroom TF emissions      no  greater than 1.9 pounds. per ton (lb/ton) of aluminum produced Draft Environmental Assessment                 Dl-l                             August 199S 1

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Appendix D1 

           ~   Anode bake    plant  TF  emissions   no greater than 0. 1 lb/ton of aluminum
             'quivalent
           ~   Opacity less than     10  percent for potrooms
           ~   Opacity less than     20  percent for anode bake plants.

As stated in 40 CFR 60.192(2), "emissions between 1.9 and 2.5 lb/ton will be considered in compliance if the owner or operator demonstrates that exemplary operation and maintenance procedures were used with respect to the emission control system and that proper control . equipment was operating during the performance test." Primary aluminum pr'oduction control strategies were identified based on a search of EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse (Clearinghouse), review of EPA's AP-42, Fifth Edition, Section 12. 1 (AP-42), and discussions with Don Bradford, a consultant, regarding control technologies at similar plants. The BACT evaluation included identification of control strategies for prebake plants, such as the proposed aluminum smelter, and Soderberg plants that have similar emission sources. BACT for CO CO and carbon dioxide are formed from the rqaction of aluminum oxide with carbon electrodes during electrolytic aluminum red'uction. Ho CO control strategies for primary aluminum reduction plants were identified in EPA Clearinghouse or AP-42. Primary aluminum reduction plants in The Dalles, Oregon (Northwest Aluminum), and Goldendale, Washington (Goldendale Aluminum) have afterburners that oxidize CO from the potrooms into carbon dioxide. The primary purpose of these afterburners is to burn hydrocarbons generated from the baking of the anodes. Both of these plants use the Soderberg process for aluminum reduction. The prebake process has a much higher exhaust flow rate than the Soderberg process (approximately one order of magnitude),.and the concentration of CO is significantly less in prebake exhaust versus 'Soderberg exh'aust. For these reasons, no existing prebake plants control CO'rem the potrooms. Thus, BACT for CO emissions from the potrooms is no control. BACT for SOz The source of SOz in primary aluminum reduction operations is sulfur in the carbon materials making up the electrical anode. Almost, all anodes in use are

made from commercial grade calcined petroleum coke and distilled coal tar pitch. Both of these carbon materials contain'sulfur. During the production of aluminum by electrolysis, any sulfur in the anode is burned and forms SOz. t<ost of the available anode cokes on the West Coast of the United States are derived from Alaskan North Slope crude, and the coke from these sources ranges from 2.5% to 3% sulfur content. The coal tar pitch, used as a binder with coke in anode manufacture, is distilled from the off-gases of steel industry Draft Environmental Assessment D1-2 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix Dl metallurgical coke coking ovens. Because the coal tar pitch is a distilled product, it is generally low in sulfur at a nominal 1%. Available sources of coal tar pitch on the West Coast are primarily imports from Korea, Japan, and Germany or from the Great Lakes area of the U.S. A review of the EPA Clearinghouse determinations for SOz from primary aluminum reduction plants identifies limits on coke and coal tar pitch sulfur content as control strategies for this pollutant. To comply with PSD BACT requirements, 

    'primary aluminum reduction plants in h'arrick, Indiana (Aluminum Company of America), and Goose Creek, South Carolina (Alumax), limit the maximum sulfur
  ,   content in anode pitch to 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively.            The Alumax plant also limits the maximum sulfur content in anode coke to 2.95%.

EPA's AP-42 identifies sulfur content limits as well as wet scrubbing as control strategies for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from primary aluminum reduction. A number of VSS-type Soderberg smelters, including the Horthwest Aluminum smelter at. The Dalles, Oregon, use wet scrubber systems to reduce SO emissions. AP-42 states that concentrations of sulfur oxides from VSS-type Soderberg smelters range from 200 to 300 parts per million. Emissions from prebake plants usually have much lower SOz concentrations ranging from 20 50 30 parts .per million. The primary gas collection system at The Dalles smelter is rated at approximately 165,000 SCFtl. The company proposes a total extraction volume of 1,100,000 SCFH for the prebake smel ter in Boardman, Oregon. Due to the prohibitive size of SOz wet scrubbers that would be required to treat these waste gas volumes and the low SOz concentrations in the waste gas 'stream, SO -scrubbers are not economically feasible for the proposed smelter. In adihtion, a water treatment would be required to treat sulfates from a 'wet scrubber. The Dalles smelter.has a large, complex water treatment facility to remove collected particulates, sulfates, and fluorides from the scrubber system. These collected materials require a.large volume of water discharged via HPDES permit to the Columbia River. In the past five years, DE/ has not permitted waste water, discharge to the Columbia River from new facilities such as the proposed aluminum smelter. Based on a review of control strategies, BACT for SOz emissions from the proposed smelter are limits on maximum sulfur content in anode coke and pitch. Additional discussion 'regarding the technical and economic feasibility of SOz controls't prebake plants will be developed for the'PSD application. BACT for TF The source of fluoride emissions during aluminum reduction is the fluoride electrolyte, which contains cryolite, aluminum fluoride, and fluorospar. TF emissions include both gaseous and particulate fluoride from the anode baking furnace and the prebake cells. The EPA Clearinghouse determinations -for controlling TF emissions from primary aluminum reduction plants were reviewed to develop a list of control options. The EPA Clearinghouse, lists three plants with . TF control strategies for prebake potrooms: Aluminum Company of America in Marrick, Indiana, Alumax in Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Horanda Aluminum, Draft Environmental Assessment D1-3 . August. ]998 0

U.S. Department of Energy 

                                                                    -'    DOE/EA-1259 Ap  endix Dl Inc. in New Madrid, Missouri. All three plants use dry alumina scrubbers for         TF control in -compliance with PSD BACT requirements.

Additional TF control strategies were identified in AP-42 for anode baking furnaces and prebake cells. Strategies for anode baking furnaces are listed below in approximate descending order of control effectiveness with each option's approximate control efficiency indicated in parentheses:

1. Dry alumina scrubber (99 percent)
2. ESP (93 percent)
3. Spray tower (93 percent).

Strategies for prebake cells are listed below in approximate descending order effectiveness with each option's appr'oximate control efficiency indicated of'ontrol in parenthesis:

1. Dry alumina scrubber (99 percent)
2. Dry plus secondary scrubber (98 percent)
3. Coated bag filter dry scrubber (91 percent)
4. Floating bed scrubber (90 percent)
5. Dry ESP plus spray tower (89 percent)
6. Spray tower (88 percent)
7. Crossflow packed bed (71 percent)
8. Multiple cyclones (35 percent). ;

Based on our review of TF control strategies; dry alumina scrubbers are BACT for TF emissions from anode baking furnaces and prebake cell potrooms. If necessary, additional discussion regarding the technical and economic feasibility of other TF control options will be developed for the PSD application. BACT for TSP For prebake aluminum reduction plants similar to the proposed smelter, TSP is emitted from paste production, anode baking furnaces, and aluminum reducfion cell potrooms. Paste production emits TSP from "crushing, grinding, and screening of coke, and blending with a pitch binder to make green anodes. During anode baking, TSP emits from the green anodes cracking. TSP emits from-prebake ce/ls into the potrooms during the electrolytic aluminum reduction process. No TSP control strategies for primary aluminum reduction plants were identified in EPA's Clearinghouse. However, most of the TF control strategies listed in the Clearinghouse also reduce TSP emissions. AP-42 was reviewed to develop a list of options for controlling TSP emissions from primary aluminum reduction plants. No control options were listed in AP-42 for TSP emissions from past production. The industry standard for TSP control from paste production is baghouse filters.. Although cyclones are also in use at some prebake plants, cyclones are less effective for controlling TSP .than baghouse filters. Draft Environmental Assessment Dl-4 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A pendix DI TSP control strategies identified in AP-42 for anode baking furnaces are listed below. in approximate descending order of control effectiveness with each option's approximate control efficiency indicated in parentheses:

l. Dry alumina scrubber (98 percent)
2. ESP (75.percent)
3. Spray tower (75 percent).

Strategies for prebake cells are listed below in approximate descending order of control effectiveness with each option's approximate control efficiency indicated in parentheses: Strategies for prebake c'elis are listed below in approximate descending order of control effectiveness with each option's approximate control efficiency indicated 'in parentheses:

1. Dry plus secondary scrubber (99 percent)
2. Dry alumina scrubber (98 percent)
3. Coated bag filter dry scrubber (98 percent) 4, Dry ESP plus spray tower (95 percent)
      ~
5. Multiple cyclones (78 percent).
6. Crossflow packed bed (70 percent).

Based on our review of control strategies, baghouse filters are BACT for TSP emissions from paste production, Dry alumina scrubbers are BACT for TSP emissions from anode baking furnaces. Dry alumina scrubbers are also BACT for prebake potroom cells based. on economic feasibility.'dditional discussion regarding the economic feasibility of TSP control options will be developed for the PSD application. HACT Standard EPA has proposed national emissions standards (40 CFR 63, Subpart LL) for each new or existing potline, paste production operation ,and anode bake furnace associated with a primary aluminum reduction plant. Under the proposed HACT standard, the following limits would apply to'the proposed aluminum smelter: TF emissions from potlines not to exceed 1.2 lb/ton of alumi'hum produced 

          ~    POM   emissions    from potlines not to exceed     0.63 lb/ton of aluminum produced
          ~    TF  emissions    from anode bake furnaces not    to   exceed 0.02 lb/ton of green anode
          ~    POH emissions     from anode bake furnaces not to exceed .0.05 lb/ton     of green anode.

In addition to emission'limits, the proposed HACT standard will require that the company install, operate, and maintain equipment for the capture and control"of Draft Environmental Assessment D1-5 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix Dl POM emission from the paste production plant. Captured emissions must be rerouted through a closed system .to a dry coke scrubber, or the company must submit a written request for use of an alternative control device with a Pm) reduction efficiency of at least 95 percent for continuous mixing or 90 percent for batch mixing. Oregon Industrial Standards for Aluminum Plants In ,accordance with OAR 340-25-265, the following aluminum plant emission standards for TF and TSP are required. for the proposed smelter: 

       ~   Monthly average   TF   emissions   not to exceed     1.3  lb/ton of   aluminum produced
       ~   Annual average   TF   emissions   not to exceed      1.0 lb/ton 'of   aluminum produced
       ~   Ho greater than 12.5 tons of TF per month with prior written approval by the Oregon Department    of Environmental guality J
       ~   Monthly average  TSP  not to exceed 7.0 =lb/ton of aluminum. produced
       ~   Annual average TSP not to exceed 5.0      lb/ton of   aluminum-produced C
       ~   Visible emissions not to    exceed 10 percent    opacity.-

These emission, standards are applicable 180 days after completing potroom startu'p. Draft Environmental Assessment Dl-6 August 1998

DOE/EA-I259 U.S, Department of Energy A endix D2 Hodeling Protocol Hodeling Analysis of the Proposed Aluminum Reduction Smelter Project Boardman, Oregon Introduction A.private commercial aluminum company making a proposal to build an aluminum reduction smelter in Boardman, Oregon is a venture capitol firm specializing in,the development of facilities involved with the aluminum industry. They operate an aluminum recycling company in Portland and have other facilities in the U.S. involved with downstream processing of aluminum products. They are currently building a new aluminum smelter in Iceland and are proposing to build a similar facility in the U.S. Project Description The commercial aluminum company has identified a location in boardman, Oregon as a potential location for this new facility. The proposed facility will be a modem mini-mill utilizing efficiencies that should allow for aluminum production in a more cost effective manner than older, existing srelters. Permitting will be for 165,000 short tons per year of aluminum production, constructed in two phases. The initial phase will include the first 82,500 tons. The second phase to be included in the initial permit will add -another 82,500 tons and an. anode baking plant. Facility design and layout has not yet been completed and will be preliminary for the permitting phase of the .. project. Table D2-I shows the proposed annual 'emission rates for carbon monoxide (CO}, sulfur dioxide (SOz), total suspended particulate (TSP), and Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). All TSP will conservatively be assumed to be particulate matter less than 10 microns (PH,o). Emi.ssions of nitrogen oxides (HO) and volatile organic compounds (YOCs) are insignificant and not presented. Because the proposed facility has the potential to emit several criteria pollutants in amounts greater then the major source threshold as defined in federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, it is defined as.'. "major".'lso shown in Table D2-I are the applicable significant emis'sion rates (SERs). Potential emissions of CO, SO, particulate and fluoride are expected to be above state and federal significant emission rates. As such, a PSD review of these pollutants will be required. Draft Environmental Assessment 02-1 .August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix D2'able D2-1. Estimated Annual Emission Rates (tons per year). Pollutant Emission Rate Significant Emission Rate Co 10,445 100 SO 4,058 40 TSP/PH 518 Fluorides 105 VOC 40~ This modeling protocol summarizes the modeling methodology that will be used to evaluate the facility's air quality impacts for the proposed project. It has been prepared based on the Oregon Department of. Environmental Quality EQ) requirements defined in "Requirements for Ai'r Quality Modeling Submittals" (as revised January 1996), and the U.S. Environmental*Protection Agency (EPA) Guideline on Air quality Modeling (GAQH). 4 Source Description Stack Parameters and Emissions Subject Source The major pollutant sources at the proposed facility include four. potrooms, a paste plant, and an anode baking plant. r In the potrooms, the commercial aluminum company proposes to install two primary dry aluniina scrubber systems for collection of gaseous and particulate emissions. Potroom emissions that escape the scrubber systems are -emitted through roof vents. For modeling, a series of point sources will be used to represent the. roof vents. Two sources will be located along the roof line at the end of each potroom for a total of sixteen sources. Roof vent parameters were estimated using. k Sources of pollutants in the anode baking plant include the carbon bake furnaces and'he fume treatment stack on the carbon bake furnaces. . Parameters have not yet been developed for the carbon bake'furnace and paste plant. Available stack parameters are given in Table D2-2. Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998

DOE/EA-)259 U.S. Department of'ner y A endix D2 Table D2-2. tlodelin Parameters. Source Modeling Stack Diameter Velocity Temperature ID height (meters) (meters per 'K (meters} second Potline SSTACK 30.48 4.72 19.4 383 Scrubber 1 Potline NSTACK 30.48 4.72 19.4 383 Scrubber 2 Carbon Bake BAKE 30.48 2.16 20.5 358 

   'Scrubber Roof Yent 1. PL3         16.94        2.50        2.0           308
Roof Vent 2 PL4 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Vent 3 PL5 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Yent 4 PL6 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Yent 5 PL7 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Vent 6 PL8 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Vent 7 PL9 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Yent8 PL)0 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Vent 9 PL11 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Yent 10 PL)2 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Roof Yent 1) PL)3 16.94 2.50 2". 0 308 Roof Roof Roof Roof Yent 12 Yent 13 Yent 14 Vent 15 PL14 PL)5 PL)6 PL17 16:94
16. 94
                               .16.94 16.94 2'50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 308 308 308 308 0

Roof Vent 16 PL)8 16.94 2.50 2.0 308 Emi ssi ons Inherent in the activated alumina dry scrubber system are high efficiency. bag filters for particulate collection. In this type of scrubber, collected . fluorides and particulate are returned to the reduction cells and re-absorbed . in the salt bath or in the metal product. Gases that are not reabsorbed are. primarily water 'vapor, carbon dioxide, CO and 802. Trace combustible. hydrocarbon gases are collected by the alumina and returned to the cell, where they are oxidized at the high cell temperatures and destroyed. Emission rates of regulated pollutants are presented in Table D2-3. Draft Environmental Assessment D2-3 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D2 Table D2-3. Per Emission Unit g/s emission rate (Number of units in parenthesis . Compound Potroom Roof Vents Paste Baking (1) Furnaces stack (2 (16) plant (1) (1 CO 143.32 0.46 0.00 6.18 0.57 SO 55.28 0.18 0.00 3.47 0.00 TSP/PH 2.61 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.00 The final modeling analysis report will provide a map of the project vicinity, a scaled plot plan showing the Universal Transverse Mercator {UTH) coordinates, emission release locations, nearby buildings (including dimensions), property lines, fence lines, and roads. Cross-section diagrams showing the heights of each stack and nearby buildings will'e attached to the final reports U.S.. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic maps will be provided with the final modeling analysis report. This map will show the proposed site and all maximum impact locations predicted as a result of themodeling analysis. Nearby Sources If the pollutant-specific Significant Impact Level (SIL) is exceeded; additional modeling will be done to 'include nearby sources for comparison with 

                                                                                              ~      ~

the Ambient Air guality Standards {AAgS) and PSD increments. The modeling 

             ~       ~
                                                                               ~

analysis will include nearby sources whose area of significant impact overlap ~ with the proposed smelter's area of significant impact. Requests were made 'to Oregon DE( and Washington Department of Ecology for all nearby sources by 

 'county. Data has not yet been received from Ecology. Preliminary data from DE( is included as Attachment A at the end of this protocol. This data has not been compiled into a modeling format, nor has its contents been reviewed. Some of these sources will be excluded because of. their distance from the facility, their low emission rates, or both. Specific criteria for inclusion are as follows:
          ~    All permitted sources within five kilometers (km) with permitted ';,.'.

emissions of at least one ton per year {tpy) 

          ~    All permitted sources between five and fifteen km with permitted emissions greater than the DE/ pollutant-specific significant emission rate
          ~   All permitted    sources located between fifteen and           fifty km      with permitted emissions greater than 100 tpy.

Short-term emission rates for sources for which operating hours are available will be factored accordingly. The final modeling report will summarize emission rates and stack parameters. 

  ,for the nearby sources.

Draft Environmental Assessment D2-4 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 ~ U.S. Department of Energy Ap endix 02 Building Wake Down wash Parameters Buildings influence the downwind concentrations by lowering the plume heights the building wake region and enhancing the turbulent dispersion in both the 

                                                                                         'n wake and the reattachment regions of the buildings.

To calculate the effects 'and compute direction-specific building-downwash parameters, the mo'st recent version of the EPA BPIP program will be used. All ~ buildings have either flat roofs or roofs with a low pitch; therefore,'.the buildings will be modeled as simple blocks, not as multiple tiers. Buildings with low-pitched. roofs will be modeled using the highest point of the roof as the building height. The final report will include a floppy diskette containing the BPIP program input and output files. The-potline'buildings and two ore silos will be evaluated to determine their downwash influence. The potline structure consists of four separate,potlines, Because of their'proximity, they were conservatively combined in the downwash evaluation into one large building. Tables D2-4 and D2-5 summarize the dimensions of these structures. The commercial aluminum company provided the building dimensions to be used in the analysis. Table D2-4. Dimensions of Nearby Bui ldin s. ID Structure Length Width Height descri tion (m} m m Potline Baking Combined otline Carbon bake furnace 521 119 175 16.9 16.9 0 Table 02-5. Dimensions of Ore Silos. ID Structure Diameter Height descri tion m m Stank South Ore Silo 36.3 5.5 Ntank North Ore Silo 36.3 5.5 Hodel Selection The short-term, model, ISCST3, of the Industrial Source Complex ( ISC) Dispersion Hodel's, will be used in the air.quality modeling analysis to evaluate pollutant concen'trations. ISCST3 incorporates the COHPLEXl model algorithms for use in evaluating concentrations in complex and intermediate terrain. ISCS13 has been approved and successfully used for similar modeling applications. ISCST3, Version 97.33 is a Gaussian dispersion model that models dispersion over simple terrain (terrain elevations less than th'e lowest stack height), and complex terrain (terrain elevations above the lowest stack height). ISCST3 also calculates concentrations over intermediate terrain (terrain, elevations lower than the final plume rise height but higher than the stack height). Draft Environmental Assessment D2 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment 'of Ener y Ap endix D2 Although it was specifically developed to simulate the transport and diffusion of- emissions from aluminum reduction plants, the Buoyant Line and Point Source (13IlP) model was not selected for several reasons. BLP has not been updated since 1990 and may not be up-to-date. ISCST3 is better able to take into account the downwash requirements. It is a simpler. model to execute, and many of the nearby sources have already been modeled in the ISCST3 format. Unlike ISCST3, BLP cannot be used for complex terrain, so an additional model would 

  .be needed to evaluate impacts in complex terrain. Use of ISCST3 will yield more conservative results, because unlike BLP        it does not take into account the effects of plume merging.

Hodeling Options and Assumptions ISCST3 will be run with the following options, as recommended in the GARTH: 

         ~    Regulatory default options
         ~    10-meter anemometer height
         ~    Calm processing routine
         ~
           . Direction-specific building downwash
         ~    Actual receptor elevations     .
         ~    Complex/intermediate terrain algorithms.

ISCST3 will be run using I year of actual meteorological data described in the section titled "Heteorology." ISCST3 allows the selection of either rura1 or urban dispersi'on coefficients. Rural dispersion coefficients will be selected based on the methodology desc) ibed in the section titled "Urban vs. Rural Dispersion." Nearby sources that have similar stack parameters will be modeled'as a single stack following the guidelines described in Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air guality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised (EPA, 1992a). All sources will be simulated as point or .area sources. Receptors The air quali-ty impacts from the sources at the proposed, aluminum smelter facility will be evaluated using both boundary and grid receptors. The boundary receptors will be placed at 50-meter intervals along the entire property boundary and public access areas (such as roads) that intersect the boundary. The grid receptors will be placed on a 10-kilometer by 10-kilometer Cartesian coordinate .receptor grid centered on the facility. The modeling analysis will be performed in two stages: (I) a coarse grid ~ 

 'nalysis,      which will include the boundary receptors and the grid receptors spaced at 500-meter intervals (to locate areas of concern), and (2) a refined grid analysis, which will include grid receptors spaced at 100-meter intervals on a 1-kilometer by I-kilometer region encompassing the coarse-grid maximum impact receptor (to find the point of maximum ground-level impact).

Draft Environmental Assessment D2-6 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 ~ U.S. -=Department of Energy Appendix D2 For the AA(S and PSD analyses, only receptors identified as "significant" in the aluminum smelter- only coarse-grid analyses will be included in the modeling..("Significant" receptors are those with maximum modeled impacts exceeding the SIL for the given pollutant.) One-degree Digital Elevation Hodeling (DEH} maps fot the area will be used to estimate the terrain elevation for each receptor for the coarse grid modeling. If"available, 7.5 minute DEH data will be used to estimate terrain elevations for the fine grid modeling. Otherwise, receptor.elevations will be manually obtairi'ed from 7.5 minute U.S.G.S. maps. Concentrations from all sources will be evaluated at ground level (that i','no "flagpole" receptors). Urban vs. Rural Dispersion Auer's land-use classification (1978) was used to determine the dispersion mode for this analysis. Because more than SO percent of the, land use within the'odeling area around the facility is rural, the model will be run using the-rural dispersion coefficients for both flat and intermedi9te terrain. Heteorology 

 . The air quality dispersion modeling will be conducted using actual meteorological data collected near the proposed aluminum smelter facility location. Portland General Electric (PGE) collected these data from August 6, 1994, through August 5, 1995. Along with meteorological monitoring, ambient air quality monitoring was also performed; including particulate (TSP and Pl f~p}, CO, and SO<.      A moni tori ng pl an def ini ng the procedures used in operating    the    monitoring   program was submitted to DE( on June 23, 1994, and
 =

approved on Harch 16, 1995. Heteorological measurements were taken on a 64-meter tower (210 feet), approximately 2 miles west-northwest of the proposed aluminum smelter facility. The monitoring site is located approximately 900 feet south of the Columbia River at an elevation of approximately 270 feet. The area is in : relatively flat terrain, sloping gently upward to the'outh. An examination of the area and terrain indicates that the data collected for Coyote Springs *".'.. would be representative'of .conditions at the proposed aluminum smelter. lk Table D2-6 identifies the meteorological parameters monitored, the critical parameters to be used in the modeling analysis, and the annual data recovery for the .cri'tical parameters. The solar radiation/delta temperature (SRDT) method was used to,determine the stability class in this analysis. Draft Envirohmental Assessment D2-7 August =1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Energy. Ap endix D2 Table D2-6. Honitored Heteorolo ical Values. Instrument Heteorological Honitoring Parameter Level 2-meter Temperature, 2- to 10-meter delta temperature 99.5

  • 10-meter Temperature (99.5),* wind direction, wind speed,
  • si ma theta 64-meter Temperature, wind direction (99.4), wind speed (99.4) si ma theta Trailer roof Solar radiation (99.8 *
  • Critical parameters to be used in modeling analysis.

Symbol: ()= annual data recovery in percent An annual summary of the monitoring program was submitted by, the. monitoring contractor (Dames 5. Hoore) to DE( on January 16, 1996. This report identified the data recovery that is shown above for the critical parameters. The majority of missing data were related to maintenance and calibration activities or power failures. These missing periods typically involved all parameters; therefore, substitution of other monitoring parameters for data fill was not possible. A modeling analysis comple'ted in 1996 for POE used data collected at the 64-meter level from this site. Because of the low level sources Q the proposed aluminum smelter facility, this analysis will use the data collected at the 10-meter level. for both data sets forty-ei'ght hours of data were missing for the critical parameters needed for analysis. This corresponds to a capture rate of 99.5 percent Table D2-7 shows the missing data periods. Five hours of data were interpolated from valid data by the methods described in Procedures for Substituting Hissing NWS Heteorological Data 'for Use in Regulatory Air guality Hodels, by Dennis Atkinson .and Russell F. Lee (July 1992). Shaded hours in Table D2-7 are hours filled by linear 'interpolation. Draft Environmental Assessment D2-8 August 1998

tla ThOLR 7 Missin Mcteorolo ical Data Year Month Day Hour Solar I 2 10 meter 2 meter 10meter 64 meter 10 metcr 64 meter 10 mclcr 64 meter 10anelcr 64 meter SIgma Thela Itadtatton Oclta Temp Temp Temp Temp wind wind wind dlr wind dlr Sigma a ced a ecd Theta 94 8 29 13 I.ll 99t97 999.1 999.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 9997 999.7- 9992 94 8 29 14 1.08 99.97 '99.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 9993 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 94 8 29 15 0.93 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 94 8 29 16 0.71 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 9992 999.7 I 94 8 29 17 0.42 %37 213 26.9 263 999.7 9992 9997 999? 999.7 999,7 94 11 11 3 1 11 0.11 4I.OI 2.1 '.7 2.2 999.7 999.7 9997 ~ 9997 999.7 999.7 94 94 94 ll II II 17 17 lj 12 13 14 Ltl 033 GLIB 

                                        %39 99.97 3.4 45 999.7
                                                            .   '2   3.2.

9993 

                                                                                -'2.1 3.6 999.1 9n.j rn.j 999.7 9rhj 9993'997 999.7 999.7 em 9997 9997 rrn 9997 9997 9'19.7 999.7 999.7
                                                                                                                                                         =   9'n.7 999.7 999.7 il 94      11     I1   15       0.24      99.97      9992            999.7        999.7        999.7          999.1         9997          9997     999.7        999.7 94      11     I7   16      '0.05      99.97      9993            999.1        999.7        999.7          999.7         9997          9997     999.7        999.7  ~

94 ll 11 17 99.97 99.91 999.7 9993 9RU. 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 94 11 17 18 99,91 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 9993 9992 94 11 17 19 0.04 99.97 9993 9992 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 I h 

                           . Fo',~<                                       l~

O'J .".999;?'-.,'..999? t.,;. -'r..~lg a41~4'"I 9S 2 9 10 0.25 ~ 0.2 ~ 

                                                        ~

03 r4+aAJ~) <t 4.7 ~ 0.7 999 7 ~ 999 7 9%7 '997 999. 7 a 999.7 

                                                                                                                                                                       '>BI 0<>.~ I!:~

9S 2 9 11 0.47 ~ 035 0.8 03 0.4 999.7 999.7 9997 ~ 9997 999.7 999.1 95 2 9 12 0.66 ~ ORB 2.2 13 1.6 929.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 9992 9$ 2 9 13 0.69 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.7 ~ 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 9993 95 2 9 14 0.61 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.? 999.7, f39.7 9997 9997 999.7 9997 9$ 2 9 15 0.48 99.91 999.7 . 9993 9992 999.7 k0.7 9997 ~ 9997 9997 9997 9$ '2 9 16 0.29 99.91 999.7 '99.7 99M '99.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7, 999.7 9$ 2 9 17 0.09 99.91 999.7 999.? 9992 '997 999.? 9997 - 9997 999.7 9992 

      '          22    14      0.64       99.97     999.7           999.7        9992         9992           999.7         9997          9997     999.7        9992 9$

P

t/l CJ eD ThSUI 7 Missiit Metcorolo ical Data Year Month Day IIoue Solar L10 meter 2mcter 10mctee 44 meter 10mctee 64 meter 10 mctce dimeter 10metee 64 meter Sl pna Theta Radlatlon Della Temp Temp Temp Temp . wind wind wind dtt wind die Styna c eed speed , Theta 95 2 22 15 OS 5 99.97 999.7 999.7 9FA7 Fn.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 95 2 22 16 036 99.97 999.7 999.7 999.1 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 95 95 2 22 22 11 Id 0.13 0.02 234'99.7 FA97 99.97 9FA7 999.1 9992 9FA7 999.7 999.7 9FA7 999.7 9FA1 999.7 9997 9991 9997 9997 999.7 999.1 999.7 999.7 95 2 22 19 0 259 d.i 11 13.1 999.7 999.7 9991 '991 999.7 999.7 9S 2 22 20 0 6.7 9 12.4 999.7 999.7 9997 9997 999.7 999.7 95 5 12 21 Fn.v Fn.v ~ Fn.v Fn.v Fn.v rrn v'rn VFAV VV'AV 95 5 12 n.vv vrhv rn.v 9'n.v Frn em VFAV FrAV Cv 95 5 12 'n.FJ Vvv.v FrAV vrAV 'rrAV vrAV Frry 9'rrl Fn.v VFA9 95 5 12 24 99.99 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 9FA9 9999 9999 999.9 999.9 t 95 5 13 I 9989 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 9999 9999 999.9 999.9 C) 95 5 13 2 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 9999 9999 999.9 999.9 95 6 15 10 99.97 999.7 999.7 9992 999.7. 9992 9997 9997 9992 999.7 95 6 15 11 99ZI 9992 9992 999.7 999.7 9992 9997 9997 9992 999.7 95 6 15 12 99.97 9992 9992 9992 999.7 9992 9997 - 9997 9992 9992 95 6 15 13 99.97 9992 999.7 9992 999.7 9992 9997 ~ 9997 9992 999 95 6 15 I{ 99.97'9.97. 999.7 9992 9997 999.7 9992 9997 = 9997 9992 j'992 95 6 15 IS 999.7 9992 999.7 - 9992 999.7 9997 9997 999.1 999.7 c f 

                                                                                        ~

j ee3 C'/l co LD CO

DOE/EA-]259 U.S. Oe artment of Ener y ~ :' endix 02 For the PGE analysis,, a series of data fill operations was performed to fill the remaining 43 hours of missing data, in response to a request by DE(. Thirty-four of these hours required a substitution of stability class data. The substitution involved the Turner 1964 method described in On-site Heteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Hodeling Applications, Section 4.4. 1 (EPA-450/4-87-013, June 1987, revised August 1995). Pendleton, Oregon, airport surface observation data (including cloud cover and ceiling height) were used in 'this stability calculation method, and provided and approved by DEg staff. The Pendleton data were also used to fill other missing data. I Hissing mixing heights were filled by use of Spokane, Washington, seasonal average mixing heights from Hixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, by George Holzworth (January 1972). The missing hours and the in Table 02-8. fill values are i'dentified Table D2-8. Filled Hixin Hei ht Values. Day, Horning Height (m)* Afternoo'n Height (m)* January 1 523 April 23 401 1943 June 21 40 1943-June 22 401 1943 December 9 266 NA December 13 266 1362 December 23 266 1362 December 28 HA 1362 

 *  "HA" indicates   no  fi11 was  necessary.

i'I Table 02-9 identifies the final data values used to fill the 43 hours of missing data. Draft Environmental Assessment 02-11 August,1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Ap endix D2 Tabl e D2-9. Final Filled Heteorolo ical Data. Year Month Day Hour Ambient Wind Wind flow Wind Stabil i ty temp ('F) direction victor speed class (degrees) (degrees) (mph) (number) 94 29 13 75 270 90 10.4 94 94 29 14 15 77 77, 280 280 100 100 

                                                       '0.4,   11.5 3

3 8, 29 78 270, 90 11.5 17 77 290 110 11.5 11 17 33 320 140 5.8 94 11 17 12 34 310 130 4.6 NA 11 17 13 330 150 8.1 94 17 33 317 137 7.6 11 17 33 304 124 7.2 4 17 16 32 290 110 6.9

17. 17 32 300 120 5.8 ll 17 18 33 310 130 5.9 11 17 19 33 310 130 5.9 95 10 40 140 320 6.9 150 330 6.9 95 12 . 140 320 5,8 13 360 180 4.0 14 260 80 8.1 3 55 260 80 92 16 53 310 130 5.6 17 49 350 150 3.5 14 350 170 5.8 95 59 300 120 4.6 22 16 58 330 150 4.'

Draft Environmental Assessment D2-12 August 1998

m~wM m%158 i%~ME% ~ ~ s I ~ 

          ~
            ~

55 ERA ~ g ~ ~ 

                       ~ I ERA m%%55'~m5%                      mm mm 1~15%"

m~mER ~ I mMRM m~1~" 1% mm m~mER IR~m5% ~ I mMMM" ~ I mMMRR" IRK IRMNHR RE& RR~WRH. 

 ~ ~
                       ~

I SEW y 

             ~   ~   ~
               ~   ~
                                   ~ ~ ~

II I. ~ I ' ~ s I r irii~i~ 

                         ~  ~ ~

e I

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y Ap endix D2 

  'Background Pollutant Concentrations The PSD  regulations require the use of background ambient air quality data for comparison against AAgS. Ambient air quality was monitored near Coyote Springs by PGE from August 6, 1994, to August 5, 1995. This monitoring included the collection of 24-hour average particulate data (TSP and PH>>), CO, and SO<.

These data will be used as background values in the AA(S modeling. A 

  .comprehensive monitoring plan that included operations of the meteorological station and the particulate monitoring station was submitted to DE( on June 23, 1994, and approved on Harch 16, 1995.

Particulate The particulate monitoring was performed with a continuous PH>> monitor (Beta Gauge) and a manual high-vol.ume sampler for TSP. For both parameters, collocated manual samplers were included in the monitoring program. At the conclusion of the program, the annual data recoveries were 97 percent for TSP and 100 percent for PH>>. In total, 11 days of TSP background data were missing, as shown Table D2-10, and no PH>> background data were missing. Ho adjustments or replacements were made for the missing TSP data. Table D2-10. Dates of Hissing TSP Data. September 6, 1994 Hay 26, 1995 September  ?, 1994 June 3, 1995 Harch 4, 1995 June 7, 1995 Hay 12, 1995 August 2, 1995 Hay 13, 1995 August 5, 1995 Hay 22, 1995 During the particulate monitoring, two exceedances of the Oregon TSP AAgS of 150 pg/m were identified. These exceedances were 195 pg/m; measured on September 21, l994, and 169 pg/m, measured on October Il, 1994. After g. further investigation, it was noted that one of these exceedances and two other 24-hour particulate measurements in October might have been affected by temporary truck hauling and agricultural operations near the monitor. Therefore, PGE asked for and received approval from DE/ on December 21, 1995, to discount three measurements, which are shown in Table D2-11. ". Draft Environmental Assessment- ~ -. - August -1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. 'De artment of Energy Appendix D2 Table D2-11. Discounted Honitoring Values. Date Actual measurement Resultant discounted {pg/m ) value (pg/m ) October 5, 1994 133 103 OO October 6, 1994 140 VV October 11, 1994 169 114 Sulfur Dioxide Ambient concentrations of SO< were recorded on a continuous basis at the PGE monitoring site. This data had a data recovery rate of 93.2 percent. Carbon Honoxide Ho onsite ambient monitoring data is available to serve as a background for the CO AAgS modeling. Ambient CO concentrations in rural areas away. from large man-made sources are generally very low (< 1.0 parts per miltion [ppm]). Studies have placed typical clean CO backgrounds at 70 to 80 parts per billion (ppb) (Seifer, et al., as referenced by Parish et al., 1991). The proposed aluminum smelter facility is well away from any large city, and over a .mile from Interstate 84. Given these factors, for the (AAiIS analysis,.a conservative CO background of 2.0 ppm (2,240 pg/m ) will be used as background for both the l-hour and 8-hour averaging times. {Ashgrove Cement PSD Application, 1996). PSD regulations allow an exemption from pre-construction monitoring concentrations in the area that the source would impact are less than the if CO significant monitoring concentrati'ons. 'Based on modeling completed for PGE Coyote Springs in 1993 (Air Contaminant Discharge Permit. Application for. the Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project, Chester Environmental, September 12, 1993), the highest 8-hour modeled concentrations from Coyote Springs, the largest nearby source, were predicted to be 32 pg/m . (As mentioned above, the proposed aluminum smelter facility is well away from any large city, and over a mile from Lnterstate 84.) Because the modeled Coyote Springs impact is significantly less than the CO 8-hour significant monitoring concentrationi'of 575 pg/m, it is anticipated that impacts from all existing 'sources will be less than the, significant monitoring concentration and therefore pre-construction monitoring will not be required. Hydrogen Fluoride No othe'ources of HF exist in the area, therefore the HF background value is expected to be zero. As such, it is anticipated that impacts from all existing sources will be less than the HF 24-hour significant monitoring concentration of 0.25 Pg/m and therefore preconstruction monitoring will not be required. Background values are summarized in Table D2-12. Draft Environmental Assessment D2-16 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 ,. U.S. Department of Ener y A endix D2 Table D2-12. Background Pollutant Concentrations. Pollutant Averaging Background Source period concentration (pg/m ) TSP Annual 25 D'ames 5. Hoore "Ambient Air 24-hour* '31 quality and Heteorology Annual Data Summary, Report 8/6/94-8/5/95 for PGE Annual 20 (same) 24-hour* 81 SOa Annual 3 (same) 24-hour 26 3-hour 55 CO 8-hour 2 ppm DEQ 1-hour 3 ppm 

  "  Highest second high.

L 

      ~ 'I '

Ambient Air Quality Standard Evaluation, Concentrations of CO, SO<, and TSP/PH,o will be compared with the appropriate SH.z (evaluation of HF is discussed below). The Oregon SILs will be Used for 

  =i"eceptors in Oregon, and the Washington SILs will be used for receptors in Washington. for those pollutants with modeled concentrations greater. than the

'ILs, an additional analysis identified maximum concentrations, which include contributions from nearby sources and background pollutant concentrations, for results comparison with the AAQS. f Becau'se HF is emitted in a quantity greater than the federal SER, modeling of HF emissions will be completed. Oregon has no specific program for evaluation of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Dispersion modeling 'will.be presented in the application. PSD Increment Analysis For the modeled impacts greater than the SIL, an additional analysis'will be performed to determine the PSD increment consumption. The Oregon SILs will be used for receptors in Oregon, and the Washington SILs will be used for. receptors in Washington. The analysis will include contributions from other major increment-consuming sources for comparison with the available PSD increment. These sources will be determined by consulting with DEQ and DOE and its local agency representatives. From -the PGE Coyote Springs analysis the following are known to be, baseline sources,and will not be modeled in the increment consumption analysis: 

             ~   Pendleton Grain Growers, Umatilla and Hermiston, Oregon
             ~   J,R. Simplot Feedlot, Wallula, Washington Draft Environmental Assessment                   D2-17                              August-1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Appendix D2 I 

        ~   Lamb Weston, Hermiston, Oregon.

Additional baseline sources will likely be identified in the final modeling analysis. Air guality Related Values The EPA's PSD guidelines require an analysis of impacts on air-quality-related values (A(RVs) in Class I areas and an analysis of vegetation, soil, and visibility impacts in Class II areas (18 AAC 50.310 [dj[4]). This section presents the proposed approach for analyzing additional Class I'area and Class II area impacts resulting from the proposed aluminum smelter near Boardman, Oregon. Class I Area Analysis Under the current PSD guidelines, applicants for a permit must the PSD source will not cause or contribute to adverse impacts;on AORVs demonstrate'that in any Class I area. The following sections describe the pollutants, Class I areas, and AORVs to be evaluated, as well as-the specific anNysis procedures, inputs, and assumptions that will be employed. Pollutants to be Evaluated The proposed aluminum smelter is expected to emit approximately 105 tons of fluorides per year {primarily as HF), 518 tons of particulate matter per year {primarily as PH), 4,058 tons of SOz per year, 10,445 tons of. CO per year, and 149 tons of carbon dioxide (COz) per year. The proposed smelter will produce zero emissions of NO; The AgRV impact assessment will include an evaluation of'F, Ptl,o, and SO< impacts only. CO will not be evaluated because it is currently not a PSD-.regulated po/lutant. CO will also not be evaluated because it is chemically inert and has no direct visibility'mpairing effects. Horeover, CO is not toxic to vegetation at the concentrations typically encountered in even highly polluted atmospheres. The human health standards for CO are expected to provide ample protection of A(RYs from CO concentrations in near by Class I areas. IW I Ozone a secondary pollutant formed fr'om photochemical oxidation of NOx and nonmethane hydrocarbon in the atmosphere will not be evaluated because the proposed aluminum smelter is expected to produce negligible quantities of ozone precursors. Class I Areas to be Evaluated The PSD guidelines do not specify a maximum source-receptor distance for which the requirement to demonstrate that the proposed sources will "...not cause or contribute to adverse impact..." applies. In the absence of more definitive guidance, many st ates have adopted a default distance criterion of 100 e kilometers. Draft Environmental Assessment D2"18 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A endix D2 Because of the expected magnitude of the proposed aluminum smelter more than 4,000 tons per year of S02), the AgRY impact assessment will source'i.e., be extended to include "all Class I areas located within 200 kilometers (km) of the proposed source. This is consistent with the rationale described in the EPA's "20D Rule", which is used to evaluate the significance of sources for inclusion in an .air. quality analysis [Federal ,Register, Yol. 56, No. 186, September 25, 1991, pg. 48473 By the "20D Rule", a 4,000-ton-per-year source would be considered "significant" at a distance of 200 km between the source

and the affected Class I area. Seven Class I areas and one high-priority Class II area are located within a 200-km radius of the proposed source: 

       ~   Columbia River, Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA; Oregon): 95 km west of the source (although not .a Class I area, the CRGNSA has been given a high priority for visibility protection by the States 'of Oregon and Washington)

Ht. Hood Wilderness (Oregon): 153 km west of the source Eagle Cap Wilderness (Oregon): 165 km east-southeast of the source Strawberry Hountain Wilderness (Oregon): 177 km south-southeast of the source Mt. Adams Wilderness (Washington):'36 km west-northwest of the-source Goat Rocks'ilderness (Washington): 145 km northwest of the source Ht. Rainier National Park (Washington): 171 km northwest of the source 

       ~   Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Washington):    193 km   north-northwest of the source.

Two other Class I areas are located just outside the 200-km limit: Hells Canyon Wilderness, located 242 km east-southeast of the source; and Ht. Jefferson Wilderness, located 205 km southwest of the source. - p Draft Environmental Assessment D2-19. August.1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix D2 Air Quality Related Values to be Evaluated The USDA Forest Service and National Park Service has identified the following standard AQRVs, which will be evaluated in all of the affected areas listed above: 

        ~    Visibility: measures               the direct impacts of   air pollutants  on plume visibility and              regional haze                                     I
        ~    Vegetation: measures the direct impacts of air. pollutants                 on   sensitive
           'egetation
        ~    Soil: measures the indirect effects of air pollutants                 on  sensitive vegetation via the soil pathway.

In addition, water quality has been identified as a sensitive receptor in al] of the affected areas except the Strawberry Hountain Wilderness,and the " CRGHSA. The water quality assessment is designed to measure the indirect impacts of air pollutants through chemical transformation and deposition of secondary aerosols onto sensitive lakes and streams. The Forest Service and HatiOnal Park Service have identified several other AQRVs in each of the affected areas, such as fauna, archaeologic~1 resources, and odor. Mowever, these AQRVs will not be directly assessed because,,the four AQRVs that were selected are expected to provide a very conservative measure of the potential air quality impacts resulting from .the, proposed project. SO> injury to sensitive- lichen species, for example, may occur at air concentrations is low as 5 ppb ()3 pg/m, 3-hour averaging period). It is unlikely that any other AQRVs will be affected at 'air concentrations less than 5 ppb Assessment Procedures 

                               'he approach used to assess each AQRV is described in the following sections.

The model and modeling assumptions used to predict the project-related incremental air conc'entrations and deposition rates have not been decided at the time of this writing. A supplementation modeling protocol will be submitted later following agreement on the modeling approach by the Oregon,4EQ and USDA Forest Service. Vegetation The vegetation component is designed to account for direct air pollution" impacts on both vascular and nonvascular plants. The vegetation impact section will present an analysis of direct effects of ga'seous SOz"and HF impacts on vegetation, and will include the following discuss'ion elements: 

      ~     Species  sensitivity, including                a short listing of species found in the affected Class              I'reas
      ~     Hechanisms   of effect'raft Environmental Assessment                       D2-20                            August 1998

                                                                                                             .DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department       of Ener y                                                                         Appendix       D2
             ~    Pollutant injury thresholds
             ~    Expected acute and chronic impacts.

The descriptions of species sensitivity to SO< and HF,. and their respective mechanisms of effect, will be summarized from the scientific literature. The USDA Forest Service's Guidelines for Evaluating Air Pollution Impacts on Class I wilderness Areas in the Pacific I(orthwest will provide the pollutant injury threshold for SO . The HF injury threshold will be taken from the published scientific literature. Finally, the expected impacts on vegetation will be evaluated by adding the background air concentration in each Class I area to the mo'del-predicted incremental air concentration. The background. air concentration of HF will be assumed to be zero in all affected areas. The background SO<.concentration will be deduced by back-calculating the air concentration from the sulfur deposition rates measured at the n'earest National Acid Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring site. NADP monitoring sites are located in the Bull Run Watershed east of Portland; at the Starkey Experimental Forest south of Pendleton; and on Snoqualmie Pass north of Vancouver. The calculation will. assume a wet-to-dry partitioning coefficient of 0.50, and a dry deposition velocity for SO< of 0.05 meters~er second '5 centimeters per second). Soil The:soil component is designed to account for indirect,air'ollution impacts on sensitive vegetation via the soil pathway. The pollutant of concern is sulfur. The soil section will include the following discussion elements: 

           ~     Species sensitivity to deposited sulfur, including    a shor                 t listing                 of species found in the affected Class I areas,
           ~     Mechanisms  of effect
           ~     Pollutant injury thresholds
           ~     Expected impacts.

l. descriptions of species sensitivity to deposited sulfur, 

                                                                                                                          ~

The and mechanisms of effect, will be summarized from the scientific -' their.'respective literature. The USDA Forest Service's Guidelines for Evaluating Air Pollution Impacts on Class I wilderness'Areas in the Pacific northwest will provide the pollutant injury threshold for sulfur. Finally, the expected. impacts on vegetation will be evaluated by adding the background sulfur deposition rate in each Class I area to the model-predicted incremental sulfur deposition'ate. The background sulfur deposition rates will be obtained from data collected at nearby NADP monitoring sites. NADP monitoring sites are located in the Bull Run Watershed east of Portland; at the Starkey Experimental Forest south of Pendleton; and on Snoqualmie Pass north of Vancouver. 

,=,

ll y Draft Environmental Assessment D2-21'ugust 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y A endix D2 The project-related incremental sulfur deposition rates in the affected Class I areas will be estimated by applying a dry deposition .velocity to the computed annual-average SOz concentration in each area. The equation that will be used is: 

                  ,XvfÃx h 0Jamf
                                 'gogat Dged/gtcwwed P

where D, is the total deposition rate (in units of kilograms/hectare-year), 

 ?  is the Project-related'annual-average SOz concentration (in units of gr'ams/meter ), ? is the dry deposition velocity {in,units of meter/second), t represents the number of seconds per year, M is the mole fraction of elemental nitrogen '(N) in NOz (dimensionless), x is a constant to ensure unit balance (10 kilograms-meter /grams-hectare), p is the dry-to-Met deposition partitioning coefficient (dimensionless), and D~z,,~ represents the total background sulfur deposition rate in each area (in                    kilograms/hectare-year).'he dry deposition-to-wet deposition partitioning coefficient is needed to estimate total sulfur deposition from both wet an dry.deposition when only one is measured.                                                                                                   \

The model-predicted annual-average SOz concentrations in the affected Class will be obtained from the model>ng analysis. According to Taylor et al. I'reas (1987), the dry deposition velocities for SO range from 0.002 meters/second to 0.03 meters/second. For tha pur'poses of tfiis analysis, a median deposition velocity of 0.016 meters/second for Spa wi'll be used. The analysis will also assume'a wet-to-dry deposition partitioning coefficient of 0.50 for .sulfur 

'(Scruggs, 1995) that is, 50% of the total deposition of sulfur compounds is via dry deposition and 50% is via wet deposition.

Visibility Plume Yisual Impairment ',For visibility, a level 1. (and if needed, a level 2) plume visibility analysis will be performed in accordance with the EPA's hforkbook.for Plume Impacts. Screening and Analysis. Following the workbook, the YISCREEN ..t'isual model will be used. The following assumptions will be. used: 

       ~

SOz will be converted to primary sulfate using an S02-to-sulfate oxsdation rate of 6 percent per hour. This amount will be entered into the model as primary sulfate. The peak hourly partic'ulate matter'and S02 emission rates will be used in the model. 

       ~   A  single observer Mill             be    located in each affected area along the boundary closest to the proposed source.

Draft Environmental Assessment . D2-22 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y A endix D2 

       ~   Only views oriented "inside" the Class I areas will be used.. Outside views will be ignored; i.e., views whose paths crosses 'the plume centerline at downwind distances that are less than the minimum distance to the Class I area.

Default values for background ozone concentrations and particle distributions will be used Background visual ranges (BVR) will be obtained from the federal land managers. For all Class I areas, the 90'" percentile BVR will be used 

         ~

in the model. In situations where the BVR is estimated from camera data, the 80'" percentile values will be used instead of the 90'." percentile in order to compensate for .the "clean bias" associated with the use of'lide densitometric measurements of visual range. The'equential hourly meteorological data required for the level 2 analysis will be taken from an historical data set collected at the 64-meter height on a tower operated by PGE near the Coyote Springs power generation facility in Boardman, Oregon. The EPA's Class I screening criteria will be used to evaluate the YISCREEN results: contrast parameter (%) of 0.05, and a color difference parameter (DE) of 2. The VISCREEH model does compensate for plume perceptibility differences that occur when the plume angle subtended by the viewer is less than 0. 1 degree or more than . 5 degrees. C Regional 'Haze 4 A regional haze analysis will be performed following the methods outlined in the interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Hodeling (IWAQH)'s Phase I Report: Interim Recommendation for Hodeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility [EPA-454/R-93-015]. Although IWAQH is expected to.publish its Phase II recommendations soon, 'they have not yet done so and the Phase' document is still the most current in terms of describing the recommended methods for addressing regional haze impacts. The regional haze modeling analysis will be based on the following inputs ahd assumptions: 

     ~    Concentrations based on the       maximum    24-hour average particulate matter and S02 emission, rates.
     ~    S02-to-sulfate oxidation rate of        6   percent per hour.
     ~   Holar conversion ratio of       S02  to  ammonium    sulfate of 2.0625.
     ~    Relative humidity obtained from nearby monitoring 'station. If not available, RH of 95 percent will be used per IWAQH Phase I report, page B-3.

Draft Environmental Assessment D2-23 August'998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S.r De artment of Ener y - A endix D2 

     ~    Average  daily  windspeed computed for the day producing the highest 24-hour average concentration in each of the affected Class I areas.
     ~    90'" percentile   BVR obtained from the federal. land managers (80'" percentile   is obtained from camera sites)
     ~    Haziness   (i.e.,  deciview) index'omputed for each Class I area,,with the results compared to a threshold deciview change of 0.5 for a 24-hour period.

Water quality 

     ~    A  quality analysis will be performed in each of the affected Class I areas where the predicted     sulfur deposition rate exceeds a threshold deposition rate of 5 kilograms per hectare per year. The water quality impact analysis,    if performed,   would include the  following steps:'

Calculation of annual average SO< air concentration in each of the affected areas.- 

     ~    Conversion ot SO to ammonium sulfate (aerosol) using .an .oxidation rate of 6 percent per hour and a conversion ratio of 2.0626 moles sulfate generated per mole of SOa.                              .of'mmonium
     ~    Background cloudwater chemistry obtained from Dean Hegge, University.

of Washington, Seattle. 

     ~    Scavenging   of ammonium   sulfate aerosols by cloudwater using the conventional scavenging equations, and subsequent deposition of rainwater with pH determined by dissociating the ammonium sulfate in an aqueous solution.
     ~    Listing of sensitive lakes in each affected Class I area. Sensitive lakes are defined's those with an acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) of less than 50 microequivalents per liter.
     ~    Evaluation of the underlying bedrock geology in each Class I area,                    and potential for adverse impacts on water'uality caused by either a              ;,

pulse input'f rainwater or sn'owmelt runoff at the specified pH. Class 11 Analysis To date, no standards or guidelines have been established for addressing vegetation, soil, and visibility impacts in Class II areas. The .Class I criteria were developed to provide maximum protection of sensitive Class I receptors, and are therefore too stringent for use in Class II areas. For, these reasons, the air quality impacts in Class II areas will be assessed on the basis of the secondary (welfare-based) NAAgS for Pl<,0 and SOa. Draft. Environmental Assessment D2-24 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. De artment of Ener y 'ppendix D2 Presentation of Results The Air Quality Modeling Analysis section of the PSO application will document all aspects of the air quality'mpact analyses, including all elements requested in the Requirements for Air Quality Hodeling Submittals. These include the following: 

       ~   A  table summarizing emission rates    used  in the modeling analysis for all pertinent   averaging periods.
       ~   A  table summarizing source parameters (such     as stack height, stack exit diameter, stack exit velocity,     and stack exit temperature). "

A plot plan (provided by the commercial aluminum company) that includes UTMs showing emission release locations, nearby buildings (including dimensions), directions of cross Sections, property lines, fence lines, and roads. The plot plan will include cross-section diagrams to verify the heights of .stacks and buildings. 

      ~    Topographic maps showing contour lines, source and receptor locations, and maximum impact locations; The topographic map showing the maximum impact location will be the same scale as a 7.5.-minute quadrangle map (1:24,000).
                                          '~.
      ~    A  table summarizing the latest modqling results, including receptor number, receptor coordinates, pollutant concentration,'.and ambient      air quality standards and the modeling. results for these pollutants of interest.
      ~  , A  floppy diskette containing the   ISCST3  input  and output files.
      ~    DEQ's  Checklist for Air Quality Modeling Submittals.

References Auer, A.H. Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Heteorological Anomalies; Journal of Applied Meteorology. 1978. U.S. EPA, 1986. Guideline on Air quality Hodels (Revised). Includes Supplements A (1987), B (1993), and C'. (1995). EPA-450/2-78-027R. Office. of Air and Radiation 'and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. EPA, 1994. Dra. R User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (1SC3) Oispersion Models (Revised). EPA-454/B-95-003a. Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. EPA, 1992a. Screening Procedures for Estimating t'e Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources (Revised). EPA-454/R-92-019. Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Draft Environmental Assessment D2-25 August 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Appendix D3 APPENDIX D3 PNNL'S ESTINATION OF AIR QUALITY INPACTS USING INDUSTRIAL CONPLEX NODEL JUNE 1998 r f ~ I * ' r re Draft Environmental Assessment 'ugust 1998

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D3 PNNL'S ESTIHATING AIR EQUALITY IHPACTS USING THE INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COHPLEX HODEL JUNE 1998 Atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted for the proposed Aluminum Smelter site using the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model. The ISC model is a Gaussian plume model that offers a wide vary of options for configuring release characteristics and computing pollutant concentration and deposition values for a wide range of averaging periods (US EPA 1995). In our assessment, the ISC model is run for a generic pollutant with a unit release rate. Because of the lack of site specific data on the design of the proposed facility and emission characteristics, a number of simplifying assumptions were mad'e about the facility and associated dispersion conditions. These assumption include: 

       ~ A  single stack release represents   all facility emissions
       ~ Effective release height of 40 m for all pollutant em]ssions-assumes a 40-m tall stack with no momentum or buoyant plume rise,    no stack-tip downwash, and no building wake effects.

P No dry deposition (includes no gravitation settling of particulates) r 

       ~ No  wet deposition/depletion
     ural    conditions  assumed in modeling dispersion
       ~ Flat terrain.

Using hourly meteorological data for 1995, 1996, and 1997, estimates are obtained for annual average impacts and the maximum impacts for short-duration periods (e.g., 1 hour, 3 hours, 24 hours) over the course of each year. The greatest air quality. impacts occurred using meteorology from 1997. Heteorological data were obtained from the monitoring station operated by the Hanford Heteorology Honitoring Network near the Supply System's MNP-2 facility. The-monitoring station measures wind direction and speed at 10 m" above ground level. Atmospheric temperature, pressure, and. other parameters are also monitored at this station. Other meteorological parameters (such as atmospheric stability and winds aloft) are available from the nearby 60 m monitoring tower at the Fast Flux Test Facility and the )20-m tower at the Hanford Heteorology Station. Honitoring is also conducted at 27 other monitoring locations within and near the Hanford Site (PNNL-11754). Heteorological data from 1997 indicate that winds at the proposed smelter location have a strong eastward component (blowing towards the Columbia River) about 15% of the time. Minds have a strong component towards the south (blowing in the direction of the Tri-Cities} about 25% of the time. Winds blow towards the north about 30% of the time (at a'distance of about 10-km, the Columbia River passes directly north of the proposed smelter site). Draft Environmental Assessment D3-1 August 1998

ll ~ ~ I I ~ I ' s ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I 0 

                                ~ ~                                      ~
                                                                           -   I
            ~ ~   ~               ~ ~
                        ~    ~            ~
   ~
      . I       ~   ~    ~                                     ~ ~
                                                                           ~
                                            ~       ~     ~        ~   ~     ~

I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

                                                                                 ~
                                                                                   ~
   ~
          ~
     ~~~~~~~~RS%$
     ~LSIRSRRSSSIERSIRPREIRRRISIR5%L'g
     ~RRIRKRS4liEISSRW'RISIRISSSR'iSIRRSRQRPRSIIWSQS
     ~ROARS                RSS45E%4SIRSRRHSRRSEKSEHRCRSSKCi@tkiRCES
     ~&5@RRSSISRSSSIRKIRRR'ECSR RRURCI54IKNRIR'ISE
     ~R'iSSI'iWEIQEE4RRSSSIRCSSIRR'HHRmSSRSSSIRSWR
     ~RSSRSESSIKSSSIRSSISEERSISiKSSRSSRIKKRSMSSH
     ~RKSSRSRSRRRIE5$ 55RESREISSII~iSm~RKI~SSI
                                                  ~
                                                        ~

I . I~ RRMil~~%IWI~~RSWil 

     ~EIKRE'S.                   5RLSR55%imIISIRPhikQEiRQR~PSIKhl
     ~ERRIEiSSIiEISSIIESSSIESRCQERRIEStkRIEIISERSSSI
     ~ESSSIEIRKSIKSISI'iKSSRERS)~kk1IRSiEIESRQRRIR
     ~ERIREISIISRSSR EARSRRQSESSSIESiCSER@lIRSRka
     ~ESRiQEISSIIERRIMK15ESRiQKCSRMSRllSSIRIRKEIN
     ~ERRI~ISSIESSRRKIR&55RIESIC4IEEIRIESSSIRSSR
     ~ERIREIESIEESSEKSEERERRFRIER!RRRIESISS

~~M~HR~~W'S~W'l ~Ã555IRREISmERIWK5%55RIR5I5EISR5IKRRQRI5EI) ~r555IR5R5IWa55IWI555WRI55W55mIWW5EW5EWamEE5 ~W5EWR55E5mk55WIRWW5E55%55kiiW5RRW5RRRRW 

              %4RXQKCRQ%5iRQ%5KQ~KQ~RQR5@Qk mammummaummmunrauammmmum

~WWQM55NWR55%KWK5E55WWRIWRE5EW5E5@R55iR ~mmlRI~~NWEIIIS~SK~KRHRIKlmiKRHI E ~ ~ ~ 1 . - )e ~WIHI~~~~~KRl%1 ~WWE5RRIREIWW5Im5E55WIEQ5~RRtlWRilE5W555IW5EE5 ~mE5WRWRMR5IW5ERilWRRE5W5EW%555EW5'E5'5mR5I ~%&5EIK5'IEE58lWE5ERE55WWRMEER1~5'E'5W5EERlm55R ~WI5R5RWC5RIW5IW5EWM5WW5QE5W5E55WKRitRSR5 ~WI5R15W55RW55WI5EI5m5Iam5E5WWmaaamr5RR ~WE5RER5R5%55E3lm5EWRRRSWERRINW5W5IRllmE55 ~W5WERR55%5E'55%55@lKSIWKCIWW5255W5RE5WW5 ~WW5IRRUE5W55E5mRZWWIREEIWRIWWRI5IWRIRRKRI55 SR~MRWWS~~~~M ~%5ES5%5WWWE5RICEWHI5WRE5EWRW55W5RRRKE55 ~%5E51R5i5RRE5I55%5E5EIW55E5W5WilWERWWRIE5IKRSR ~W5RWR55RRRRRRi5RRRI5KC5RE5i@iSRRIW5W5E55R55RI ~WWQIRRE5IRWE5I%5EE5IW5'E!NIW5'5@W5REEIW5I5EIRR55 ~mEEE5aa5IE5RI5E@ua5@5ia5mRW55RWEE5W5RE5R55W ~WIKQIR5WIR5EE55%5RRW5'EWW5ERlm54@lWE5RIWI5IR ~%55EURRE5IRIRWIRI5E5RHWRIRE5R5IRiREWNW55WIIWI ~RWR55RRR~WEWmuaWauRWRWW5R5EW5ER5maW 

                                         ~
                                           ~

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of Ener y Appendix D3 Maximum 1-Hour Concentrations Distance Downwind (m) 100 500 1000 '2000 3000 4000 5000 10000 20000 Transport sectOr 13.91132 81.5604'l 66.95666 C8.66806 42.75689 37 '4545 32.24324 17.46549 8.45686 NE 12.89664 59.3981 29.42247 14.23803 8.03825 5.23686 3.75212 1.46093 0.67045 10.22997 55.41378 66.95666 48 '5806 42.75687 37.34544 32.24323 17.46549 8.45686 SE 12 89664 60,99804 29,42261 14.23811 8.0383 5.2369 3.75212 1.97455 0.96914 13.91132 83.75734 66.95666 41.7896 C2.75689 37.34545 32.24324 17.46549 8.45686 12.89665 60.99812 29.4225C 14.23807 8.03828 5.23688 3.75213 1.46093 0.6225 13.91132 81.56041 60.83412 41.7896 42.75689 37.345C5 32.24324 17.46549 8.45686 12.89665 59.39801 29.42266 14.23814 8.03831 5.23691 3.86173 1.92276 0.94372 Another set of ISC model runs was conducted to focus at 100-m increments between 100 m and 1 km from the release location. The largest impacts generally occur at about 200 m from the release location. These impacts may be several times those at 500m, but for purposes of this assessment, the fenceline of the proposed facility is assumed to be 500 m from the release location. To determine the maximum pollutant emission rate that would not produce a ground-level pollutant concentration that should exceed ambient air quality standards or prevention of significant deterioration limits, we divide the regulatory limit by the maximum value reported for the appropriate time period in Table D3-1. These results are presented in TablEs D3-2. Assuming the proposed facility operates around-the-clock throughout the year at this maximum permissible emission rate, we also estimate the maximum permissible annual emissions for each pollutant. Depending on where the facility fenceline is finally positioned and actual emissions pollutant emission, parameters (e.g., the number and height of emission stacks and roof vents, building dimensions, effluent temperature and exhaust velocity, timing of pollutant emissions), these estimates can change substantially. Table D3-3 uses results from Table D3-2 to estimate maximum pollutant emission rates per metric ton of Aluminum produced. These values change as a function of the rate of annual production of Aluminum at the proposed facility. It should be noted that the assessments presented here focus only on the ground-level pollutant concentrations that would result from smelter emissions. Other man-made or natural pollutant sources, including average background pollutant concentrations, are not considered. In practice, background concentrations of pollutants are important in evaluating compliance with air quality standards. It is the sum of a facility s proposed emissions and projected background concentration of pollutants that determine whether ambient air quality standards would be violated. When background air concentrations of pollutants are exceptionally high (such as during inversions or when air mass stagnation conditions exist), levels of pollutant emissions below those provided in Tables D3-1 and D3-2 could result in pollutant concentrations above air quality standards. Information on stagnation conditions in the Columbia Basin are presented 'in PHL-4622. 4 Draft Environmental Assessment August 1998 D3-4

DOE/EA-1259 U.S. Department of .Energy A endix D3 Table D3-2. Projected Haximum Pollutant Emission Rates,.and Annual Emission Totals. Values in excess of these rates and totals are likely to exceed AAgS 

 ,   and PSD Limits.. These preliminary values are .based on a set of very simple (and incomplete) characterizations of the proposed facility.

Pollutant Time period Regulatory 

                                       .                    Governing    Naximum      Haximan annual limr~            standard    pollutant       pollutant (ling/m )                    emission rate   emissions (mt)

(g/s) ~ Particulates Annual 17 PSD 28 900 24 h 15D PSD 14 440 SO Annual 20 PSD 33 1 000 24' 91 PSD 250 3 h 512 PSD 13 400 1 h 1,040 AAQS 12 400 CO 8 h 10,000 AAQS 390 12,000 1 h 40,000 AAQS 480 15,000 ..Draft Environmental Assessment E D3-5 August 1998}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17284A746&oldid=2622671"