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

This page intentionally left blank.

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



### PREFACE

This environmental assessment is prepared to assess pot ential 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. Informati on contained herein will be used by the Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Offi ce, 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 pr epared 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 Fe deral Regulations 1500-1508), and the U.S. Department of Energy Implementing Procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act (Title 10, Code of Fede ral 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, Rich land 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 N eed. 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 u sed to contribute information or data in preparation of this environmental assessment.

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

ft 3 cubic feet

HAMMER Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response Training and Education Center

LESTC Law Enforcement and Security Training Center

m 3 cubic meters mg/m 3 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 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Glossary

Environmental Assessment G-3 November 2002DOE/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 en forcement, and occupational, safety, and health training (Figure 1). The mission for HAMMER is to hos t, broker, and provide tr aining 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 h ectares) 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 out side 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 a nd 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. E VOC has suspended operations pending availability of

a new site.

Environmental Assessment 1-1 November 2002DOE/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 Administra tion (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 Un ited 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 pr ocured 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 N EPA documentation. Potential impacts of habitat mitigation for CTF are discussed in this EA for completeness.

Environmental Assessment 1-2 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 hect ares) [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 em ergency response situati ons. 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 woul d consist of an asphalt course approximately 36 feet (11 meters) wide and 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) l ong. 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 woul d 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 woul d 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 (Figur e 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 deve loped. 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 Biol ogical Review (Appendix B) have been prepared for the proposed action.

Environmental Assessment 2-1 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 2. HAMMER.

Environmental Assessment 2-2 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 ac tion 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 re maining undeveloped and not specified for future expansion.



### 3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Other alternatives to the proposed action ar e described in the following sections.

3.2.1 Emergency Vehicle Operation Course

Relocation of the EVOC to another location was consid ered. 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 loca tions 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 trai ning is considered a secondary use. Available land near the I-5 corridor was also considered, as was la nd near the HAMMER Facility that is zoned for an industrial park.

Environmental Assessment 3-1 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Alternatives to the Proposed Action

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 3-2 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment



### 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The following sections provide a discussion of the exis ting 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 s quare 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 th e 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 M onument 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. Esta blishment of the monument recognizes the unique character and biological diversity of the Hanford ar ea, as well as its geological, paleontological, historic, cultural, and archaeological importance.

The Hanford Site has a mild climate with 6 to 7 inch es (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 emi ssions 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 gene rally 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 Fi re, 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 construc tion 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 vegeta tion are high quality habitat for many plants and animals and have been designated as "priority habitat" by Washington State.

Environmental Assessment 4-1 November 2002DOE/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 Hanf ord 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 n est 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. Ther efore, work activities on the Hanford Site play an important role in the socioeconomics of the Tri-C ities (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 predominatel y coarse brown-to-grayish-brown sand, and found under grass, sagebrush, and hopsage in coarse sandy all uvial deposits mantled by wind-blown sand. The geologic strata under the surface layer, in desce nding order, are Holocene eolian deposits, Hanford formation, Ringold Formation, and the Columbia Ri ver Basalt Group. The eolian sands are fine- to coarse-grained, and relatively quartz- and feldspar-ri ch. Deposits of the Hanford formation underlie the eolian deposits. Deposits typical of the gravel-dom inated 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 Ri ngold 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 2002DOE/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 w as 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 ar ea 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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Affected Environment

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 4-4 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts



### 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The following sections describe impacts from the propo sed 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 th e 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 to tal, approximately 75% of the 60-acre (24.3-hectare) site would be disturbed during cons truction. However after constructi on, approximately 40 percent of the

site would be covered with the as phalt 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 acco rdance with the mitigation action plan located in Appendix C.

National Utility Training Services Site

Soil disturbances for the poles and erected tower stru ctures 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 dist urb approximately 60,000 squa re 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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts

equipment motors, or backfilling, could be generate d for short periods of time during the construction phase for each site of the proposed action. Wa tering down soil would control dust emissions.

5.1.4 Radionuclide Releases or Direct Radiation Exposure

Because HAMMER is a nonradiation facility and the th ree projects described in this EA also are nonradiation projects, there would be no radi onuclide releases or direct radiation exposure

.

5.1.5 Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated

It is expected that only small amounts of nonhazar dous 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 acco rdance 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 manage d and disposed in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Waste th at 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 h azardous substances present during construction of the proposed action.

5.1.8 Disturbance to Previously Undeveloped Areas

The relatively high diversity of forbs and residual spr outing of bitterbrush following the fire indicates the area is recovering from the fire. The nature of th e 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 distur bed 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, c oncrete, 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 2002DOE/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 le vel 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 st ates “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, bi rd 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 c oncluded: "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 (Appe ndix 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 construc tion 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 cons truction phases. All construction personnel for DOE projects would follow approved DOE safety procedur es for construction activities. All construction personnel for NUTS would follow Occupational Safe ty and Health Administration (OSHA) 1910.267DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts

standards. Typical construction hazards would ex ist; 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 an ticipated 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 therma l discharges from such activ ities 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 qua ntities 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 ac tion are considered to be relatively minor. No

substantial increases in the overall emissions are e nvisioned 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 ra diation 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 nonhazar dous 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 gene ration would occur. The demolition waste generatedDOE/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 nonhazar dous 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 ar e types of materials that would mimic certain

characteristics of the waste contained in th e SSTs or DSTs and w ould be nondangerous and nonradioactive. The CTF would be capable of segre gated 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 applicab le 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 μ m ± 20 μ m 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., wast e 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. W aste 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 opera tion and post-operation.

Environmental Assessment 5-5 November 2002DOE/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 dur ing 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 majo r 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 erra nt 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 woul d 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 2002DOE/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 tran smission 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 w ith 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 recogni zed 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 opera tions would be falls from scaffolding, hazards commonly associated with the installation of equipmen t such as electrical hazards, hazards from lifting, or the use of power tools. Accidents occurring fro m 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 acci dents because CTF is a nonhazardous, nonradioactive facility. Hazards common to demolition projects woul d 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. P ublic 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 empl oyment 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 fro m out of the area and have an expected small impact on the local economy.

Environmental Assessment 5-7 November 2002DOE/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 estim ated 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, a lthough it is anticipated that vendors staying in the local area would generate a minor amount of revenue wh ile their equipment is being tested at the CTF. This contribution to the local economy woul d be minimal and have little impact.



### 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address E nvironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations", requires that federa l 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 th ere 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 expa nsion 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 o ccur 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 wo rking 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 w ould be managed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulati ons. 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, expa nsion 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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts

Based on the analysis from previous sections in th is 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 anal yzed 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 tr aining 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 pol e 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 personne l 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 stru ctures 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 grea tly restrict the number of outdoor training days.

Land that was close to the Hammer Facility was also c onsidered. Zoning for this area is for an industrial park, which is unfeasible for a utility training facility.

Environmental Assessment 5-9 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Impacts

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 5-10 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Permits and Regulatory Requirements

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 6-2 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Tribal Gove rnments, 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 R eading 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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Tribal Gove rnments, Agencies and Others Consulted

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 7-2 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy References



### 8.0 REFERENCES

65 FR 37253, June 9, 2000, Proclamation 7319 of June 9, 2000, Es tablishment 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 Reporti ng 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 Fa cility 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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy References

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment 8-2 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A



### APPENDIX A

CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW

Environmental Assessment APP A-i November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment APP A-ii November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A

Environmental Assessment APP A-1 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix A

Environmental Assessment APP A-5 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C



### APPENDIX C

MITIGATION ACTION PLAN

Environmental Assessment APP C-i November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment APP C-ii November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-1 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-2 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-3 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-4 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-5 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-6 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-7 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-8 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-9 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix C

Environmental Assessment APP C-10 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D



### APPENDIX D

COMMENT AND RESPONSES

Environmental Assessment APP D-i November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment APP D-ii November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-1 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-2 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-4 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-5 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-6 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-7 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-10 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-11 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-12 November 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-13 November 2002DOE/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 2002DOE/EA-1412 U.S. Department of Energy Appendix D

Environmental Assessment APP D-15 November 2002