DOE/EA-1412 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Expansion of the Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and 

Emergency Response Training and Education Center, Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Richland, Washington

November 2002 
 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

 FOR 

EXPANSION OF THE 

 

VOLPENTEST HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

 

TRAINING AND EDUCATION CENTER 

HANFORD SITE, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 

 November 2002 
U.S. Department of Energy DOE/EA-1412 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Preface 

PREFACE 

This environmental assessment is prepared to assess potential environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed action to expand the Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

(HAMMER) Training and Education Center to include: an emergency vehicle operations course and the 

National Utility Training Services site. The impacts of the adjacent Cold Test Facility (CTF) are included 

for completeness, although the CTF is not part of the HAMMER facility. The remaining area being 

evaluated is reserved for future uses. Information contained herein will be used by the Manager, 

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 Proposed Action is 

determined to be major and with significant impacts, an environmental impact statement will be prepared. 

 If the Proposed Action is determined not to be major and with significant impacts, a Finding of No 

Significant Impact will be issued and the action may proceed. Criteria used to evaluate significance are 

found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 1508.27. 

This environmental assessment is prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), 

and the U.S. Department of Energy Implementing Procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act

(Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 1021). 

The following is a description of each section of this environmental assessment. 

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action. This section provides a brief statement concerning the problem or 

opportunity the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, is addressing with the 

Proposed Action. Background information is provided. 

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action. This section provides a description of the Proposed Action 

with sufficient detail to identify potential environmental impacts. 

3.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. This section describes reasonable alternative actions to the 

Proposed Action, which address the Purpose and Need. A No Action Alternative, as required by 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 1021, also is described. 

4.0 Affected Environment. This section provides a brief description of the locale in which the 

Proposed Action would take place. 

5.0 Environmental Impacts. This section describes the range of environmental impacts, beneficial 

and adverse, of the Proposed Action. Impacts of alternatives briefly are discussed. 

6.0 Permits and Regulatory Requirements. This section provides a brief description of permits and 

regulatory requirements for the Proposed Action. 

7.0 Organizations Consulted. This section lists any outside groups, agencies, or individuals 

contacted as part of the environmental assessment preparation and/or review. 

8.0 References. This section provides a list of documents used to contribute information or data in 

preparation of this environmental assessment. 

Environmental Assessment P-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Preface 

Appendices. Additional information necessary to support an understanding of the Proposed 

Action, alternatives, and potential impacts is provided. 

Environmental Assessment P-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Glossary 

GLOSSARY 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CTF Cold Test Facility 

CY calendar year 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE-ORP U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection 

DOE-RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office 

DST double-shell tank 

EA environmental assessment 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EVOC Emergency Vehicle Operation Course 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

ft3

 cubic feet 

HAMMER Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

Training and Education Center 

LESTC Law Enforcement and Security Training Center 

m3 cubic meters 

mg/m3

 milligrams per cubic meter 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NUTS National Utility Training Services 

NWPPA Northwest Public Power Association 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

PUD public utility district 

RPP River Protection Project 

SST single-shell tank 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 

Environmental Assessment G-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Glossary 

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 0.03937 inches 

inches 2.54 centimeters centimeters 0.393701 inches 

feet 0.3048 meters meters 3.28084 feet 

yards 0.9144 meters meters 1.0936 yards 

miles (statute) 1.60934 kilometers kilometers 0.62137 miles (statute) 

Area Area

square inches 6.4516 square 

centimeters 

square 

centimeters 

0.155 square inches 

square feet 0.09290304 square meters square meters 10.7639 square feet 

square yards 0.8361274 square meters square meters 1.19599 square yards 

square miles 2.59 square 

kilometers 

square 

kilometers 

0.386102 square miles 

acres 0.404687 hectares hectares 2.47104 acres 

Mass (weight) Mass (weight)

ounces (avoir) 28.34952 grams grams 0.035274 ounces (avoir) 

pounds 0.45359237 kilograms kilograms 2.204623 pounds (avoir) 

tons (short) 0.9071847 tons (metric) tons (metric) 1.1023 tons (short) 

Volume Volume

ounces 

(U.S., liquid) 

29.57353 milliliters milliliters 0.033814 ounces 

(U.S., liquid) 

quarts 

(U.S., liquid) 

0.9463529 liters liters 1.0567 quarts 

(U.S., liquid) 

gallons 

(U.S., liquid) 

3.7854 liters liters 0.26417 gallons 

(U.S., liquid) 

cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters cubic meters 35.3147 cubic feet 

cubic yards 0.7645549 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 

Energy Energy

kilowatt hour 3,412 British thermal 

unit 

British thermal 

unit 

0.000293 kilowatt hour 

kilowatt 0.94782 British thermal 

unit per second 

British thermal 

unit per second 

1.055 kilowatt 

Force/Pressure Force/Pressure

pounds (force) 

per square inch 

6.894757 kilopascals kilopascals 0.14504 pounds per 

square inch 06/2001

Source: Engineering Unit Conversions, M. R. Lindeburg, PE., Third Ed., 1990, Professional 

Publications, Inc., Belmont, California. 

Environmental Assessment G-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Glossary 

Environmental Assessment G-3 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The following sections describe the purpose and need and provide background information for this 

environmental assessment (EA). 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operation Office (DOE-RL) needs to provide cost-effective, 

additional personal protection and public safety through expanding training and equipment testing 

facilities at the Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response Training and 

Education Center (HAMMER) on the Hanford Site. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

Currently HAMMER, which began operation in September 1997, provides training for both radioactive 

and chemical hazardous response, firefighting, law enforcement, and occupational, safety, and health 

training (Figure 1). The mission for HAMMER is to host, broker, and provide training with its partners, 

involving the hands-on use of realistic props and settings to save lives and reduce injuries, increase 

personnel productivity, and serve as a catalyst for a regional training industry. 

HAMMER began as a local community initiative based on the concept that one training center could 

serve both the Hanford Site and the region. From that beginning, HAMMER has grown to a national 

training resource and is well known for its unique partnering approach, its training facility, and its 

realistic props and simulations. 

The original HAMMER was completed in June 1997 on 80 acres (32.3 hectares) of the original 120-acre 

(48.6-hectares) site. The remaining 40 acres (16.2 hectares) were reserved for future expansion. The 

existing 10,000-acre (4,047-hectare) Hanford Patrol Academy located immediately north of HAMMER 

was merged into HAMMER in September 1998. That portion was rededicated as the Law Enforcement 

and Security Training Center (LESTC). HAMMER operates LESTC in conjunction with the Hanford 

Patrol. LESTC also is available for use by outside agencies for training purposes. LESTC encompasses 

approximately 10,000 acres (4,047 hectares), which includes the current firing range and safety zones. 

HAMMER currently consists of an administration and classroom building, burn house with computerized 

burn system, training support building, a number of large training pads for craft-specific and fire training, 

stream and pond, training tower, aboveground pipelines, various transportation props, a 

remediation/characterization site, confined space prop, simulated buried waste site, and a 

junction/diversion box with simulated tank prop. 

1.2.1 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

The Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) had been located on Port of Benton land at the old 

bus parking lot located north of the 1163 Building (the warehouse located at 2355 Stevens.) Recently, 

this space was leased to a commercial company. EVOC has suspended operations pending availability of 

a new site. 

 

Environmental Assessment 1-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

1.2.2 National Utility Training Services Site 

The Northwest Public Power Association (NWPPA) is a non-profit association that has created 

partnerships with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and approximately 200 public utilities, 

including four local public utilities [Benton Public Utility District (PUD), Franklin PUD, City of 

Richland, and Douglas PUD], for the purpose of providing education and training services. The goal of 

NWPPA is to establish National Utility Training Services (NUTS) as a state-of-the-art training facility for 

line, substation, meter, and relay personnel, along with electricians, engineers, and office personnel. 

The NWPPA would offer training through its NUTS site. The NUTS site would provide hands-on 

training for utility personnel throughout the western United States without jeopardizing power reliability 

or endangering personnel and equipment. Through the combined efforts of the NWPPA and its partners, 

the NUTS site would provide continuing education and state-of-the-art training to all utility personnel 

from entry level to journeymen. 

The NUTS site consists of 80 acres (32.4 hectares) for use in connection with training equipment. 

Ownership of this 80 acres (32.4 hectares) is being transferred to the NWPPA. In addition, DOE-RL has 

granted an easement for road and utility access across an approximate 4-acre (1.6-hectare) parcel of land 

immediately south and between the property and Horn Rapids Road. This easement has been covered by 

other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 documentation. 

1.2.3 Cold Test Facility 

The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) has established the River 

Protection Project (RPP) with the mandate to remediate and close the Manhattan Project and Cold War 

legacy waste tanks located on the Hanford Site (RPP-7502). Central to achieving this mandate would be 

the safe retrieval and transfer of the contents of these waste tanks. Retrieval and transfer systems must 

accommodate the difficult physical characteristics and hazardous nature of the contents. The newly 

constructed Cold Test Facility (CTF) adjacent to HAMMER provides a facility for testing of tank waste 

retrieval, transfer, and sampling hardware to be procured by the Single-Shell Tank Closure Project and 

the Double-Shell Tank Waste Delivery Project with nonhazardous materials. The construction and 

operation of CTF has been evaluated under separate NEPA documentation. Potential impacts of habitat 

mitigation for CTF are discussed in this EA for completeness. 

Environmental Assessment 1-2 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

Environmental Assessment 1-3 November 2002 

Figure 1. Hanford Site. 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 1-4 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action would include constructing and operating the EVOC, which would be located on 

approximately 60 acres (24.2 hectares); expanding, operating, and transferring ownership of NUTS, 

which is located on approximately 80 acres (32.3 hectares) [40 acres (16.2 hectares) from the original 

HAMMER footprint and 40 additional acres (16.2 hectares) from the expansion]; and reserving the 

remaining space [approximately 92 acres (37.2 hectares)] north of the original HAMMER, NUTS, and the 

CTF (Figure 2) and south of the BPA power lines for future development. EVOC would provide training 

to emergency service personnel when driving in emergency response situations. NUTS would provide 

training for utility personnel. 

2.1 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

EVOC (Figure 3) would be located on the approximate 60-acre (24.2-hectare) section to the west of Ila 

Lane and north of Horn Rapids Road. EVOC would consist of an asphalt course approximately 36 feet 

(11 meters) wide and 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) long. The course would include a quarter mile 

(0.4 kilometer) straightaway, a 180-degree corner, and a serpentine of several more turns of varying 

degrees and radii. The straightaway would be level while the rest of the course would follow 

approximately the natural elevations of the land. In addition to the asphalt course, a 1,600 square foot 

(148.6 square meter) asphalt pad would be constructed as a skills course for low speed vehicle maneuvers. 

 A parking area, connex box pad, and shelter area pad also would be constructed at the entrance to the 

course. The parking area would be approximately 12,500 square feet (1,161 square meter), and the 

connex box and shelter area pads would be approximately 1,500 square feet (139 square meters) and 600 

square feet (55.7 square meters) respectively. 

2.2 National Utility Training Services Site 

Title to the 80 acres (32.3 hectares) NUTS site (Figure 4) would be transferred to the Department of 

Education. In a separate action, the Department of Education will transfer this land to the NWPPA. The 

NUTS site would have properly positioned spans of both wooden and steel transmission lines with room 

for erecting and dismantling. An area would be used for a helipad, a parking garage for equipment, and 

an expanded area for earthmoving training. 

2.3 Areas Reserved for Future Development 

Approximately 92 acres (37.2 hectares) are reserved for future development and would be addressed 

under a future NEPA review once plans have been developed. These areas are located to the north of the 

original HAMMER and to the north of the CTF and south of the BPA power lines (Figure 2). 

2.4 Environmental Information 

A Cultural Resources Review (Appendix A) and a Biological Review (Appendix B) have been prepared 

for the proposed action. 

Environmental Assessment 2-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

Figure 2. HAMMER. 

Environmental Assessment 2-2 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

Environmental Assessment 2-3 November 2002 

Figure 3. Emergency Vehicle Operation Course. 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action 

Figure 4. National Utility Training Services Site (Conceptual). 

Environmental Assessment 2-4 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed, but not analyzed fully, in the following sections. 

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The no action alternative to the proposed action is discussed for each proposed project. 

3.1.1 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

The no action alternative would mean that the EVOC would not be built at HAMMER. 

3.1.2 National Utility Training Services Site 

The no action alternative would mean that the NUTS site would not be expanded beyond the current size 

of 40 acres (16.2 hectares). 

3.1.3 Areas Reserved for Future Development 

The no action alternative would result in these areas remaining undeveloped and not specified for future 

expansion. 

3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES 

Other alternatives to the proposed action are described in the following sections. 

3.2.1 Emergency Vehicle Operation Course 

Relocation of the EVOC to another location was considered. The type of location feasible for the EVOC 

could be an unused parking lot located off the Hanford Site. 

3.2.2 National Utility Training Services Site 

The use of existing training facilities or other locations for the NUTS Facility were considered. A 

training facility at Camp Rilea near Aberdeen, Oregon, is located on 5 acres. The primary use of Camp 

Rilea is as a National Guard Camp and the utility training is considered a secondary use. Available land 

near the I-5 corridor was also considered, as was land near the HAMMER Facility that is zoned for an 

industrial park. 

Environmental Assessment 3-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 3-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment 

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environment that would be affected by the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

4.1 GENERAL HANFORD SITE ENVIRONMENT 

The Hanford Site, about 586 square miles (1,517 square kilometers), is located in southeastern 

Washington State in a semiarid region with rolling topography. Two topographical features dominate the 

landscape: Rattlesnake Mountain located on the southwest boundary and Gable Mountain located on the 

northern portion. The Columbia River flows through the northern part and forms part of the eastern 

boundary of the Hanford Site. Areas adjacent to the Hanford Site primarily are agricultural lands. . 

Designations for land use on the Hanford Site for the next 50 years were established in DOE/EIS-0222-F. 

These designations include preservation, conservation, industrial, and research and development. On 

June 9, 2000, the Hanford Reach National Monument was established (65 FR 37253) covering 

195,000 acres (78,900 hectares). The Hanford Reach National Monument incorporates a portion of the 

Columbia River corridor, the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve to the south and west, the 

Wahluke Slope, and the McGee Ranch area. Establishment of the monument recognizes the unique 

character and biological diversity of the Hanford area, as well as its geological, paleontological, historic, 

cultural, and archaeological importance. 

The Hanford Site has a mild climate with 6 to 7 inches (15 to 18 centimeters) of annual precipitation, with 

most of the precipitation taking place during the winter months. Temperature ranges of daily maximum 

temperatures vary from 36°F (2°C) in early January to 95°F (35°C) in late July. Monthly average wind 

speeds are lowest during the winter months, averaging 6 to 7 miles (10 to 11 kilometers) per hour, and 

highest during the summer, averaging 8 to 10 miles (14 to 16 kilometers) per hour (PNNL-6415). 

Tornadoes are extremely rare in the region surrounding the Hanford Site. 

During calendar year (CY) 2000, Hanford Site air emissions remained below all established limits set for 

regulated air pollutants (PNNL-13487). 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. 

On June 27, 2000, a fire known as the 24 Command Fire, spread rapidly and eventually consumed 

163,884 acres (66,322 hectares) of federal, state, and private lands. A total of 60,254 acres 

(24,384 hectares) within the Hanford Site burned, including areas in and around the HAMMER 

expansion. Fire suppression impacts included construction of 41 miles (66 kilometers) of bulldozed fire 

lines, widened dirt roads, and cut fences (DOI 2000). 

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 on HAMMER (PNNL-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. 

Environmental Assessment 4-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment 

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 Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. Coyotes and raptors are the 

primary predators. Several species of small birds nest in the steppe vegetation. Semiannual peaks in 

avian variety and abundance occur during migration seasons. Additional information concerning the 

Hanford Site can be found in PNNL-6415. 

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 (PNNL-6415). Other counties are less affected by changes in Hanford 

Site employment. 

4.2 SPECIFIC SITE ENVIRONMENT 

HAMMER is adjacent to the city limits of Richland, Washington, and on the north side of Horn Rapids 

Road about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from the Columbia River, and is above the 100-year floodplain, and 

has no identified wetlands. 

4.2.1 Soil and Subsurface 

The soil of HAMMER expansion area is predominately coarse brown-to-grayish-brown sand, and found 

under grass, sagebrush, and hopsage in coarse sandy alluvial deposits mantled by wind-blown sand. 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. Deposits typical of the gravel-dominated facies consisting of uncemented granule to 

cobble gravels and minor coarse-grained sand generally dominate Hanford formation strata. The top of 

the Ringold Formation underlies this. 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). 

4.2.2 Hydrology 

The water table in the HAMMER expansion area is approximately 374 feet (114 meters) to 387 feet 

(118 meters) below the surface (PNNL-6415). 

4.2.3 Air Resources 

The Hanford Site operates under a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit established by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is designed to protect existing ambient air 

quality. Except for automobiles and trucks, there are no discharge points for air pollutants at HAMMER. 

Environmental Assessment 4-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment 

4.2.4 Plants and Animals 

An updated Hanford Biological Review [ERC #2001-600-030-B (Appendix. B)] was conducted for the 

proposed action. Much of the expansion area was burned during the 24 Command Fire in June 2000, 

resulting in a substantial reduction in the proportion of shrub cover present. The burned area is now 

dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda). A relatively high 

diversity of forbs and some sprouting bitterbrush (Pursia tridentate) also are present. The small 

unburned, remaining portions of the expansion area contain mature shrubs including big sage (Artemisia 

tridentate), bitterbrush, and snow buckwheat (Eriogonum niveum). 

Three burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) were flushed and a single active burrow was located. Three 

western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), one loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and one horned 

lark (Eremophila alperstris) also were observed in the expansion area. No plant or animal species 

protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, were observed in the vicinity of the proposed 

action. 

4.2.5 Cultural Resources 

A Hanford Cultural Resources Review [#2001-600-030 (Appendix A)] was conducted for the proposed 

action. The review concluded that, “.... no historic properties will be adversely affected by this 

undertaking, provided the project maintain a 100 meter buffer between project ground disturbing 

activities and the Yakima Irrigation ditch. Since the project area is located in undisturbed ground, a slight 

potential exists for historic properties to be located below ground in the vicinity of the Yakima Irrigation 

Ditch. On August 12, 2001, the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred (Appendix A) 

with this review. 

Environmental Assessment 4-3 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 4-4 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The following sections describe impacts from the proposed action. Impacts from the adjacent CTF are 

included for completeness. 

5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 

Impacts from the construction phase activities are described in the following sections. 

5.1.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance 

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

Construction of the EVOC would disturb previously undisturbed soil. The straightaway portion would 

require grading to level the length. The rest of the course would follow the contours of the land, except in 

places that require cut and fill to follow good engineering practices in designing the course. Suitable 

grading would occur to allow run-off drainage. In total, approximately 75% of the 60-acre (24.3-hectare) 

site would be disturbed during construction. However after construction, approximately 40 percent of the 

site would be covered with the asphalt course, skills pad, parking lot, connex box pad, and shelter pad. 

All soil disturbance activities would be temporary. Portions of the infield and other areas would be 

reseeded with native species in accordance with the mitigation action plan located in Appendix C. 

National Utility Training Services Site 

Soil disturbances for the poles and erected tower structures would occur. The helipad would disturb 

approximately 100 square feet (9.3 square meters) of pavement with an additional perimeter area of 100 

feet (31 meters) for a total of 44,100 square feet (4,097 square meters). Suitable grading would occur to 

allow run-off drainage. The earthmoving training area would occupy approximately 4 acres 

(1.6 hectares) and the parking garage would disturb approximately 60,000 square feet (5,574 square 

meters) of soil. It is estimated that 50 percent of the 40-acre (1.62-hectare) expansion area would be 

disturbed. All soil disturbance activities would be of limited duration, except in the earth moving area. 

Cold Test Facility 

Construction of the CTF has been completed. 

5.1.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters 

It is not expected that any liquid discharges would be made to the groundwater or surface waters from the 

 construction phase. 

5.1.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air 

Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharges from typical construction activities, such as 

trucks for transporting building materials and solid waste, heat and exhaust fumes from construction 

Environmental Assessment 5-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

equipment motors, or backfilling, could be generated for short periods of time during the construction 

phase for each site of the proposed action. Watering down soil would control dust emissions. 

5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure 

Because HAMMER is a nonradiation facility and the three projects described in this EA also are 

nonradiation projects, there would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure.

5.1.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated 

It is expected that only small amounts of nonhazardous solid waste would be generated during the 

construction phase. The addition of nonhazardous waste into an onsite landfill would be small compared 

to the expected overall waste disposal capacity on the Hanford Site. In addition, other facilities would be 

expected to have adequate capacity to accept all other waste volumes from the proposed action. All 

nonhazardous waste would be disposed in accordance with applicable requirements. 

5.1.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated 

Small amounts of potential hazardous/dangerous waste (e.g., solvents) might be expected to be generated 

during construction. This waste, if generated, would be managed and disposed in accordance with 

applicable federal and state regulations. Waste that might be generated from the proposed action is 

expected to be minimal compared to annual waste generation on the Hanford Site. 

5.1.7 Hazardous Substances Present 

It is not expected that there would be any hazardous substances present during construction of the 

proposed action. 

5.1.8 Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas 

The relatively high diversity of forbs and residual sprouting of bitterbrush following the fire indicates the 

area is recovering from the fire. The nature of the firefighting activity during the June 2000 fire around 

HAMMER resulted in small unburned sage 'islands' that contain the only remaining sagebrush 

(Appendix B). It is recommended that areas disturbed by construction of the EVOC facilities be 

revegetated using species native to the Hanford Site per the mitigation action plan in Appendix C. 

5.1.9 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources 

Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., steel, concrete, grout, etc.) would occur for each of the 

planned sites. None of the materials to be used are in short supply. The amount of consumption would 

be minimal. 

Environmental Assessment 5-2 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

5.1.10 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed or Candidate Threatened or Endangered 

Species 

The Hanford Biological Review (Appendix B) states “Burrowing owls are classified as a federal species 

of concern, a Washington State “candidate” species, a WDFW priority species, and a Hanford Site 

Biological Resources Management Plan (BRMaP) level III resource. The burrowing owl is a species 

experiencing recent regional decline and all BRMaP level III resources require mitigation”. To mitigate 

the potential impacts on the burrowing owl as located on the EVOC, the entrance, parking lot, and two 

pads were moved south to avoid impacting the nest site. 

This Hanford Biological Review (Appendix B) also states “Horned larks, loggerhead shrikes, and western 

meadowlarks are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Chapter 7, 

§703), which states it is unlawful to “take” or “attempt to take” any nest or eggs from a migratory bird”. 

Loggerhead shrikes are also classified as a Washington State "candidate" species. It is advised that if 

work has not been completed by April 15, 2003, bird avoidance measures be in place to reduce the 

likelihood of an 'unlawful take' as much as reasonably as possible. As practicable, construction activities 

would be suspended until the end of nesting season. 

5.1.11 Effects on Cultural Resources 

The Hanford Cultural Resources Review (Appendix A) was conducted. The review concluded: "There is 

a finding of no effect to historic properties and no further actions are required". It was further 

recommended that intermittent monitoring occur by an archaeologist to ensure that potential historic 

properties are not impacted by project activities. A response from the State Historical Preservation 

Officer confirmed this conclusion (Appendix A). No adverse impacts under the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 are expected. 

5.1.12 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland 

The construction would not occur in a 100- or 500-year floodplain nor within any area designated as a 

wetland.

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

Designated Area 

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

specially-designated area. 

5.1.14 Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the Effects 

Environmental Assessment 5-3 November 2002 

The reasonably foreseeable accidents during construction would be typical construction accidents. 

Nonradiological risks to personnel from occupational illness or injury are based on statistics for DOE and 

DOE contractor experience (DOE 2000). The lost workday rate is 63 per 200,000 hours of 

construction work. The fatality rate is close to zero per 200,000 hours of work. About 2 lost workdays 

and no fatalities would be expected during the construction phases. All construction personnel for DOE 

projects would follow approved DOE safety procedures for construction activities. All construction 

personnel for NUTS would follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 1910.267 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

standards. Typical construction hazards would exist; however, the risk of severe accidents would be 

small. 

5.2 OPERATION PHASE AND POST-OPERATION IMPACTS 

Impacts from operational activities are described in the following sections. 

5.2.1 Soil or Subsurface Disturbance 

There would be no soil or subsurface disturbances anticipated during operation of EVOC, NUTS, or CTF, 

except for the earth moving training area within NUTS. The earth moving area would be continually 

used. All operations of the proposed action would occur in previously disturbed areas. 

5.2.2 Liquid Discharges to the Groundwater or Surface Waters 

It is not expected that any liquid discharges would be made to the groundwater or surface waters from 

operation of EVOC, NUTS, or CTF. 

5.2.3 Gaseous, Particulate, or Thermal Discharges to the Air 

Small quantities of gaseous, particulate, or thermal discharges from such activities as the motor vehicles 

on the EVOC course or vehicles/machines involved in activities at NUTS would be generated during 

routine operations of the proposed action. Small quantities of emissions could occur at the CTF from the 

simulants as various types of mixing equipment are tested. Small amounts of emissions would occur from 

vehicles arriving and leaving EVOC, NUTS, and CTF. 

The CTF has a design life of 30 years (RPP-5566). It is expected that the design life of NUTS and EVOC 

also would be approximately 30 years. Eventual decommissioning and dismantlement of EVOC, NUTS, 

and CTF would comply with applicable regulations and procedures in effect at that time. The impacts of 

the operations and post-operations of the proposed action are considered to be relatively minor. No 

substantial increases in the overall emissions are envisioned from the proposed action and no changes to 

the PSD Permit are expected. 

5.2.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure 

There would be no radionuclide releases or direct radiation exposure expected from the operation or 

post-operations of the proposed action. 

5.2.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated 

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

Environmental Assessment 5-4 November 2002 

It is expected that only small amounts of nonhazardous solid waste would be generated during the 

operational phase of the EVOC. Once the sites are decommissioned and dismantled, typical demolition 

waste might be expected, and no further waste generation would occur. The demolition waste generated 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

would be disposed into existing landfills. The addition of demolition waste into the existing landfills 

would be small compared to the expected overall capacity of the landfills. All nonhazardous waste would 

be disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements. 

National Utility Training Services Site 

It is expected that only small amounts of nonhazardous solid waste would be generated during the 

operational phase of NUTS. Once the sites are decommissioned and dismantled, typical demolition waste 

is expected, and no further waste generation would occur. The demolition waste generated might be 

disposed into existing landfills. The addition of demolition waste into the existing landfills would be 

small compared to the expected overall capacity of the landfills. All nonhazardous waste would be 

disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements. 

Cold Test Facility 

The CTF would be using nonhazardous and nonradiological simulants and would be capable of accepting, 

staging, and directing up to 600,000 gallons (2,271,000 liters) of simulants for the testing of tank 

equipment and training of personnel. Simulants are types of materials that would mimic certain 

characteristics of the waste contained in the SSTs or DSTs and would be nondangerous and 

nonradioactive. The CTF would be capable of segregated storage, separate from the CTF tank, of the 

different types of waste simulants used in the CTF. When a simulant is no longer needed, the simulant 

would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations and procedures. Typical simulant 

composition is as follows (RPP-5566).

Simulant Composition 

Insoluble waste with large heavy 

particles 

Silica sand: 

Median particle size = 275 μm± 20 μm 

Density = 3 g/mL 

Insoluble, high shear strength waste Kaolin or bentonite clay 

Soluble salt Sodium bicarbonate or sodium nitrate 

Concentrated supernatant Supernatant consisting of sodium nitrate 

dissolved in water 

5.2.6 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste Generated 

Small amounts of potential hazardous waste (e.g., waste oil and/or cleaning agents) expected to be 

generated during operation of the EVOC, NUTS or CTF would be managed and disposed in accordance 

with applicable federal and state regulations. No hazardous or dangerous waste is expected to be 

generated during post-operation. Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is expected to be 

minimal compared to annual waste generation on the Hanford Site. 

5.2.7 Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas 

There would be no disturbance to previously undeveloped areas during operation and post-operation. 

Environmental Assessment 5-5 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

5.2.8 Consumption or Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources 

Consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum products, diesel fuel, etc.) would occur during 

operation and post-operation. The amount of consumption is expected to be small. 

5.2.9 Effects on Cultural Resources 

There would be no effect on cultural resources during operation and post-operation of the proposed 

actions. 

5.2.10 Effects on Federal or State Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Threatened or Endangered 

Species 

Effects on federal or state listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species during 

operation and post-operation are expected to be minimal. 

5.2.11 Effects on any Floodplain or Wetland 

The proposed actions are outside any floodplains and wetlands. 

5.2.12 Effects on any Wild and Scenic River, State or Federal Wildlife Refuge, or Specially 

Designated Area. 

The proposed actions are outside any Wild and Scenic River corridor, state or federal wildlife refuge, or 

specially designated area. 

5.2.13 Reasonable Foreseeable Accidents Considered and the Effects 

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

A reasonably foreseeable accident during operation would be the collision of vehicles or a single vehicle 

accident that would occur while training on the course. A similar facility located in Shelton, Washington 

has had a few minor/minimal accidents and no major vehicle accidents or personnel injuries have 

occurred during the operation of the course. Key in operating a safe EVOC is good instruction and 

knowing the abilities of each student training on the course. 

Potential vehicle accidents are remote since there would be individual runs of vehicles. Possible fires 

from catalytic converters might occur. In either case, a local fire or police agency would be notified. The 

soft sand surrounding the EVOC would prevent errant vehicles from the course from entering Horn 

Rapids Road to the south or Ila Lane to the east of the EVOC. Physical barriers would be added as 

necessary. Spills that could occur from accidents would be handled and disposed of in accordance with 

applicable federal and state regulations. 

Hazards common to demolition projects would exist in the post-operation phase of the proposed project. 

Post-operation would be conducted in conformance with recognized safety codes and regulations to 

Environmental Assessment 5-6 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

ensure a safe working environment. Public health and safety would not be affected because the area 

would be closed to the general public. 

National Utility Training Services Site 

The Northwest Line Joint Apprentice Training Committee operates a training school on the Oregon coast 

that consists of steel towers, wood towers with transmission lines, a pole yard, and an indoor pole yard for 

'hot sticking' (the use of fiberglass poles with steel attachments for handling of electrically charged lines). 

 This school has been in operation for 40 years with approximately 250 students per year attending. 

Approximately 3 to 4 minor accidents occur each year. These accidents are classified as non-time loss 

accidents. In 40 years, only one major accident occurred when a student fell from a pole. It is expected 

that NUTS would experience a similar minimal accident rate. 

Hazards common to demolition projects would exist in the post-operation phase of the proposed project. 

The post-operation would be conducted in conformance with recognized safety codes and regulations to 

ensure a safe working environment. Public health and safety would not be affected because the area is 

closed to the general public. 

Cold Test Facility 

A reasonably foreseeable accident during testing operations would be falls from scaffolding, hazards 

commonly associated with the installation of equipment such as electrical hazards, hazards from lifting, or 

the use of power tools. Accidents occurring from these types of activities are minimal (DOE 2000). 

Impacts from natural hazards such as floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or fire will have minimal impact on 

the CTF (Huckfeldt 2002). 

The CTF has minimal reasonable foreseeable accidents because CTF is a nonhazardous, nonradioactive 

facility. Hazards common to demolition projects would exist in the post-operation phase of the proposed 

project. The post-operation would be conducted in conformance with recognized safety codes and 

regulations to ensure a safe working environment. Public health and safety would not be affected because 

the area would be closed to the general public. 

5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 

In a community of over 140,000 persons (PNNL-6415) with a workforce in excess of 8,000 persons on 

the Hanford Site, the socioeconomic impacts of this proposed action would be expected to be small. Less 

than two dozen people are expected to be added employment due to the proposed action. There would be 

no discernible impact to employment levels within Benton and Franklin Counties. 

5.3.1 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

EVOC would bring in emergency service personnel from out of the area and have an expected small 

impact on the local economy. 

Environmental Assessment 5-7 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

5.3.2 National Utility Training Services Site 

The direct revenue for the local economy is estimated at over $1 million based on $100 per person per 

day for lodging, meals, and miscellaneous spending. NWPPA estimated 9,000 overnight stays would be 

required by outside students to receive the proposed training. This number, multiplied by $100/day, 

calculates to a conservative estimate of $900,000 for the first full year of operation. 

5.3.3 Cold Test Facility 

CTF would be training personnel from the local area, although it is anticipated that vendors staying in the 

local area would generate a minor amount of revenue while their equipment is being tested at the CTF. 

This contribution to the local economy would be minimal and have little impact. 

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS 

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations", requires that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or socioeconomic effects of their programs and 

activities on minority and low-income populations. Minority populations and low-income populations 

are present near the Hanford Site (PNNL-6415). The analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed 

action indicates that there would be minimal impacts to both the offsite population and potential 

workforce. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to any minority or low-income portion of the community. 

5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In analyzing the cumulative impacts of the 210 acres (85 hectares) for the projects, approximately half 

would be disturbed. The CTF and the HAMMER expansion area are located on land that mostly burned 

during the 24 Command Fire of 2000. The mitigation action plan (Appendix C) requires the reseeding of 

disturbed areas with native Hanford Site species. 

Mitigation of the burrowing owl nesting site would occur by moving the parking lot and entrance to the 

EVOC from the original site location. Mitigation of the horned larks, loggerhead shrikes, and western 

meadowlarks nesting sites would occur by not working on the EVOC site during the nesting season. 

Waste generation resulting from the proposed action is not expected to be substantial compared to annual 

waste generation on the Hanford Site. These materials would be managed and recycled or disposed of in 

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Disposal of waste as a result of the proposed 

action would not substantially affect any associated disposal sites. 

The EVOC and NUTS would have an impact on the economy by bringing in students from outlying areas 

that would be lodged overnight. However, expansion of local lodgings would not be necessary as 

adequate space is available for most of the year. The CTF would have minimal impact on the economy 

because training would be for personnel from the local area. The overall economic impact of the proposed 

actions are estimated to be low. 

Environmental Assessment 5-8 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

Based on the analysis from previous sections in this EA, as well as the mitigation measures considered, 

no substantial cumulative impacts are expected. 

5.6 IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives and the no action alternative are discussed in the following sections. Cumulative impacts for 

the alternatives were not fully analyzed because impacts technically were not viable options and/or data 

were not developed sufficiently. 

5.6.1 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

The no action alternative for EVOC would be not to build the EVOC at HAMMER, which would mean 

emergency service personnel would not receive local training in emergency response driving. This land 

to the west of the existing HAMMER would not be disturbed. 

National Utility Training Services Site 

The no action alternative would be not to fully develop the NUTS and would limit the utility training 

options to what exists on the original 40 acres (16.2 hectares). This includes trenching areas, wood pole 

transmission structures, generation facilities, wood pole climbing yard, but would exclude the substation, 

lattice towers training areas, and at the helipad and the excavation training area would not expand. This 

would result in inadequate training of utility personnel in these areas, although there would be less direct 

environmental impact to the immediate area. 

5.6.2 Impacts of Alternatives 

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course 

Relocation of EVOC to another location would involve the additional cost of leasing/purchasing space, in 

addition to creating safety hazards because of public access. If this were to occur elsewhere, no Hanford 

Site habitat would be disturbed. 

National Utility Training Services Site 

The alternative of locating the NUTS Facility at Camp Rilea was eliminated due to the limited amount of 

land available for locating the planned training structures and that the current training facility is a 

secondary use of Camp Rilea. The available land near the I-5 corridor was also not feasible due to height 

restrictions along this corridor that would eliminate some of the necessary training structures. Also, rainy 

weather in either of these locations would greatly restrict the number of outdoor training days. 

Land that was close to the Hammer Facility was also considered. Zoning for this area is for an industrial 

park, which is unfeasible for a utility training facility. 

Environmental Assessment 5-9 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 5-10 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Permits and Regulatory Requirements 

6.0 PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

It is the policy of the DOE to carry out its operations in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws 

and regulations; Presidential Executive Orders; DOE Orders; and DOE-RL Directives. 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 and state agencies. 

The Hanford Site is subject to the emission limits of Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) 173-400-040, "General Standards for Maximum Emissions", which are designed to protect 

existing air quality. No state permits would be required. 

Environmental Assessment 6-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Permits and Regulatory Requirements 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 6-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412

U.S. Department of Energy Tribal Governments, Agencies and Others Consulted 

7.0 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENCIES AND OTHERS CONSULTED 

Before approval of this EA, it was sent in draft for a 30-day review to the following: 

• Nez Perce Tribe 

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

• Yakama Nation 

• Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

• Wanapum 

• Bonneville Power Administration 

• General Services Administration 

• U.S. Department of Education 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Health 

• Washington State Historic Preservation Officer 

• Oregon Office of Energy 

• Benton County 

• Franklin County 

• City of Pasco 

• City of Richland 

• City of West Richland 

• Hanford Advisory Board 

• Heart of America 

• Northwest Public Power Association 

• Physicians for Social Responsibility. 

A draft EA was also made available in the DOE Reading Room (Consolidated Information Center at 

Washington State University Tri-Cities) and at the Richland Public Library, and on the Hanford webpage 

during the comment period. 

Comments were received from the Nez Perce tribe, Yakama Nation, the Oregon State Department of 

Energy, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments and responses are 

included as Appendix D. 

Environmental Assessment 7-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412

U.S. Department of Energy Tribal Governments, Agencies and Others Consulted 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 7-2 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy References 

8.0 REFERENCES 

65 FR 37253, June 9, 2000, Proclamation 7319 of June 9, 2000, Establishment of the Hanford Reach 

National Monument, Presidential Documents, June 13, 2000. 

DOE/RL-96-32, Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan, August 2001, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 

DOE, 2000, DOE Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS), including Occupational 

Injury and Property Damage Summary, January-March 2000, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C. 

DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, 

Washington, September 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington 

DOI, 2000, 24 Command Fire, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation(BAER) Plan, July 7, 2000, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Northern States Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team, 

Hanford, Washington. 

Executive Order 12856, "Federal Compliance with Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention 

Requirements". 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 

Huckfeldt, R. A., 2002, Preliminary Fire Hazards Analysis for the Cold Test, Training, and Mockup 

Facility, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. 

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

PNNL-6415, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, Rev. 14, 

September 2001, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

PNNL-13487, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2000, September 2001, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

RPP-5566, Rev. 1, Cold Test, Training, and Mockup Facility Functions and Requirements, March 2001, 

CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. 

RPP-7502, Rev. 0, Acquisition Strategy for Cold Test, Training, and Mock-up Facilities, December 2000, 

CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. 

Environmental Assessment 8-1 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy References 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment 8-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

APPENDIX A 

CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW 

Environmental Assessment APP A-i November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment APP A-ii November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-2 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-3 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-3 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-4 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-4 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-5 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-6 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment APP A-6 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix B 

Environmental Assessment APP B-4 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix B 

Environmental Assessment APP B-4 November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

APPENDIX C 

MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 

Environmental Assessment APP C-i November 2002 
DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment APP C-ii November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-3 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-4 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-5 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-6 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-7 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-8 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-9 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C 

Environmental Assessment APP C-10 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

APPENDIX D 

COMMENT AND RESPONSES 

Environmental Assessment APP D-i November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Assessment APP D-ii November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-1 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-2 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-3 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-4 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-5 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-6 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-7 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-8 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-8 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-9 November 2002 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-9 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-10 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-11 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-12 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-13 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-14 November 2002 
 DOE/EA-1412 

U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D 

Environmental Assessment APP D-15 November 2002