EA-1177; Environmental Assessment and FONSI for the Salvage/Demolition of 200 West Area,

This environmental assessment has been prepared to assess potential environmental impacts associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's proposed action: the salvage/demolition of the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area Steam Plants and steam distribution piping. Impact information contained herein will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office Manager, to determine if the proposed action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. If the proposed action is determined to be major and significant, an environmental impact statement will be prepared. If the proposed action is determined not to be major and significant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued and the action can proceed. Criteria used to evaluate significance can be found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27.

This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the U.S. Department of Energy Implementing Procedures for NEPA (10 CFR 1021). The following is a description of each section of the EA.

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action.

This provides a brief statement concerning the problem or opportunity the U.S. Department of Energy is addressing with the proposed action. As necessary, background information is provided.

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action.

A description with sufficient detail to identify potential environmental impacts is provided.

3.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.

Reasonable alternative actions, which would address the Purpose and Need, are described. A no action alternative, as required by 10 CFR 1021, also is described.

4.0 Affected Environment.

This provides a brief description of the locale in which the proposed action takes place, and which may be environmentally impacted.

5.0 Environmental Impacts.

The range of environmental impacts, beneficial and adverse, are described for the proposed action. Impacts of alternatives briefly are discussed.

6.0 Permits and Regulatory Requirements.

A brief description of permits and regulatory requirements for the proposed action is provided.

7.0 Organizations Consulted.

Any outside agencies, groups, or individuals contacted as part of environmental assessment documentation preparation are listed.

8.0 References.

Documents used to provide information or data are listed.

Appendices.

Additional information necessary to support an understanding of the proposed action, alternatives, and potential impacts is provided. Comments resulting from review of the environmental assessment by states and tribes or other stakeholders and the response to those comments are included in the appendices.

METRIC CONVERSION CHART

Into metric units	.	.	Out of metric units	.	.
If you know	Multiply by	To get	If you know	Multiply by	To get
Length	.	.	Length	.	.
inches	25.40	millimeters	millimeters	0.0393	inches
inches	2.54	centimeters	centimeters	0.393	inches
feet	0.3048	meters	meters	3.2808	feet
yards	0.914	meters	meters	1.09	yards
miles	1.609	kilometers	kilometers	0.62	miles
Area	.	.	Area	.	.
square inches	6.4516	square centimeters	square centimeters	0.155	square inches
square feet	0.092	square meters	square meters	10.7639	square feet
square yards	0.836	square meters	square meters	1.20	square yards
square miles	2.59	square kilometers	square kilometers	0.39	square miles
acres	0.404	hectares	hectares	2.471	acres
Mass (weight)	.	.	Mass (weight)	.	.
ounces	28.35	grams	grams	0.0352	ounces
pounds	0.453	kilograms	kilograms	2.2046	pounds
short ton	0.907	metric ton	metric ton	1.10	short ton
Volume	.	.	Volume	.	.
fluid ounces	29.57	milliliters	milliliters	0.03	fluid ounces
quarts	0.95	liters	liters	1.057	quarts
gallons	3.79	liters	liters	0.26	gallons
cubic feet	0.0283	cubic meters	cubic meters	35.3147	cubic feet
cubic yards	0.7645	cubic meters	cubic meters	1.308	cubic yards
Temperature	.	.	Temperature	.	.
Fahrenheit	subtract 32 then multiply by 5/9ths	Celsius	Celsius	multiply by 9/5ths, then add 32	Fahrenheit

Source: Engineering Unit Conversions, M. R. Lindeburg, PE., SecondEd., 1990, Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, California.

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The following sections describe the purpose and need and provide background information concerning this environmental assessment (EA).

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

The underlying purpose and need for the agency to take the proposed action.

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) needs to reduce costs of future surveillance and maintenance for the 200 West Area Steam Plant, and avoid future surveillance and maintenance costs for the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants.

1.2 BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND information on the purpose and need, that led to the need for action.

The transition of the Hanford Site mission from defense production to a restoration mission has reduced the large demand for steam required to support defense operations. The 200 West Area Steam Plant was shut down in fiscal year (FY) 1995 and is currently in surveillance and maintenance awaiting decommissioning. The estimated annual cost for access controls and surveillance and maintenance of the steam plants would escalate over time as the facilities deteriorate. The 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants are currently inoperation and are expected to be shut down in the near future.

The U.S. Department of Energy - Site Infrastructure Division needs to eliminate costly access controls, surveillance and maintenance activities associated with the deactivation of infrastructure and general purpose facilities.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Proposed Action description in detail sufficient to identify potential environmental impacts.

The proposed action involves the salvage and demolition of the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area steam plants and their associated steam distribution piping, equipment, and ancillary facilities. Activities include the salvaging and recycling of all materials, wastes, and equipment where feasible, with waste minimization efforts utilized. The existing coal storage yards of each steam plant would provide adequate space as lay down yards to store equipment and material during salvaging activities. All areas within the proposed action are previously disturbed industrial areas. It is planned to remove all foundation and concrete footings and return the areas to ground level for potential reuse. Waste minimization practices would be in place to keep wastes at a minimum.

The three steam plants have similar support buildings and structures. The 200 West Area and 200 East Area powerhouses have very similar building dimensions, while the 300 Area powerhouse is somewhat smaller in size. The specific facilities to be salvaged and demolished in the three areas include:

284-West (4 coal boilers), 284-East (5 coal boilers & 1 oil package boiler), and 384 (3 coal boilers, 2 oil boilers, & 1 oil package boiler) powerhouses
baghouse complexes, coal crushers and transfer houses
coal handling conveyor systems with track hoppers
coal storage pits and salt-dissolving pits
ash sluicing pits and ash disposal basins
2710-W and 2710-E coal handler sheds
fuel oil storage tanks
smokestacks
aboveground steam distribution system connecting the three powerhouses to various production and office facilities and between the 200 West Area and the 200 East Area powerhouses.

All areas of the powerhouses and associated facilities are on disturbed ground. The 200 East Area Steam Plant is almost identical to the 200 West Area Steam Plant. The following are the approximate dimensions of the 200 West Area Steam Plant:

Powerhouse 22.3 by 75.3 by 24.4 meters 73 by 247 by 80 feet

Coal Handling System 21.6 by 147.2 by 26.8 meters 71 by 483 by 88 feet

Coal Storage Pit 85.3 by 118.9 by 3.4 meters 280 by 390 by 11 feet

Salt Dissolving Pit 5.5 by 9.7 by 3.6 meters 18 by 32 by 12 feet

Coal Handlers Shed 3.6 by 4.6 by 3.0 meters 12 by 15 by 10 feet

Two reinforced concrete stacks7.0 to 2.7 (inside dimension) by23 to 9 (inside dimension) by

(both partially lined)76.2 meters high 250 feet high

The following are the approximate dimensions of the 300 Area Powerhouse:

Powerhouse27.5 by 55.0 by 24.4 meters90 by 180 by 80 feet

The building footprint for the 284-West Area Powerhouse is about 2520 square meters (27,132 square feet); for the 284-East Powerhouse about 3067 square meters (33,015 square feet); and for the 384 Powerhouse about 1594 square meters (17,159 square feet).

The proposed action would occur in areas on the Hanford Site, located in southeastern Washington State (Figure 1). The 200 West Area Steam Plant is in the 200 West Area and located about 48 kilometers (30 miles) northwest of the city of Richland (Figure 2). The 200 East Area Steam Plant is in the 200 East Area and located about 40 kilometers (25 miles) north of the city limits of Richland (Figure 3). The 300 Area Steam Plant is in the 300 Area and located approximately 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the city limits of Richland (Figure 4). The 0.609 meter (24 inches) diameter, fiberglass insulated steam pipeline between the 284-West and 284-East Powerhouses runs approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) directly between the 200 West and 200 East Areas. The steam distribution pipelines between the 284-West Powerhouse and its associated support facilities runs approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles), between 284-East Powerhouse and its support facilities runs about 6.5 kilometers (4 miles), and between the 384 Powerhouse and its support facilities runs about 5 kilometers (3 miles).

The proposed work consists of the complete dismantling and removal of all building structures, equipment, and miscellaneous items of the mentioned facilities. Activities include:

· Remove asbestos-containing materials and all hazardous materials. The following are the estimated amounts of asbestos-containing materials in the 200 West Steam Plant:

Steam plant pipe insulation 74 cubic meters 2600 cubic feet

Steam distribution insulation266 cubic meters 9400 cubic feet

Transite siding 20 cubic meters 700 cubic feet

Roofing 127 cubic meters 4500 cubic feet

Fire brick mortar 96 cubic meters 3400 cubic feet

Floor tile 1 cubic meter 27 cubic feet

The following are the estimated amounts of asbestos-containing materials in the 200 East Steam Plant:

Steam plant pipe insulation 93 cubic meters3300 cubic feet

Steam distribution insulation161 cubic meters5700 cubic feet

Transite siding 25 cubic meters 900 cubic feet

Roofing 159 cubic meters5600 cubic feet

Fire brick mortar122 cubic meters4300 cubic feet

Floor tile 1 cubic meter 34 cubic feet

The following are the estimated amounts of asbestos-containing materials in the 300 Area Steam Plant:

Steam plant pipe insulation 45 cubic meters1600 cubic feet

Steam distribution insulation 40 cubic meters1400 cubic feet

Transite siding 11 cubic meters 400 cubic feet

Roofing 79 cubic meters2800 cubic feet

Fire brick mortar 59 cubic meters2100 cubic feet

Floor tile .5 cubic meter 17 cubic feet

In addition, small amounts of lead (mostly lead paint) and possibly Polybromated biphenyls (PCB) have been identified in the steam plants. The only PCBs that may be present are contained in the light ballasts. The 300 Area Steam Plant may have #6 fuel oil in the soil below the oil storage tank if it has leaked. No radiological hazards are known to exist in the areas of building foundations that will be disturbed during demolition. If there are any residual amounts of these environmentally sensitive materials found present at any of the steam plants during the proposed action, they would be removed before demolition activities take place.

Remove equipment and material for reuse/salvage, including the above ground steam and compressed air distribution piping and the support poles holding them. Waste minimization practices would be in place to keep wastes at a minimum.
Dismantle and remove all buildings and structures. This would be accomplished with wrecking balls, excavators, implosions or other techniques.
Remove the foundations and retaining walls of the structures. This would involve excavations of up to 6 meters (20 feet) in depth for each of the powerhouse structures and 2 meters (6 feet) for steam line support poles. If any hazardous materials are found during excavation, they would be dealt with in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency. 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.
Remove rubble from steam plants with the following estimated volumes:

200 West Steam Plant 765 cubic meters10,000 cubic yards

200 East Steam Plant 772 cubic meters10,100 cubic yards

300 Area Steam Plant 390 cubic meters 5,100 cubic yards

These estimated volumes of rubble would be disposed of in an acceptable disposal facility.

· Fill foundation voids with fill and cover with 15 centimeters (6 inches) of gravel and level to match surrounding grade. Some fill material for the 200 West Area and 200 East Area Steam Plants would come from borrow Pit #4, located between the 200 West and 200 East Areas. Some fill material for the 300 Area Steam Plant would come from borrow Pit #9, located about 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the 300 Area.

2.1 PROPOSED TIMING.

Timing or schedule of the proposed action (including phasing, if applicable).

The proposed action would be accomplished in a phased approach. The facilities that have not been shut down would be shut down and secured. Preliminary deactivation activities would remove major combustibles, drain liquids, permanently isolate all influent/effluent lines, and isolate all electrical power. The 200 West Area Steam Plant is already deactivated and currently in the isolated surveillance and maintenance phase. The 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants would be shut down and placed in the surveillance and maintenance phase. Then salvage and demolition of all three steam plants would begin. The actual salvage/demolition phase of all three steam plants concurrently would last about 16 to 18 months.

The steam pipeline between the 200 West and 200 East Areas would be removed, as well as the steam distribution piping between the steam plants and the facilities these feed. Because the demolition of the steam plants and the steam distribution pipelines would not occur for more than a year, biological survey data would be reconfirmed prior to initiation of the salvage and demolition phase of the applicable areas.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION.

Other environmental information that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to the proposed action.

All three steam plants are located within existing operable units (OU) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The ash pits and sluice pits for each of the three steam plants of the proposed action would be managed in conjunction with each respective OU. Following the salvage and demolition of the three steam plants, the grounds of the facilities of the proposed action would be leveled to grade with fill material. If there is any hazardous or radioactive contamination found in the soils during excavation of the foundations to buildings or at the base of the steam distribution system poles, the contaminated soils would be covered with clean soil and left in place for remediation of the OU. Any contamination would be dealt with in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency. At the present time, closure plans for these OUs have not been developed.

Issues surrounding the historical and cultural significance of the three powerhouses have been discussed between DOE-RL and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) within the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) for Washington State. Details of those issues are discussed in Section 4.2.6.

Figure 1. Hanford Site.

Figure 2. 200 West Area.

Figure 3. 200 East Area.

Figure 4. 300 Area.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in the following sections.

3.1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Other alternatives considered. CEQ regulations direct all agencies to identify reasonable alternatives that would achieve the purpose and need.

An alternative would keep the 200 West Area Steam Plant in surveillance and maintenance mode indefinitely. In addition, the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants would be put into surveillance and maintenance mode indefinitely after deactivation activities. This alternative might occur if it is determined that bids from potential contractors for salvage and demolition of the steam plants are not cost effective versus the cost of surveillance and maintenance of the facilities.

Another alternative would be the reuse of the three steam plants for other activities. After evaluation, no foreseeable reuse has been identified.

3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

CEQ and the DOE NEPA regulations require the DOE to analyze the "No Action alternative," i.e., to examine what would happen if nothing were done. Note

that generally this is a continuation of the status quo.

The No Action alternative would keep the 200 West Area Steam Plant in surveillance and maintenance indefinitely. Following the shutdown of the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants, there would be no isolation activities and no decommissioning activities for those facilities.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Existing environment to be affected by the proposed action and alternatives. Summary information only should be provided, with more detailed information referenced.

The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment to be affected by the proposed action and alternatives.

4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMENT

The Hanford Site is 1,450 square kilometers (560 square miles) located in southeastern Washington State, in a semiarid region with rolling topography. Two topographical features dominate the landscape: Rattlesnake Mountain is located on the southwest boundary with Gable Mountain located on the northern portion of the Hanford Site. The Columbia River flows through the northern part of the Hanford Site and forms part of the eastern boundary of the Hanford Site. Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site are primarily agricultural lands. The 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and the 300 Area of the Hanford Site have all been heavily used as industrial areas.

The Hanford Site has a mild climate with 15 to 18 centimeters (6 to 7 inches) of annual precipitation, with most of the precipitation taking place during the winter months. Temperature ranges of daily maximum temperatures vary from normal maxima of 2·C (36·F) in early January to 35·C (95·F) in late July. Infrequent periods of high winds of up to 128 kilometers (80 miles) per hour occur throughout the year. Tornadoes are extremely rare; no destructive tornadoes have occurred in the region surrounding the Hanford Site.

The Hanford Site and the surrounding area are in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) designed to protect the public health and welfare. During 1994, the Hanford Site air emissions remained below all established limits set for regulated air pollutants (PNL 1995a). Atmospheric dispersion conditions of the area vary between summer and winter months. The summer months generally have good air mixing characteristics. If the prevailing winds from the northwest are light, less favorable dispersion conditions might occur. Occasional periods of poor dispersion conditions occur during the winter months.

The vegetation on the Hanford Site is a shrub-steppe community of sagebrush and rabbitbrush with an understory consisting primarily of cheatgrass and Sandberg's bluegrass. The typical insects, small birds, mammals, and reptiles common to the Hanford Site can be found in the 200 Area plateau (PNL 1995b). 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. However, all areas of the proposed action have been previously disturbed with human occupancy.

Most mammal species known to inhabit the Hanford Site are small, nocturnal creatures, primarily pocket mice and jackrabbits. Large mammals found on the Hanford Site are deer and elk, although the elk exist almost entirely on the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. Coyotes and raptors are the primary predators. Several species of small birds nest in the steppe vegetation. Semiannual peaks in avian variety and abundance occur during migration seasons.

The DOE-RL and its contractors dominate the local employment picture with almost one-quarter of the total nonagricultural jobs in Benton and Franklin counties. Ninety-three percent of Hanford Site personnel reside in the Benton and Franklin county areas. Therefore, work activities on the Hanford Site play an important role in the socioeconomics of the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick) and other parts of Benton and Franklin counties (PNL 1995b). Other surrounding counties could be impacted to a lesser degree.

4.2 SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONMENT

The 200 West Area Steam Plant in the 200 West Area and the 200 East Area Steam Plant and facilities in the 200 East Area are located on the 200 Area plateau, 8 kilometers (5 miles) and 16 kilometers (10 miles) from the Columbia River, respectively. The 300 Area Steam Plant in the 300 Area is located about 1 kilometer (2/3 mile) from the Columbia River. The 200 Area plateau and the 300 Area are not located in the 100-year or 500-year floodplain of the Columbia River, nor are these located within a wetlands area (PNL 1995b). The 200 Area plateau and the 300 Area do not contain any prime farmland, state or national parks, forests, conservation areas, or other areas of recreational, scenic, or aesthetic concern. The City of Richland (population approximately 32,000), located in Benton County, adjoins the southernmost portion of the Hanford Site boundary and is the nearest population center.

4.2.1 Soils and Subsurface

The soil in the 200 Areas and 300 Area is predominately a sand and gravel mixture. All areas of the proposed action are in previously disturbed soils. The geologic strata under the surface layer, in descending order, are Holocene eolian deposits, Hanford formation, Ringold Formation, and the Columbia River Basalt Group. The eolian sands are fine- to coarse-grained, and relatively quartz- and feldspar-rich. Deposits of the Hanford formation underlie the eolian deposits. Hanford formation strata generally are dominated by deposits typical of the gravel-dominated facies consisting of uncemented granule to cobble gravels and minor coarse-grained sand. This is underlain by the top of the Ringold Formation. Basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group and intercalated sediments of the Ellensburg Formation underlie the Ringold Formation. The region is categorized as one of low to moderate seismicity (PNL 1995b).

4.2.2 Hydrology

The water table in the 200 Areas is approximately 70 meters (230 feet) to 88 meters (290 feet) below the surface. The water table under the 300 Area Steam Plant is approximately 14 meters (45 feet) below the surface (PNL 1995b).

4.2.3 Air Resources

The Hanford Site operates under a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is designed to protect existing ambient air quality. No distinctive increases in overall emissions are envisioned from the proposed action and would not trigger changes to the PSD permit.

4.2.4 Plants and Animals

Only a few species of plants and birds, and no mammals, are found in the immediate proximity of the steam plants due to the highly disturbed nature and human occupancy of the area. Cliff swallows are a migratory bird that were observed nesting on the coal ramp leading to the 200 West Area Steam Plant as indicated in Biological Survey #96-200-047c (Appendix A). Under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it is illegal to take, capture, or kill, as applicable, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such birds, included in the terms of the conventions. To avoid adverse impacts to this species, demolition of this building should be undertaken outside the nesting season that extends from April 1 to July 30.

4.2.5 Endangered Species

No plants or animals on the federal list of "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants" (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17) are found in the immediate vicinity of the proposed action, as indicated in Biological Surveys #96-200-047b&c (Appendix A).

4.2.6 Cultural Resources

The RL has determined that the 284-West, 284-East, and the 384 Powerhouses are historic properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 1995). These buildings were found to be contributing elements to the Manhattan Project and Cold War Era involvement and the Hanford Site Historic District (District). An agreement has been reached in the Programmatic Agreement Among the U. S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, Deactivation, Alteration, and Demolition of the Built Environment on the Hanford Site, Washington (PA) that sets forth the mechanism for mitigation of eligible historic Hanford buildings. The PA is the agreement mechanism that focuses the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 compliance on the Historic District, and directs DOE-RL to take actions specific to the Hanford Site. The specific issues surrounding the historical significance of the three powerhouses have been discussed between DOE-RL and the SHPO. See Appendix B for correspondence.

Two cultural resources reviews (HCRL #96-200-047 and Addendum) have been completed by the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory for the 284-West Powerhouse. In addition, DOE-RL and the SHPO have concurred that the proposed action would have no adverse effect upon the District, which includes the 284-West Powerhouse (see correspondence in Appendix B). There were no known archeological, religious sites, or other sensitive cultural artifacts of significance found during the survey.

Two cultural resources reviews (HCRC #96-200-035 and #96-200-045) have been completed for the 284-East Powerhouse. In addition, a Historic Property Inventory Form (HPIF) was completed for the 284-East Powerhouse for mitigative purposes as specified in the PA.

A cultural resources review (HCRC #96-300-025) was completed for the demolition of the 384 Powerhouse. The SHPO has concurred with RL that the 384 Powerhouse is a contributing structure to the District. The PA requires preparation of a HPIF for mitigation of the powerhouse demolition.

Cultural resources reviews for existing borrow pits #4 and #9 indicate that they have no identified archaeological resource (DOE 1995). Onsite 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. Limited field analysis and documentation of any findings would be conducted before resuming excavation activities. The cultural resource staff would assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, arrange for mitigation of the impacts to the find.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Potential environmental impacts from the proposed action and alternatives are discussed in the following sections. Impacts are addressed in proportion to their potential significance.

The following sections describe impacts from the proposed action.

5.1 SALVAGE/DEMOLITION IMPACTS

Description of impacts from the salvage/demolition activities of the proposed action.

Impacts from the salvage/demolition activities are described in the following sections.

5.1.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance and the Consequences

All areas within the proposed action are previously disturbed areas. It is planned during the salvage/demolition phase to remove all foundation and concrete footings with a maximum depth of about 6 meters (20 feet), and the steam distribution system poles with a maximum depth of about 2 meters (6 feet). The exact technique to dismantle each structure under the proposed action would be analyzed for its impact to the existing structures surrounding area before the required demolition plan is approved. If there is any hazardous or radioactive contamination found in the soils during excavation of the foundations of buildings or at the base of the steam distribution system poles, the contaminated soils would be covered with clean soil and left in place for remediation of the OU, or otherwise dealt with in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency. All voids that would occur during this phase would be backfilled. Some fill material would come from existing Borrow Pits #4 or #9. The shallow coal storage pits would be utilized as a laydown yard during salvage and demolition activities, then have their bermed shoulders backfilled into the pit and leveled. The amount of soil disturbance would be minimal, because the proposed action would occur on highly disturbed grounds. In addition, all soil and subsurface activities would be temporary, therefore the anticipated impacts to the environment are not expected to be consequential.

5.1.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters and the Consequences

Other than sprinkling clean water for dust control, there would be no liquid discharges that may effect groundwater or surface waters.

5.1.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air and theConsequences

Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharge activities from such activities as trucks for transporting wastes or salvaged materials, welding/cutting, or backfilling may be generated for short periods of time during the salvage/demolition phase of the proposed action. Any particulate releases from dust would be watered down during salvage and excavation activities. However, once the steam plants are leveled, no further discharges would occur during this phase of the proposed action. The impacts of the proposed action are considered to be relatively minor.

5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure and the Consequences

There would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure.

5.1.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated and the Consequences

It is expected that only nonhazardous solid waste would be generated during the salvage/demolition phase of the proposed action. Once the steam plants are leveled, and inert and demolition waste removed, no further waste generation would occur. The inert and demolition waste generated from the steam plants would be disposed of into existing borrow pits #4 or #9. The addition of inert and demolition waste into an onsite landfill would be small compared to the overall capacity of the existing borrow pits on the Hanford Site. In addition, existing facilities would have adequate capacity to accept all other waste volumes from the proposed action. All nonhazardous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be small.

5.1.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated and the Consequences

A waste management plan would be submitted by the selected contractor at least 5 days before starting work on the proposed action. The contractor would describe in the plan all potential hazardous waste (e.g., solvents and/or cleaning agents), exclusive of the materials and equipment identified as part of the buildings and facilities of the proposed action, that are expected to be generated during the performance of the contract. The plan would include quantity of waste and how the waste would be managed. These materials would be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is expected to be minimal compared to annual Hanford Site waste generation. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are not expected to be consequential.

5.1.7 Hazardous Substances Present and the Consequences

All asbestos handling activities would follow approved procedures and requirements as directed in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 61 and 763, and under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Chapters 62 and 65. The local Benton County Clean Air Authority would be notified before any asbestos handling activities as required. An example of the controls would be to wet the asbestos material, place asbestos material in plastic bags, tie bags shut to prevent release of airborne fibers, and place bagged asbestos material into a second plastic bag, or other approved closable and impermeable container, and close airtight. All approved packaged asbestos would be disposed of offsite at a private, permitted disposal facility.

Small amounts of lead and PCBs have been identified in the 200 West Area Steam Plant. All lead handling activities would follow approved procedures and requirements as directed in 29 CFR 1910 and 1926. The only PCBs that may be expected to be present in the powerhouses would be contained in the light ballasts. If PCBs are found in the light ballasts, they would be dealt with in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency.

Any materials that might be discovered later in the buildings would be managed in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Potential impacts to the environment would be minimized through strict compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Due to the small quantities of these materials, the effects of the proposed action are not expected to be consequential.

5.1.8 Any Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas and the Consequences

There would be no disturbance to previously undeveloped areas.

5.1.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources

Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, etc.) would occur for short periods during the salvage/demolition phase of the proposed action. The amount of consumption is minimal; therefore, these impacts to the environment are not expected to be consequential.

5.1.10 Effects on Cultural Resources

Issues surrounding the cultural resources of the three powerhouses are discussed in Section 4.2.6 and are included in Appendix B.

DOE-RL and the SHPO have concurred that the proposed action would have no adverse effect on the Hanford Site Historic District. Because previous excavations would have destroyed the integrity of any potential archaeological site, it is unlikely that significant cultural resources remain intact. A review of previously excavated areas and undisturbed areas at a project location would be completed to determine the effect on intact historic archaeological properties if demolition activities require excavation. Therefore, it is expected that there would be no adverse effects on the cultural resources of the proposed action.

5.1.11 Effects on Federally or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species

No Federally or State listed, proposed or candidate, threatened, endangered species are expected to be effected by the proposed action.

5.1.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland

The proposed action is outside any floodplains and wetlands.

5.1.13 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially Designated Area

The proposed action is outside any Wild and Scenic River corridor, state or federal wildlife refuge, or specially designated area.

5.1.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the Effects

The only reasonably foreseeable accidents under the proposed action would be typical construction hazards associated with salvage and demolition activities, including possible blasting, and with the subsequent backfilling activities. Areas would be roped off and cleared of personnel prior to any blasting. The areas affected by blasting would be restricted to the building site. Personnel handling recycle, and salvage/demolition activities would follow approved safety procedures for the salvage and demolition of the facilities within the proposed action, in addition to loading inert and demolition waste into dump trucks and transporting the material to an inert/demolition waste landfill on the Hanford Site, soil backfilling, and water spraying for dust control. Typical construction hazards occur, however the risk of severe accidents is small.

5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

Description of socioeconomic impacts that would result from the proposed action.

Only small numbers of workers would be involved in the salvage/demolition actions at any one time. No substantial change is expected in the number of Hanford Site personnel as a result of the proposed action. No discernible impact to employment levels within Benton and Franklin counties is expected.

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

Description of environmental justice impacts that would result from the proposed action.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or socioeconomic effects of their programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. Minority (especially Hispanic) populations and low income populations are present near the Hanford Site (PNL 1995a). The DOE is in the process of developing official guidance on the implementation of the Executive Order. The analysis of the impacts in this EA indicates that there would be minimal impacts to both the offsite population and potential workforce by implementing the proposed action, because the entire proposed action would occur on the Hanford Site and the offsite environmental impacts from the proposed action analyzed in this EA are expected to be minimal. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income portion of the community.

5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Description of the cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed action.

Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is not expected to be substantial compared to annual Hanford Site waste generation. For example, small quantities of low-concentration hazardous waste (e.g., solvents or cleaning agents) could be generated as a result of performing the proposed activities. These materials would be managed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Disposal of wastes as a result of the proposed action would not substantially effect any associated disposal sites. The proposed action would return all associated areas to level ground for potential reuse or a return for natural habitat use. Because the proposed action would involve personnel relocated from various areas within the Hanford Site, no substantial change is expected in the overall workforce of the Hanford Site. The potential impacts from the proposed action are not expected to contribute substantially to the cumulative impacts of operations on the Hanford Site.

5.5 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives and the No Action Alternative are discussed in the following sections.

5.5.1 Implementation of Alternatives

Qualitative discussion on impacts that would result from implementation of alternatives.

Under the indefinite surveillance and maintenance alternative, the immediate impacts to the environment would not change. However, small amounts of hazardous materials such as lead paint or asbestos may be released to the environment over time. The longer any of the powerhouse facilities stay in surveillance and maintenance following deactivation, the more costly they are to maintain and clean up. In addition, the building structures may deteriorate to unsafe conditions.

Under the reuse alternative, since there are no foreseeable reuses of the facilities, there would be no immediate impacts on the environment. However, if there were reuses identified, refurbishment would remove any hazardous materials.

5.5.2 Implementation of the No Action Alternative

Qualitative discussion on impacts that would result from implementation of the no action alternative.

Under this alternative, the immediate impacts to the environment would not change. However, as the buildings age, they would be more costly to maintain.

6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Regulatory requirements affecting the proposed action and necessary permits.

It is the policy of DOE-RL to carry out its operations in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, Presidential Executive Orders, and DOE Orders. Asbestos handling activities would require a permit to follow approved procedures and requirements as directed in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 763, and under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Chapters 62 and 65. The local Benton County Clean Air Authority would be notified before any asbestos handling activities as required. The proposed action would follow pollution prevention requirements under Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. Environmental regulatory authority over the Hanford Site is vested in federal agencies and in Washington State agencies. The proposed actions would comply with all of these and other environmental requirements in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency while handling, recycling, salvaging, and disposing of all materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, PCBs, and other small amounts of hazardous substances and materials, nonhazardous materials, as well as disposal of inert and demolition wastes, as applicable.

7.0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

Tribes, government agencies, and other interested parties consulted during the preparation of this document.

The DOE has consulted the SHPO regarding the three powerhouses. The powerhouses are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 1995). An agreement has been reached between DOE-RL, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the PA that sets forth the mechanism for mitigation of eligible historic Hanford buildings.

Prior to approval of this EA, a draft version was sent to the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Wanapum, the Yakama Indian Nation, Washington State, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Physicians for Social Responsibility for a 15 day review period. However, no comments were received.

8.0 REFERENCES

10 CFR 1021, DOE "National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures".

29 CFR 1910, "Occupational and Safety Health Administration".

29 CFR 1926, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction".

40 CFR 61, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants".

40 CFR 763, "Asbestos".

40 CFR 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act".

50 CFR 17, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants".

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.

DOE, 1995, Environmental Assessment: Inert/Demolition Waste Landfill (Pit 9), Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-0983, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE-RL, 1996, Programmatic Agreement Among the U. S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, Deactivation, Alteration, and Demolition of the Built Environment on the Hanford Site, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 - 1543, et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

NPS, 1995, The National Register of Historical Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

PNL, 1995a, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1994, PNL-10574, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

PNL, 1995b, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNL-6415, Rev. 7, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

WAC 296-62, "Occupational Health Standards - Safety Standards for Carcinogens".

WAC 296-65, "Asbestos Removal and Encapsulation".

Appendices

APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL REVIEW

APPENDIX B
CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE SALVAGE/DEMOLITION OF 200 WEST AREA, 200 EAST AREA, AND 300 AREA STEAM PLANTS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
OCTOBER 1996

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy

ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-1177, to assess environmental impacts associated with the salvage and demolition of the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area Steam Plants and their associated steam distribution piping, equipment, and ancillary facilities at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.

It is proposed that all materials, wastes, and equipment be salvaged and recycled where feasible. The existing coal storage yards of each steam plant would serve as lay down yards to store equipment and material during salvaging activities. Foundations and concrete footings would be removed in order to return the areas to ground level for potential reuse. Waste minimization practices would be in place to keep wastes at a minimum.

Based on the analysis in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.

ADDRESSES AND FURTHER INFORMATION

Single copies of the EA and further information about the proposed action are available from:

W. A. Rutherford, Acting Director
Site Infrastructure Division
U.S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
Richland, Washington 99352
(509) 376-7597

For further information regarding the DOE NEPA Process, contact:

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director
Office of NEPA Oversight
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756

PURPOSE AND NEED: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to reduce costs of future surveillance and maintenance for the 200 West Area Steam Plant, and avoid future surveillance and maintenance costs for the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants.

BACKGROUND: The transition of the Hanford Site mission from defense production to a restoration mission has reduced the large demand for steam required to support defense operations. The 200 West Area Steam Plant was shut down in fiscal year 1995 and is currently in surveillance and maintenance awaiting decommissioning. The 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants are currently in operation and are expected to be shut down in the near future. The costs for access controls and surveillance and maintenance of the steam plants would escalate over time.

PROPOSED ACTION: The DOE proposes to salvage and demolish the steam plants in the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area with their associated steam distribution piping, equipment, and ancillary facilities. Activities would include salvaging and recycling of all materials and equipment where feasible, in keeping with waste minimization principles. Existing coal storage yards would serve as lay down yards to store equipment and material during salvaging activities. Foundations and concrete footings would be removed in order to return the areas to ground level for potential reuse.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The EA discussed several alternatives to reduce surveillance and maintenance costs for the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area Steam Plants, as well as the No Action Alternative.

No-Action Alternative. This alternative would keep the 200 West Area Steam Plant in surveillance and maintenance indefinitely. Following the shutdown of the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants, there would be no isolation activities and no decommissioning activities for those facilities. The costs of maintaining the buildings would increase over time. This alternative was not considered a reasonable alternative.

Alternative Surveillance and Maintenance. This alternative would keep the 200 West Area Steam Plant in surveillance and maintenance mode indefinitely, and the 200 East Area and 300 Area Steam Plants would be put into surveillance and maintenance mode indefinitely after deactivation activities. Costs of maintaining the buildings would increase over time. This alternative was not considered a reasonable alternative.

Alternative Uses. This alternative would reuse the three steam plants for other activities. At this time, no foreseeable reuse has been identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All areas involved in the proposed action are previously disturbed areas. No Federally or State listed, proposed or candidate, threatened, endangered species are expected to be effected by the proposed action. However, to avoid adverse impacts to cliff swallows, demolition of the coal ramp building in the 200 West Area Steam Plant would be undertaken outside the nesting season that extends from April 1 to July 30. It is planned during the salvage/demolition phase to remove all foundation and concrete footings and the steam distribution system poles. If any hazardous or radioactive contamination is found in the soils during excavation, the contamination would be covered with clean soil and left in place awaiting remediation of the Operable Unit, or otherwise dealt with in a manner acceptable to the relevant regulatory agency. All voids that would occur during this phase would be backfilled. Because the amount of soil disturbance would be minimal and temporary, anticipated impacts to the environment are not expected to be consequential.

DOE and the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) concur that the proposed action would have no adverse effect on the Hanford Site Historic District, of which the 284-West Powerhouse is part. The SHPO has concurred with DOE that the 384 Powerhouse is a contributing structure to the Hanford Site Historic District. Since the Programmatic Agreement between the DOE, SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation allows mitigation of buildings through preparation of an Historic Property Inventory Form (HPIF), it is expected that there would be no adverse effects on the cultural resources of the proposed action.

It is expected that only nonhazardous solid waste would be generated during the salvage/demolition phase of the proposed action. Any hazardous substances or materials that might be discovered later in the buildings would be managed in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Waste resulting from the proposed action is expected to be minimal compared to annual Hanford Site waste generation. The proposed action would not release any particulate matter, thermal releases, or gaseous discharges in significant amounts. Therefore, these impacts to the environment are expected to be small.

Accident Impacts

The only reasonably foreseeable accidents under the proposed action would be typical construction accidents associated with salvage and demolition activities, including blasting, and subsequent backfilling activities. Areas would be roped off and cleared of personnel prior to any blasting. Areas affected by blasting would be restricted to the building sites. Personnel handling recycle and salvage/demolition activities would follow approved safety procedures. Typical construction hazards would be present, however the risk of a severe accident is small.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)