3–1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

In Chapter 3, the affected environment descriptions of the seven sites considered in this Long-Term Management 

and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement provide the context for understanding the 

environmental consequences of the action alternatives described in Chapter 4. In addition, a description of the 

environment of the Y–12 National Security Complex is included for purposes of comparison since it is being 

evaluated under the No Action Alternative. The affected environment serves as a baseline from which any 

environmental changes that may be brought about by implementing the proposed alternatives can be identified 

and evaluated; the baseline conditions are the currently existing conditions. The affected environment is 

described for the following impact areas: land use and visual resources; geology, soils, and geologic hazards; 

water resources; meteorology, air quality, and noise; ecological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; 

infrastructure; waste management; occupational and public health and safety; socioeconomics; and environmental 

justice. 

3.1 APPROACH TO DEFINING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes the environment at the seven sites that could be affected through implementing the 

alternatives evaluated in this Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental 

Impact Statement (Mercury Storage EIS). The seven sites comprise the following: Grand Junction 

Disposal Site (GJDS), Hanford Site (Hanford), Hawthorne Army Depot, Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL), Kansas City Plant (KCP), Savannah River Site (SRS), and Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS), 

site. In addition, the environment at the Y–12 National Security Complex (Y–12), which is part of the 

No Action Alternative, is described for purposes of comparison with the action alternatives. For each 

site, the affected environment is described for the following resource areas: land use and visual resources; 

geology, soils, and geologic hazards; water resources; meteorology, air quality, and noise; ecological 

resources; cultural and paleontological resources; infrastructure; waste management; occupational and 

public health and safety; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. This environmental impact 

statement (EIS) provides a description of the existing environment of each site as a whole, as well as that 

of the area(s) of each site within which the proposed action would take place. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) evaluated the environmental impacts of managing and storing 

mercury1

 within defined regions of influence (ROIs). These ROIs are specific to the resource area 

evaluated; encompass geographic areas within which any meaningful impact is expected to occur; and can 

include the areas within which the proposed action would take place, the sites as a whole, or nearby or 

distant offsite areas. For example, impacts on historic resources were evaluated at specific facility 

locations within each site, whereas human health risks to the general public were assessed for an area 

within a 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius of the facility location. Brief descriptions of the ROIs for each 

resource area are given in Table 3–1; more-specific information is presented in Appendix B. Appendix E, 

Table E–1, lists the scientific names of plants and animals used in this chapter, grouped by common name 

in alphabetical order. 

Table 3–1. General Regions of Influence for the Affected Environment 

Environmental Resource Area Region of Influence 

Land use and visual resources The project location, the site, and nearby offsite areas 

Geology, soils, and geologic hazards The project location, the site, and nearby offsite areas 

Water resources The project location, the site, and adjacent surface-water bodies and 

groundwater 

Meteorology, air quality, and noise For air quality, the site and nearby offsite areas potentially affected by 

air pollutant emissions; for noise, the project location, the site, and 

surrounding areas, including transportation corridors where proposed 

activities might increase noise levels 

 

1 Unless indicated otherwise, elemental mercury is referred to hereafter simply as “mercury” in this environmental impact 

statement.
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–2

Table 3–1. General Regions of Influence for the Affected Environment (continued) 

Environmental Resource Area Region of Influence 

Ecological resources The project location, the site, and nearby offsite areas 

Cultural and paleontological resources The project location and adjacent areas 

Infrastructure The project location, the site, and local areas supporting the site 

Waste management The waste management facilities located on the site 

Occupational and public health and 

safety 

The site, offsite areas within 16 kilometers of the site, and the 

transportation corridors 

Socioeconomics The counties where at least 90 percent of site employees reside 

Environmental justice The area within 16 kilometers of the site and the area within 

3.2 kilometers of the site as a subset of the 16-kilometer area 

Note: To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214. 

The existing environmental conditions for each resource area were determined from information provided 

in previous EISs and environmental studies, other government reports and databases, and relevant laws 

and regulations. 

3.2 GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE 

3.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

Land use at GJDS and all sites is defined in terms of the kinds of anthropogenic activities 

(e.g., agricultural, residential, industrial) for which land is developed (EPA 2006). Natural resource and 

other environmental characteristics make a site more suitable for some land uses than for others. Changes 

in land use may have beneficial or adverse effects on other resources—ecological, cultural, geological, 

and atmospheric. Visual resources are natural and manmade features that give a particular landscape its 

character and aesthetic quality. Landscape character is determined by the visual elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. All four elements are present in every landscape. 

3.2.1.1 Land Use 

Land use at GJDS is zoned “Agricultural, Forestry, Transitional.” The 146-hectare (360-acre) site is 

located on DOE land in a rural area of Mesa County, Colorado, approximately 29 kilometers (18 miles) 

southeast of the city of Grand Junction. The property was withdrawn from the public domain for the 

emplacement of uranium mill tailings in a 38-hectare (94-acre) disposal cell located in the west-central 

portion of the site. Small structures are currently on the site to facilitate disposal and maintenance 

operations; these include a personnel office building and two storage buildings. The site is enclosed by a 

security fence with locked gates. Entrance to the site is provided by a 2.4-kilometer (1.5-mile) restrictedaccess road extending east from U.S. Route 50 (Geiser 2009:3, 4, 6). 

As discussed in Chapter 1, Sections 1.6 and 1.7.1, DOE and the Mesa County Board of Commissioners 

(Mesa County) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (1996 MOU) (DOE and Mesa County 

1996) to provide meaningful consultation with and participation of Mesa County in DOE’s use of GJDS. 

Mesa County’s position is that the use of GJDS is restricted per the 1996 MOU and that DOE is obligated 

to honor this agreement. DOE currently is evaluating the applicability of the 1996 MOU to determine 

whether it would affect the viability of this site as a reasonable alternative. 

Land use surrounding GJDS is predominantly open rangeland used seasonally for grazing (DOE 2009a). 

The site is surrounded by land owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on all but the west 

side, which is bordered by a private parcel. Although private parcels are interspersed throughout the 

BLM lands, it is very unlikely that this area will see more than rural, low-density development 

(Geiser 2009:4). The nearest residence is located approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) north of the site; 

however, recently approved residential site plans could result in residences being closer to the site. The 
Affected Environment 

3–3

nearest portion of the 26,823-hectare (66,280-acre) Dominquez Canyon Wilderness Area, established in 

2009, is located approximately 7.4 kilometers (4.6 miles) southwest of the site (DOI 2009). 

A seasonal pond (Cheney Reservoir) is located 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south of the site and is used for 

livestock and wildlife watering; the Gunnison River is located 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) to the west 

(DOE 1986:62; Geiser 2009:4). 

3.2.1.2 Visual Resources 

The developed areas of GJDS are consistent with the BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Class IV. Class IV includes areas in which major modifications to the character of the landscape have 

occurred. These changes may be dominant features of the view and the major focus of viewer attention 

(DOI 1986:App.2). The uranium mill tailings disposal unit (or disposal cell) is not visible from 

U.S. Route 50 (Geiser 2009:4). The viewshed, which is the extent of the area that may be viewed from 

GJDS, consists mainly of open range with scrub vegetation, dominated by views of Grand Mesa, which is 

located approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) to the northeast. This viewshed is generally consistent 

with VRM Class II (where visible changes to the character of the landscape are low and do not attract the 

attention of the casual observer). The site can be seen from Grand Mesa and Grand Mesa National Forest 

(the latter located approximately 8 kilometers [5 miles] to the northeast), but is not readily discernable at 

that distance (DOE 1986:115). 

3.2.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

The geologic resources at GJDS and all sites are described with respect to geology, soils, and geologic 

hazards. Geologic resources are consolidated or unconsolidated earth material, including ore and 

aggregate material, fossil fuels, and significant landforms. Soil resources are the loose surface materials 

of the earth in which plants grow, usually consisting of disintegrated rock, organic matter, and soluble 

salts. Geologic hazards can include seismic activity, landslides, volcanic eruptions, and erosional 

processes. 

3.2.2.1 Geology 

GJDS is located in the Canyon Lands section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. This 

province is characterized by deeply incised river channels flowing through sedimentary rocks, exposing 

large cliffs and flat mesas (DOE 1986:74, 75). Elevations across the immediate area of the disposal site 

range from 1,580 meters (5,190 feet) to approximately 1,610 meters (5,270 feet) above mean sea level. 

The site is specifically located on the west flank of Grand Mesa (Jacobs 1998:2-2, 2-8). 

The disposal site is on the northeast flank of the Uncompahgre Uplift. The crest or axis of this northwest 

striking feature is approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) to the west and southwest of the site. This 

feature is an asymmetrical block that has uplifted and faulted the sedimentary rock strata to form the 

Uncompahgre Plateau. The uplift is bounded on its flanks by locally faulted monoclines. Major geologic 

faults within the vicinity of the site are the Redlands Fault, the Jacobs Ladder Fault complex, and the 

Cactus Park-Bridge Port Fault where evidence suggests fault displacement during the Quaternary Period 

and into the Holocene Epoch (i.e., within the last 10,000 years). The nearest mapped trace of the Cactus 

Park-Bridgeport Fault is located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) west of the site (Livaccari and 

Hodge 2005). Evidence suggests that the Uncompahgre Uplift was rising as recently as 3 million years 

ago, and it is likely that uplift has continued to the present (DOE 1986:74, 76, 79). 

Bedrock beneath the site consists of a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks primarily consisting of 

alternating layers of shales, sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, and some limestones and ranging in age 

from Late Cretaceous to Triassic. The uppermost bedrock unit at the site is the Mancos Shale, which is 

primarily a marine shale within beds of limestone. The total thickness of the Mancos Shale ranges from 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–4

about 90 meters (300 feet) to more than 210 meters (700 feet) beneath the site; Dakota Sandstone 

underlies the Mancos Shale. As much as 9 meters (30 feet) of Mancos Shale was penetrated in the 

borings at the site. At the point of contact between the overlying soils and the bedrock, the Mancos Shale 

is weathered to the point of having an almost soil-like texture. Within a few feet, however, it becomes 

fairly fresh and becomes noticeably fractured, with many of the fractures filled with gypsum. With 

increasing depth, the fracturing diminishes and the shale becomes relatively impermeable (DOE 1986:74–

76, 80). There are no outcrops of the Mancos Shale at the site; the shale is overlain by colluvium, terrace 

deposits, and alluvium ranging from 7 to 13 meters (23 to 42 feet) thick (DOE 1986:76; Jacobs 1998:2-8). 

Geologic resources in the vicinity of GJDS include natural gas, coal, oil, and sand and gravel aggregate. 

Uranium ore processed at the Grand Junction Processing Site was mined from a large number of surface 

and underground mines across western Colorado and eastern Utah. Coal occurs in the upper Dakota 

Sandstone, primarily as thin beds of lignite. One-third of the natural gas fields in Mesa County produce 

gas from the Mancos, Dakota, Morrison, and Entrada Formations. There are oil and gas leases in the 

vicinity of the site, as well as active oil and gas fields in the area. While aggregate resources are available 

from the Colorado River floodplain, the gravel at the disposal site has low commercial value, as it is more 

or less uniformly distributed in a matrix of sandy silt and clay (DOE 1986:52, 75, 81). 

3.2.2.2 Soils 

At the surface, natural soil parent materials are described as consisting of an eolian (wind-blown) silt 

deposit with some clay and sand with sporadic gravel- to boulder-size basalt fragments as much as 

1 meter (3.3 feet) thick. This silty deposit is underlain by a mixture of alluvium and colluvium, which 

comprise interlayered clay, si1t, sand, and gravel with sporadic layers of basalt cobbles and boulders. 

Gully erosion of the ephemeral washes on and near the site that drain from higher elevations in the site 

vicinity is the major hazard for these materials (DOE 1986:73). Soil unit mapping by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), identifies natural soils 

across the site as belonging to the Utaline, sodic-Uffens complex (3 to 12 percent slopes, very stony) 

mapping unit. The soils are uniformly well drained and are generally characterized as cobbly clay loams 

and very stony clay loams at depths of 1.5 meters (5 feet). Soils in this complex are rated as being very 

limited for commercial building site development due to large stones. None of the soils on or in the 

vicinity of GJDS are prime farmland or other important farmland soils (NRCS 2009a). 

3.2.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

The GJDS area is located within the stable interior portion of the Colorado Plateau, but within a few 

kilometers of potentially active faults associated with the Uncompahgre Uplift (DOE 1986:76). In 

general, Colorado is considered a region of minor earthquake activity, although there are many 

uncertainties because of the very short time period for which historical data are available. The 

northwestern and southwestern corners and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the south-central section of 

the state have had no activity in historic times (USGS 2009a). The largest recorded earthquake in 

Colorado occurred in November 1882. It was estimated to have had a magnitude of 6.6 and produced 

shaking of up to a Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII at its epicenter. Although the epicenter is 

uncertain, it is thought to have been located in the Front Range west of Fort Collins. It was felt 

throughout most of Colorado and Wyoming and well into Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska. In the vicinity of 

GJDS, probable ground shaking was in the MMI V range (USGS 2009b). Appendix B, Table B–4, 

summarizes and compares the parameters cited in this Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and 

their effects. 

Since 1973, a total of 103 small earthquakes (most ranging in magnitude from 2.4 to 4.6) have been 

recorded within a radius of 100 kilometers (62 miles) of GJDS. However, 61 of these earthquakes were 

attributed to nontectonic sources primarily from coal bumps from collapsing pillars of coal or rockbursts 

in coal mines at distances ranging from about 64 to 97 kilometers (40 to 60 miles) east of the site. In 
Affected Environment 

3–5

April 1995, a small, felt earthquake of probable tectonic origin had its epicenter within 2 kilometers 

(1.2 miles) of the site (magnitude of 2.7) (USGS 2009c). Estimates for the maximum credible earthquake 

for the Colorado Plateau range in magnitude from 5.5 to 6.5 (DOE 1986:76). Earthquake-produced 

ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force of acceleration relative to that of Earth’s gravity), 

as further described in Appendix B, Section B.3. For the purposes of comparing the relative seismic 

hazard based on predicated earthquake-produced ground motions among the various mercury storage 

candidate sites in this EIS, the latest probabilistic peak (horizontal) ground acceleration (PGA) data from 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are used. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability 

of exceedance in 50 years. This corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 

2,500. For GJDS, the calculated PGA is approximately 0.14 g (USGS 2009d). The potential for soil 

liquefaction was assessed for the site and is considered to be low (DOE 1986:B-109, B-121). 

3.2.3 Water Resources 

Water resources at GDJS and all sites include all forms of surface water and groundwater. Surface water 

is defined as all water bodies that occur above the ground surface, including rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, 

and other features. Groundwater is water within the saturated zone—i.e., water that typically originates 

naturally as recharge from rain and snowmelt or artificially as recharge from activities such as irrigation, 

industrial processing, and wastewater disposal, and water destined to return to the surface through 

discharge to springs and seepage into rivers and streams, evaporation from shallow water table areas, or 

human activity involving wells or excavations. 

3.2.3.1 Surface Water 

No major streams or rivers are located within 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) of GJDS. An area of 

approximately 97 hectares (240 acres) drains toward GJDS. The Gunnison River is located about 

6.4 kilometers (4 miles) from the site at its closest point. GJDS is situated on a pediment surface that 

forms a divide between two small ephemeral washes, one approximately 240 meters (800 feet) north of 

the site and one approximately 520 meters (1,700 feet) south of the existing disposal cell and just beyond 

the eastern and southeastern property boundary (see Figure 2–7). These washes merge with Indian Creek, 

0.2 to 0.8 kilometers (0.1 to 0.5 miles) southwest of the site. Indian Creek flows into Kannah Creek, 

which is perennial, some 6.4 to 8 kilometers (4 to 5 miles) northwest of the ephemeral wash confluences. 

Kannah Creek empties into the Gunnison River at a point approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) west of 

the Indian Creek conf1uence. The Gunnison River flows toward the city of Grand Junction, where it 

joins the Colorado River (DOE 1986:85; Jacobs 1998:2-2). In addition, Cheney Reservoir is located 

approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) southeast of GJDS at its closest point. The reservoir is used for 

livestock and wildlife watering and measures approximately 16 hectares (40 acres) in size. It is not in the 

surface-water flow path from GJDS and is topographically separated from the site by several drainage 

divides, including Indian Creek (DOE 1986:62, 64, 65). 

Slopes in the watershed range from 2 to 5 percent. Sheet wash and rill erosion are the primary erosive 

forces currently active in the area of the site; washes in the area are in places incised to a depth of 

1.5 meters (5 feet). Minor gullying is occurring on the small ephemeral washes that flank the site. 

Moderate to intense gullying is evident along Indian Creek, but most of GJDS is classified as having only 

a moderate potential for future erosion (DOE 1986:85). DOE’s Office of Legacy Management continues 

to operate and maintain surface-water diversion and drainage structures at the site to ensure proper 

functioning. The engineered features include the south diversion channel, which is a riprap armored 

structure that conveys runoff water away from the disposal cell southeast into the east ephemeral wash. 

Other drainage features at the site include north and south stormwater collection ditches, the north 

stormwater retention pond, and a stormwater and sediment collection pond on the east side of the south 

diversion channel. These small drainage features control stormwater runoff primarily from the various 

disposal cell cover materials stockpiled on the northern and eastern portions of the property. The north 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–6

stormwater collection ditch also captures run-on stormwater from a large catchment area north and east of 

the disposal site (DOE 2009b:6-1, 6-3, 6-6). 

No surface-water-quality data exist for the ephemeral streams in the vicinity of the site, and DOE does not 

monitor surface-water runoff quality as part of annual site monitoring. Limited data exist for Kannah 

Creek and the Gunnison River downgradient of the site; however, these data indicate that the quality of 

these bodies is influenced more by groundwater recharge than the flow that enters from the small creeks 

and ephemeral streams in the area of GJDS (DOE 1986:F-28). The State of Colorado classifies surface 

waters and assigns water quality standards for the purposes of maintaining and improving the quality of 

the state’s surface waters. Tributaries to the Gunnison River in the vicinity of GJDS are classified as 

protected for Class 2 uses, including warm-water aquatic life, recreation Class N (unsuitable for primary 

contact use), water supply, and agriculture (5 CCR 1002-31; 5 CCR 1002-35). Further, the Colorado 

River serves as an irrigation and drinking water supply for much of the southwestern United States. 

Water use at GJDS is discussed in Section 3.2.7.4. 

No data exist on historical floods for the site. The site is approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) from the 

floodplain of the Gunnison River, and Kannah Creek and Indian Creek flow at an elevation of 

approximately 61 meters (200 feet) below the site. Therefore, the site is not subject to river flooding. 

Nevertheless, a very conservative analysis was conducted of the effects of a probable maximum flood 

based on a one-hour rainfall of 21.6 centimeters (8.5 inches). Under such a scenario, the watershed of 

GJDS would experience flows in excess of 57 cubic meters (2,000 cubic feet) per second leading to flash 

flooding from sheet flow. The probable maximum flood was the design basis for the tailings disposal cell 

at the site and its associated diversion ditch system (DOE 1986:B-53–B-55, F-24, F-27). 

3.2.3.2 Groundwater 

Groundwater in the vicinity of the disposal site area occurs transiently in subtle, alluvium-filled 

paleochannels eroded on the Mancos Shale surface, in fracture systems in the underlying Mancos Shale, 

and permanently in the deeper Dakota Sandstone. Detailed field investigations performed during site 

characterization identified a large area suitable for the existing disposal cell that was devoid of 

paleochannels containing saturation zones. The Dakota Sandstone is defined as the uppermost aquifer 

beneath GJDS (Jacobs 1998:2-8). 

Alluvium-filled paleochannels exposed by continuous trenches contain saturation zones ranging from less 

than 0.3 to more than 1.8 meters (1 to 6 feet) thick. Paleochannels are separated in some cases by 

relatively large distances of approximately 150 meters (500 feet). Three separate paleochannel flow 

systems have been identified on GJDS. One system passes within approximately 30 meters (100 feet) of 

the northwest corner of the existing disposal cell footprint and possibly in the vicinity of the proposed 

mercury storage facility location. The other two are within approximately 180 meters (600 feet) of the 

southern portion of the disposal cell footprint (Jacobs 1998:2-8). 

Local groundwater flow generally parallels the slope of the land surface to the west. The portion of the 

unconsolidated deposits below the water table has a relatively low permeability. Because of the low 

permeability and thinness of the saturated layer, a well completed in the saturated layers would probably 

yield less than 11 liters (3 gallons) per day. The local groundwater system is likely recharged by seepage 

from the ephemeral wash or ditch just to the east of the site. The ditch diverts water from Indian Creek, 

an intermittent drainage fed by snowmelt on the Grand Mesa. Discharge of the local groundwater system 

is not readily apparent, but may occur as evapotranspiration or as underflow to an ephemeral reach of 

Indian Creek southwest of the site (DOE 1986:91). 

Groundwater in the Mancos Shale is found in discontinuous zones separated both laterally and vertically 

by large regions of unsaturated rock. Aquifer pumping tests and computer simulations demonstrate that 

the Mancos Shale yields less than 570 liters (150 gallons) per day and is considered “limited-use” 
Affected Environment 

3–7

groundwater (i.e., groundwater that is not a current or potential source of drinking water) 

(5 CCR 1002-41; 40 CFR 192.11(e)). Pockets of groundwater were found in isolated intervals in the 

unweathered Mancos Shale at several depths, but principally between 15 and 37 meters (50 and 120 feet) 

and between 84 and 150 meters (275 and 492 feet). The groundwater occurs in saturated, multiple 

fracture zones. Three monitoring wells completed in the Dakota Sandstone encountered confined 

groundwater with hydraulic pressures greater than 110 meters (360 feet) above the Mancos Shale/Dakota 

Sandstone contact. Groundwater in the Dakota Sandstone is confined by unsaturated low-permeability 

shales and sandstone of the overlying units. Total dissolved solids concentrations exceed 

10,000 milligrams per liter, and thus groundwater in the Dakota Sandstone (uppermost aquifer) is also 

considered “limited-use” groundwater (Jacobs 1998:2-8). 

Background groundwater quality beneath the disposal site was determined prior to emplacement of 

tailings material in the facility. In general, groundwater quality is good in the alluvium, poor in the 

Mancos Shale, and unusable even for stock watering in the Dakota Sandstone. Water quality in these 

units correlates well with the ages of the groundwater. Carbon-14 analyses of groundwater samples 

collected from the three units show that alluvial groundwater is relatively young (less than 2,000 years), 

the shallow Mancos Shale groundwater is old (20,000 to 30,000 years), and the Dakota Sandstone 

groundwater is very old (probably more than 42,000 years) (Jacobs 1998:2-8). The large differences in 

the chemical conditions of the groundwater also suggest little, if any, hydraulic interconnection between 

the groundwater zones. Background groundwater quality in the Mancos Shale is brackish, with elevated 

total dissolved solids levels ranging from 870 to 7,010 milligrams per liter. Average selenium 

concentrations slightly exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) (40 CFR 141). Background groundwater quality in the Dakota Sandstone is saline with high 

total dissolved solids concentrations, as discussed above. Thus, this aquifer is neither a current nor a 

potential source of drinking water. In addition, groundwater from this unit contains natural gas, and 

average concentrations of radium-226 and radium-228 exceed the EPA and state MCL of 5 picocuries per 

liter (Jacobs 1998:2-8, 2-9). 

Confined groundwater in the uppermost aquifer lies approximately 230 meters (750 feet) below the 

existing ground surface and is hydrogeologically isolated from the tailings material by mudstones and 

shales of the Mancos Shale. In lieu of monitoring groundwater in the uppermost aquifer, DOE 

voluntarily monitors groundwater as a best management practice from two monitoring wells completed in 

(or very near) buried alluvial paleochannels adjacent to the disposal cell (MW−0731 and MW−0732) and 

one monitoring well in the disposal cell (MW−0733). This monitoring is performed to assess the 

performance of the disposal cell and to ensure that any groundwater in the paleochannels is not being 

impacted by seepage (transient drainage) from the disposal cell. Selenium concentrations continued to 

exceed the MCL of 0.05 milligrams per liter in the paleochannel wells. In 2008, the highest concentration 

of selenium, 0.59 milligrams per liter, occurred in paleochannel well MW−0731. Selenium occurs 

naturally in the Mancos Shale deposits that underlie the disposal cell and may be the cause of elevated 

concentrations reported in both paleochannel monitoring wells (Geiser 2009:6-7–6-10). 

3.2.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

The discussion of meteorology at GJDS and all sites refers to the atmospheric conditions, especially 

severe weather conditions that could be important to the viability of a storage facility. Air pollution refers 

to the direct or indirect introduction of any substance into the air that could endanger human health; harm 

living resources, ecosystems, or material property (e.g., buildings); or impair or interfere with the 

comfortable enjoyment of life or other legitimate uses of the environment. Air pollutants are transported, 

dispersed, and concentrated by meteorological and topographical conditions. Air quality is affected by air 

pollutant emission characteristics, meteorology, and topography. Noise is unwanted sound that interferes 

or interacts negatively with the human or natural environment. Noise may disrupt normal activities or 

diminish the quality of the environment. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–8

3.2.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate of the GJDS area is continental, that is, it is characterized by hot summers and colder winters. 

The average annual rainfall at the National Weather Service Station in the city of Grand Junction is 

23 centimeters (8.9 inches). Maximum rainfall occurs in late spring and during the fall. Minimum 

rainfall months are January, February, and June (WRCC 2009a). Damaging hailstorms rarely occur in 

Mesa County (NCDC 2009a). The average annual snowfall is 54.6 centimeters (21.5 inches) 

(NOAA 2009a). Precipitation is expected to be slightly higher at GJDS than at the National Weather 

Service Station (DOE 1986:69). 

One tornado resulting in property damage occurred in Mesa County between January 1950 and 

March 2009. Several occurrences of high winds typically occur every year (NCDC 2009a). The average 

annual windspeed is 3.5 meters per second (7.8 miles per hour) (WRCC 2009a). Prevailing winds are 

from the east-southeast to southeast (NOAA 2009a). The maximum windspeed, based on the highest 

1-minute average value, is 25 meters per second (57 miles per hour) (NOAA 2009b:64). 

The average annual temperature at the Grand Junction National Weather Service Station is 11.8 degrees 

Celsius (°C) (53.3 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) (WRCC 2009a). Temperatures range from a monthly average 

minimum temperature of –8.9 °C (15.9 °F ) in January to a monthly average maximum of 33.8 °C 

(92.8 °F) in July (NOAA 2009a). The maximum recorded temperature is 41 °C (106 °F) and the 

minimum recorded temperature –31°C (–23°F) (NCDC 2009a). GJDS is about 48 kilometers (30 miles) 

from the Grand Junction National Weather Service Station and is approximately 150 meters (500 feet) 

higher in elevation. Therefore, it is expected that the average maximum annual temperature would be 

0.6 to 1.1 °C (1 to 2 °F) lower (DOE 1986; Geiser 2009). 

GJDS is in an area of Mesa County that is designated as better than national standards for sulfur dioxide 

and nitrogen dioxide. The area is unclassifiable/attainment regarding attainment of the standards for 

carbon monoxide, ozone, and annual particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA has not assigned an attainment status designation for lead. The area is 

unclassifiable for annual particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 

10 micrometers (PM10) (40 CFR 81.306). 

The nearest Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I area is the wilderness area within Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, about 64 kilometers (40 miles) to the southeast. A Class I area is 

one in which very little increase in pollution is allowed due to the pristine nature of the area. GJDS and 

its vicinity are classified as a Class II area, in which more-moderate increases in pollution are allowed. 

No PSD permits are required for any emission source at the site. 

The primary sources of criteria air pollutants at GJDS are propane heaters and material-handling 

equipment. The site has no air pollutant sources that require an air permit (Geiser 2009). 

There are no nearby monitors for criteria air pollutants. The closest offsite monitors are in the city of 

Grand Junction for carbon monoxide, PM2.5, PM10, and mercury. For 2008, the mean mercury 

concentration at the Grand Junction monitor was 0.0031 micrograms per cubic meter and the maximum 

24-hour concentration was 0.005 micrograms per cubic meter (EPA 2009a). The nearest ozone monitor is 

at Colorado National Monument about 32 kilometers (20 miles) northwest of the site (EPA 2009b). 

Monitored concentrations in the region are well below ambient standards. 

3.2.4.2 Noise 

Major noise emission sources at GJDS include various pieces of equipment, such as material-handling 

equipment, machines, and vehicles. The nearest residence is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) north 

of the site (DOE 2009a:3). 
Affected Environment 

3–9

The State of Colorado has established community noise standards. The daytime (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.) 

noise limit at the property line of an industrial facility is 80 decibels A-weighted (dBA) (a unit of 

measurement that accounts for the frequency response of the human ear), and the nighttime limit is 

75 dBA (CRS 25-12-103). Sound level measurements have not been recorded near GJDS; however, it is 

expected that the acoustic environment near the site boundary ranges from that typical of rural to 

industrial locations. Traffic is the primary source of noise near GJDS except when there is activity on the 

site. There is little traffic generated by activities at the site. Noise-producing activities at the site 

currently occur only during several weeks every year or two when the cell is opened for disposal of 

uranium mill tailings. U.S. Route 50 provides access to the site (DOE 2009a). 

3.2.5 Ecological Resources 

Ecological resources at GJDS and all sites include terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and 

threatened and endangered species. Terrestrial resources are the plant and animal communities most 

closely associated with the land; aquatic resources are those associated with a water environment. 

Wetlands are “those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). Endangered species are those plants and 

animals in danger of extinction throughout all or a large portion of their range; threatened species are 

plants and animals likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose 

them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), but for 

which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher-priority listing activities. 

Critical habitat is defined as specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that 

are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rule published in the Federal 

Register. Not all species have had critical habitat designated for them. The state also identifies 

threatened and endangered species. 

3.2.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

Historically, GJDS was part of the western shrub and grassland habitat of the Colorado Plateau. Common 

plant communities once included saltbush-greasewood, surrounded by pinyon-juniper woodland. 

Currently the site consists of approximately 46 hectares (114 acres) of disturbed land with sparse, mainly 

early successional vegetation. Galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, squirrelgrass, and prickly pear are now 

considered the most abundant and widespread plant species (DOE 1986:94). 

Mammals occurring at GJDS include the desert cottontail, white-tailed antelope squirrel, deer mouse, and 

pronghorn. The diversity of bird species at GJDS is low due to the limited variety of vegetation. 

Common nesting species include the horned lark and western meadowlark. The golden eagle, prairie 

falcon, and kestrel have been observed hunting at the site. The only nesting bird of prey recorded on the 

site was the burrowing owl. Reptiles that occur at the site include the short-horned lizard, sagebrush 

lizard, and gopher snake. Amphibians are not expected to occur on this site due to the lack of permanent 

water or temporary ponding (DOE 1986:95). 

The proposed mercury storage location, situated in the northwest corner of the site, consists of mostly 

disturbed and developed land. However, about 40 percent of the proposed location has not been disturbed 

and supports native flora and fauna (Geiser 2009:7). 

3.2.5.2 Wetlands 

No wetlands are present within the boundaries of GJDS or its ROI (DOE 1986:95-96). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–10

3.2.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic resources at GJDS are limited to evaporation ponds, drainage ditches, and other manmade 

structures (Geiser 2009:Figure 3). These areas generally contain water during or immediately after 

precipitation events. Cheney Reservoir, a seasonal pond used by both livestock and wildlife, and the 

Gunnison River are located 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south and 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) west of the site, 

respectively. Indigenous population of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are known to occur at 

Cheney Reservoir. Common species include the raccoon, red-winged blackbird, and bullfrog. The 

segment of the Gunnison River flowing past GJDS towards the city of Grand Junction contains a 

relatively healthy assemblage of native fish. Common species include bluehead sucker, flannelmouth 

sucker, and roundtail chub (DOI 2008:56–58). 

3.2.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The burrowing owl, which has nested on the site, is listed as threatened by the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife. While other threatened or endangered species have the potential to occur at GJDS, none have 

been observed. It is unlikely that any federally or state-protected species would be found within the 

proposed mercury storage location (CDNR 2009; DOE 1986:97-99; USFWS 2009a, 2009b). The 

Gunnison River has been federally designated as critical habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow and the 

razorback sucker. These species are also listed as threatened and endangered, respectively, by the state of 

Colorado (CDNR 2009; DOI 2008; USFWS 2009b). 

3.2.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Cultural resources at GJDS and all sites are of three categories: (1) prehistoric resources, physical 

properties reflecting human activities that predate written records; (2) historic resources, physical 

properties that postdate the advent of written records (in the United States, generally considered to be 

those documented no earlier than 1492); and (3) American Indian resources, all areas, sites, and materials 

deemed important for religious or heritage-related reasons, as well as certain natural resources such as 

plants, which have many uses within various American Indian groups. Paleontological resources are the 

physical remains, impressions, or traces of plants or animals from a former geologic age that may be 

sources of information on paleoenvironments and the evolutionary development of plants and animals. 

3.2.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

Evidence of human habitation in the GJDS area goes back to the Paleo-Indian Period (10,000 to 

5500 B.C.). Archaeological remains of this period consist mainly of fragmentary or isolated finds of the 

characteristic spear tips. More-extensive remains of this period have been found elsewhere in North 

America (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

Evidence of prehistoric resources in the GJDS area dating to the Archaic Period (5500 B.C. to A.D. 500) 

is quite plentiful. Small and large sites consisting of chipped-stone debris, tools, and open hearths are 

known (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

Prehistoric resources in the GJDS area dating back to the Formative Period (A.D. 500 to 1200) include 

remains of pottery, masonry architecture, and drawings on rock faces. The sites of this period that yield 

masonry structures, ceramics, or cultigens (i.e., plants modified by humans and no longer considered 

wild) are rare. Recent archaeological investigations have indicated that the transition between the 

Archaic and Formative Periods was not as definitive as other periods. Recent evidence indicates that the 

nomadic groups never really disappeared, but rather continued into the next period (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

During the latter part the Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1200 to 1820), Spanish explorers from Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, entered the GJDS area; however, they left little evidence of their visits. Aboriginal remains from 
Affected Environment 

3–11

this period are common in the region and include campsites and scatters of artifacts 

(DOE 1986:4.11-116). 

GJDS and the surrounding area contain a high density of potentially significant cultural resources. There 

are two concentrations of cultural resources in the GJDS area. One occupies a low ridge that cuts 

diagonally (southwest to northeast) through the area and the other is located to the southeast of the site. 

The southern concentration has the greater artifact density of the two. The State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) has determined that four lithic scatters, two sites in each concentration, need more data to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

(DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

3.2.6.2 Historic Resources 

European incursions to the GJDS area became more frequent and organized at the beginning of the 

Historic Period (A.D. 1820 to 1932). Communities like the city of Grand Junction were established 

during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Railroads and roads were built along the Colorado River 

in the early years of the twentieth century. The region is known for cycles of mining activity. The 

mining of coal goes back to the 1880s, while the mining and milling of uranium and vanadium began in 

the 1920s and 1930s (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

The majority of vicinity properties is younger than 50 years and, therefore, is ineligible for inclusion in 

the NRHP. To date, no historic properties on the site or in the vicinity have been identified for inclusion 

in the NRHP (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

3.2.6.3 American Indian Resources 

For nearly two decades, beginning in 1863, the GJDS region was a reservation of the Ute Indians. After 

the Ute Indians left the area, full-scale settlement by European Americans ensued (DOE 1986:4.11-117). 

There are no American Indian reservations in the Grand Junction area. The nearest Ute Indian reservation 

is located south of Durango, Colorado, on the Colorado/Arizona border. 

3.2.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

No paleontological resources have been identified on GJDS. 

3.2.7 Site Infrastructure 

As used throughout this Mercury Storage EIS, “infrastructure” at GJDS and all sites encompasses the 

condition, capacity, and usage of ground transportation and utilities (electricity, fuel, and water). This 

section discusses the existing infrastructure at GJDS and in the site vicinity. Additional information on 

transportation infrastructure is presented in Section 3.2.10.3, and waste management infrastructure is 

addressed in Section 3.2.8. 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of GJDS’s sitewide infrastructure is presented 

in Table 3–2. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–12

Table 3–2. Grand Junction Disposal Site Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers) 

Roads 2.4a 2.4a

Railroads none none 

Electricity 

Energy consumption 

(megawatt-hours per year) 

15 109b

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) (c) (c) 

Fuel oil (liters per year) (c) (c) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) (c) (c) 

Gasoline (liters per year) (c) (c) 

Propane (liters per year) 3,410 (d) 

Water (liters per year) 197,000e (d) 

a Length of restricted-access road extending east from U.S. Route 50. 

b Assumes 1 kilovolt-ampere equals 1 kilowatt (power factor of 1.0). 

c Fuel resource not used on site. 

d Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

e Includes process and sanitary water usages. 

Note: All values based on reported use in 2008. To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to cubic 

feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, by 0.26417. 

Source: Baur 2009; Geiser 2009; GJDS 2009:7-8. 

3.2.7.1 Ground Transportation 

GJDS is located 29 kilometers (18 miles) southeast of the city of Grand Junction, Colorado, and 

24 kilometers (15 miles) northwest of Delta, Colorado. Site access is from U.S. Route 50, approximately 

2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) to the west of the site. There is no rail access to the site; however, loading 

facilities are located 24 kilometers (15 miles) to the southeast in Delta and 29 kilometers (18 miles) to the 

northwest in the city of Grand Junction (Geiser 2009:1, 4). 

3.2.7.2 Electricity 

Electricity is supplied to the GJDS area by XCEL Energy and Grand Valley Rural Power. DOE owns the 

transmissions lines on the site (GJDS 2009:8). 

In 2008, annual electricity consumption at the site was 15 megawatt-hours per year with a sitewide 

capacity of 109 megawatt-hours per year (Baur 2009; GJDS 2009:8). 

3.2.7.3 Fuel 

Liquid propane is used for heating the operations building at GJDS. Liquid propane gas is delivered to 

the site via delivery truck and stored on site in a 1,890-liter (500-gallon) tank. No other fuel use was 

reported for the site (Baur 2009). 

Fuel consumption (liquid propane) in 2008 was approximately 3,410 liters (900 gallons) per year 

(Baur 2009; GJDS 2009:8). 

3.2.7.4 Water 

Potable water is not provided by public utility; bottled water is used for drinking. Sanitary supply water 

is delivered to GJDS and stored in a water supply tank with a capacity of 1,890 liters (500 gallons). 

Sanitary wastewater is stored in a sanitary waste vault with a capacity of 3,790 liters (1,000 gallons). A 

private service contractor periodically empties the waste vault. 
Affected Environment 

3–13

Process water is trucked to the site as needed. The process water supply tank has a capacity of 

38,000 liters (10,000 gallons). Process wastewater is contained in an onsite pond for evaporation 

(Geiser 2009; GJDS 2009). 

Sanitary wastewater generation is 7,570 liters (2,000 gallons) per year. Process wastewater generation is 

up to 189,000 liters (50,000 gallons) per year, depending on operational activities (GJDS 2009:7-8). 

Annual sitewide water consumption (including sanitary and process water consumption) was 

197,000 liters (52,000 gallons) in 2008 (see Table 3–2). 

3.2.8 Waste Management 

Waste management at GJDS and all sites includes activities related to the generation, treatment, storage, 

and/or disposal of site wastes. Managed waste streams may include various forms of waste, as defined 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

and nonhazardous waste. Waste management activities may be a component of, but are not limited to, 

routine site operations, facility management, capital improvements, and/or ongoing remediation efforts. 

Waste minimization activities include various site-specific programs that support efforts to reduce the 

quantity and toxicity of site wastes, conserve resources and energy, reduce hazardous substance use, and 

prevent or minimize pollutant releases into the environment. 

3.2.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

In compliance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.), GJDS 

received approximately 3.4 million cubic meters (4.4 million cubic yards) of residual radioactive 

materials from the Title 1 Grand Junction Processing Site and surrounding properties from 1990 to 1998 

(Geiser 2009). These materials are placed within a 732- by 549-meter (2,400- by 1,800-foot) 

multicomponent permanent isolation disposal cell. A majority of the materials disposed of within the cell 

are uranium mill tailings and other waste related to uranium ore processing. However, as part of the 

decommissioning of the Grand Junction Processing Site and surrounding vicinity properties, other 

materials, including asbestos, were also disposed of within the cell (DOE 2009a:5). 

The disposal cell occupies 38 hectares (94 acres) of the 146-hectare (360-acre) GJDS. Operations at 

GJDS include frequent (weekly) monitoring of the cell, annual inspections, and, every 1 or 2 years, 

opening the cell for several weeks to receive additional residual radioactive material waste. Onsite 

security and monitoring activity is performed by DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (DOE 2009a:4). 

The 1996 MOU requires DOE to provide meaningful consultation and participation with Mesa County on 

DOE’s use of the disposal cell. Once the disposal cell is permanently closed, the site will operate under 

general license (10 CFR 40.27; Geiser 2009). The site currently operates in compliance with applicable 

Federal and state statutes. No known environmental contamination issues have been identified outside of 

the disposal cell (DOE 2009b:6-12). Currently, no RCRA-permitted facilities exist on site. 

Waste generation at GJDS is minimal. There is a relatively small volume of previously treated hazardous 

waste within the disposal cell. There is no RCRA-regulated hazardous waste generated or stored at the 

site (Geiser 2009). 

Site-generated nonhazardous solid waste (relatively small volumes) is shipped off site and disposed of at 

the Mesa County Landfill (DOE 2009b:17). Sanitary wastewater is collected in an underground tank and 

is periodically emptied using a licensed commercial wastewater disposal company. Potential 

radiologically contaminated wastewater from the disposal cell is directed to one of two small onsite 

evaporation ponds. In total, these ponds have a surface area of 0.4 hectares (1.1 acres) and a depth of 

1.1 meters (3.5 feet) and are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Act and an interim NRC general 

license (Desormeau 2009). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–14

3.2.8.2 Waste Minimization 

DOE’s Office of Legacy Management supports a comprehensive Pollution Prevention Program and 

Environmental Management System as part of an overall proactive environmental management effort at 

its Grand Junction, Colorado, facilities (including the Processing Facility and Disposal Site). Waste 

source reduction and recycling efforts are implemented wherever technically and economically feasible 

(DOE 2005a:3-8, 3-9). 

3.2.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

Environmental health risks include the effects of exposures to hazardous chemicals and ionizing radiation. 

This section discusses current sources of health risk to the public and workers and programs to evaluate 

potential health impacts. A summary of accident experiences at facilities managing hazardous or 

radioactive material is also provided. 

The background chemical environment important to human health consists of the atmosphere, which may 

contain hazardous chemicals that can be inhaled; drinking water, which may contain hazardous chemicals 

that can be ingested; and other environmental media, through which people may come in contact with 

hazardous chemicals (e.g., surface water during swimming, soil through direct contact, food). Hazardous 

chemicals can cause cancer and non-cancer-related health effects (DOE 2009c:3-90). 

Noncarcinogenic health effects are expressed in terms of the Hazard Quotient and Hazard Index. The 

Hazard Quotient is the ratio between the estimated exposure to a toxic chemical and the level of exposure 

at which adverse health effects can be expected. Hazard Quotients for noncarcinogens are summed to 

obtain the Hazard Index. If the Hazard Index is less than 1, no adverse health effects are to be expected 

(DOE 2009c:3-91). 

3.2.9.1 Normal Operations 

GJDS contains a disposal cell for uranium mill tailings that is designed to isolate the tailings from the 

human environment. There is no reported contamination outside the cell at the site (Geiser 2009). Risks 

related to normal radioactive materials transportation to the site are negligible and are associated with 

shipping uranium mill tailings to the site during several weeks every year or two through year 2023 

(DOE 1986:144; GJDS 2009:2.9.2). No current health effect studies have been identified for the area 

near the site. 

3.2.9.2 Facility Accidents 

GJDS has not had any spills, fires, explosions, leaks, or other such incidents in the last 5 years 

(GJDS 2009:2.8.3). 

The DOE Office of Legacy Management has established an emergency management system for all the 

sites for which it is responsible, including GJDS. This plan provides for spill response and responses to 

natural events and other emergencies. The site relies on offsite fire and emergency services and 

emergency response teams (Stoller 2009:I-1). 

3.2.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to GJDS and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and radioactive 

materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incident-free) 

transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive or 

radioactive materials. Risks related to nonradioactive material transportation to GJDS have not been 

quantified. 
Affected Environment 

3–15

3.2.10 Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic variables at GJDS and all sites are associated with community growth and development 

within the GJDS ROI that could potentially be affected, directly or indirectly, by project-related changes. 

Included are economic characteristics, the region’s demography, housing, and local transportation. 

GJDS is located approximately 29 kilometers (18 miles) southeast of the city of Grand Junction, 

Colorado. The majority of people employed in this area are assumed to reside in Mesa County due to the 

local employment dynamics compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (DOC 2009a). Therefore, Mesa 

County has been identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis. When receiving uranium mill 

tailings, the disposal site employs seven people (GJDS 2009). 

3.2.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of Mesa County increased by approximately 39 percent to 82,111. By 

July 2009, the unemployment rate for the county was 9.1 percent, which was higher than the 

unemployment rate for Colorado (7.7 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.2.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of Mesa County was 143,171. From 2000 to 2008, the population of 

the county grew by 23 percent, compared with 15 percent growth in Colorado (DOC 2009b). The 

percentage of the population within the county under the age of 18 was 23 percent; women ages 18 to 

39 composed 15 percent (DOC 2009c). Young children and pregnant women are considered to be among 

the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. There were 58,666 housing units in the county in 

2007 (DOC 2008), 67 percent of which were owner occupied, 27 percent were renter occupied, and 

6.5 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 

3.2.10.3 Local Transportation 

The main transportation corridor to GJDS is U.S. Route 50. The average traffic volume for the segment 

of this highway accessible to the disposal site was 10,600 vehicles per day in 2008 (CDOT 2009). The 

Union Pacific Railroad company operates what was once the Montrose Branch of the Denver and Rio 

Grande Western Railroad along the Colorado River. This branch runs through Whitewater, Colorado, up 

to the main line in the city of Grand Junction. The nearest railroad loading facility would be in either 

Delta, 24 kilometers (15 miles) southeast of the site, or the city of Grand Junction, 29 kilometers 

(18 miles) northwest of the site (Geiser 2009:1, 4). The closest airport to GJDS is the Grand Junction 

Regional Airport, located on the northern fringe of the city of Grand Junction. 

3.2.11 Environmental Justice 

Under Executive Order 12898, DOE is responsible for identifying and addressing any disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. Minority persons are those who 

identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or 

Latino (of any race), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiracial (CEQ 1997). Persons who 

report that their income is less than the Federal poverty threshold are designated as low-income. 

A 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius was chosen as the ROI for this analysis to provide a reasonable estimate 

of the potentially affected population surrounding the facility. This ROI is conservative because any 

adverse human health consequences to offsite populations resulting from normal operations and facility 

accidents would be limited to a distance of well under 1.6 kilometers (1 mile), as discussed in Chapter 4, 

Sections 4.3.9.1 and 4.3.9.2. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–16

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage location at GJDS encompasses parts of two 

counties in Colorado: Mesa and Delta. Figure 3–1 shows populations residing in the two-county area, as 

reported in the 1990 and 2000 censuses (DOC 2009d; 2009e). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show 

populations in 1990, while the darker bars show those in 2000. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the 

total population of Mesa and Delta Counties increased by approximately 26 percent to 144,089; the 

minority population increased by approximately 69 percent to 19,034; and the low-income population 

decreased 14 percent to 14,923. Demographic data from the 2000 census show that the population selfidentified as “some other race” (meaning those who provided write-in entries such as Mexican, Puerto 

Rican, or Cuban) residing in the two-county area accounted for approximately 29 percent of the county’s 

total minority population. Persons who declared that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin are included in 

the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–1, regardless of race. They made up approximately 

78 percent of the total minority population residing in Mesa and Delta Counties in 2000. 

Figure 3–1. Populations Residing in the Two-County Area Surrounding the 

Grand Junction Disposal Site in 1990 and 2000 

The 2000 census was the first decennial census in which multiracial selections were counted; thus there 

are no data for this category available from the 1990 census. Also, during the 1990 census, Asian and 

Pacific Islander designations were placed together in a single category, whereas during the 2000 census, 

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders were counted separately from Asian respondents. 

Therefore, direct comparison of 1990 and 2000 census data for these two categories is not possible. 

Data for Delta County from the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates are 

unavailable due to a population threshold of 65,000 people. According to the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year 

Estimates, the total population of the two-county ROI increased by approximately 14 percent since 2000 

to 164,182. During this same period, the low-income population increased by 44 percent to 21,515 

(DOC 2009c). Detailed demographic data of race and Hispanic origin for Delta County from the 

2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates are unavailable due to an insufficient number of sample cases. 

However, the Census Bureau does report detailed demographic statistics for Mesa County in the 2007 
Affected Environment 

3–17

ACS 1-Year Estimates. From 2000 to 2007, the population of Mesa County increased by approximately 

20 percent to 139,082. During this time, the total minority population increased by 38 percent, and the 

low-income population increased by 44 percent (DOC 2009d, 2009f). In 2007, minority individuals 

accounted for approximately 13 percent of the population. The largest minority group in 2007 comprised 

those self-identified as White Hispanic, accounting for 32 percent of the minority population 

(DOC 2009f). 

Approximately 2,119 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of GJDS in 2000 (DOC 2009d). This 

area included an estimated 15 percent minority and 11 percent low-income population, and Colorado 

included a 26 percent minority and 9 percent low-income population. By comparison, Mesa and Delta 

Counties included a 13 percent minority and 11 percent low-income population. There are five census 

block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding GJDS, none of which 

contained a disproportionately high percentage of minority or low-income individuals. Figure 3–2, shows 

the cumulative populations living at a given distance from the site. The population living within 

16 kilometers (10 miles) of GJDS is mostly concentrated in the town of Whitewater. Approximately 

138 people lived within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of GJDS in 2000 (DOC 2009d). This area 

included an estimated 13 percent minority and 12 percent low-income population. There is only one 

census block group located within this ROI, and it does not contain a disproportionately high percentage 

of minority or low-income individuals. 

Figure 3–2. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of the 

Grand Junction Disposal Site
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–18

3.3 HANFORD SITE 

3.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.3.1.1 Land Use 

Hanford occupies approximately 151,775 hectares (375,040 acres) in Washington State, just north of 

Richland (Duncan 2007:4.1). The site extends over parts of Adams, Benton, Franklin, and 

Grant Counties (see Figure 3–3). Hanford is owned and used primarily by DOE, but portions of it are 

owned, leased, or administered by other Government agencies and private entities. Public access to the 

site is limited to travel on the Route 4 and Route 10 access roads as far as the Wye Barricade, State 

Routes 24 and 240, and the Columbia River. Only about 6 percent of the land area has been disturbed and 

is actively used, leaving mostly vacant land with widely scattered facilities (Neitzel 2005:4.144). 

Figure 3–3 shows the generalized land use at Hanford as developed in the Final Hanford Comprehensive 

Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS)

(DOE 1999a) and modified by the designation of the Hanford Reach National Monument (65 FR 37253). 

In 1977 DOE designated Hanford as a National Environmental Research Park, an outdoor laboratory for 

ecological research to study the environmental effects of energy development and aquatic environments 

(DOE 2000:3-91; Vaughan and Rickard 1977:1, 2). 

Land use designations based on the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS include Preservation, 

Conservation (Mining), Recreation, Industrial, Industrial-Exclusive, and Research and Development (see 

Figure 3–3). Preservation and Conservation (Mining) are the predominant land uses at Hanford. The 

200 Areas, which are located in the center of Hanford and include the 200-East and 200-West Areas, are 

classified as Industrial-Exclusive. Industrial areas include an area to the east of the 200 Areas and most 

of the southeast corner of the site, including the 400 Area. 

Important areas within the Preservation land use designation include the Hanford Reach National 

Monument, which incorporates a portion of the Columbia River corridor as well as the Fitzner-Eberhardt 

Arid Lands Ecology Reserve to the south and west and portions of Hanford north of the Columbia River, 

including the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge (65 FR 37253). Other special status lands in the 

vicinity of Hanford include the McNary National Wildlife Refuge, which is administered by the USFWS, 

as well as the Columbia River Islands Area of Critical Environmental Concern and McCoy Canyon, both 

of which are administered by the BLM (DOE 2000:3-91). 

The Tri-Cities area southeast of Hanford includes residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This 

area, which encompasses the cities of Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, is the population center closest to 

Hanford. West Richland and Benton City, two somewhat smaller population centers, are located south of 

the site. Agriculture is a major land use in the remaining areas surrounding Hanford. 

200 AREAS

The 200 Areas are located within a 5,064-hectare (12,513-acre) area of the Central Plateau of Hanford 

designated as Industrial-Exclusive (see Figure 3–3). The Industrial-Exclusive designation preserves DOE 

control of continuing remediation activities and use of the existing compatible infrastructure required to 

support activities such as dangerous, radioactive, and mixed waste treatment, storage, and disposal. The 

Industrial-Exclusive designation also allows for the expansion of existing facilities and the development 

of new compatible facilities in support of ongoing missions. 
Affected Environment 

3–19

Figure 3–3. Generalized Land Use at the Hanford Site and Vicinity 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–20

3.3.1.2 Visual Resources 

The land in the vicinity of Hanford ranges from generally flat to gently rolling. Rattlesnake Mountain, 

rising to 1,060 meters (3,480 feet) above mean sea level, forms the southwestern boundary of the site. 

Gable Mountain and Gable Butte are the highest landforms within the site, rising to heights of 329 meters 

(1,081 feet) and 238 meters (782 feet), respectively. The Columbia River flows through the northern part 

of the site, and turning south, it forms part of the eastern site boundary. White Bluffs, steep whitishbrown bluffs adjacent to the river, are a striking feature of the landscape (DOE 2000:3-93). 

Typical of the regional shrub-steppe desert, the site is dominated by widely spaced, low-brush grasslands. 

A large area of nonvegetated, stabilized sand dunes extends along the east boundary, and nonvegetated 

blowouts are scattered throughout the site. Hanford is characterized by mostly undeveloped land, with 

widely spaced clusters of industrial buildings along the southern and western banks of the Columbia 

River and at several interior locations (DOE 2000:3-93). 

The landscape adjacent to Hanford consists primarily of rural rangeland and farms. Hanford facilities can 

be seen from elevated locations such as Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, Rattlesnake Mountain, and other 

parts of the Rattlesnake Hills along the western perimeter. Site facilities also are visible from State 

Routes 240 and 24 and the Columbia River. Because of terrain features, distances involved, the size of 

Hanford, and the size of individual structures, not all facilities are visible from the highways or the 

Columbia River (DOE and Ecology 1996:4-60). 

Developed areas are consistent with a BLM VRM Class IV rating, and, for the remainder of Hanford, 

VRM ratings range from Class II to Class III (DOI 1986:6, 7). Management activities within Class II and 

III areas may be seen but should not dominate the view; those in Class IV areas dominate the view and 

typically are the focus of viewer attention. 

200 AREAS

The tallest structure within the 200 Areas is the meteorological tower, with a height of 124 meters 

(408 feet) (Duncan 2007:4.8). Additionally, a number of stacks are around 61 meters (200 feet) in height. 

Aboveground structures throughout the 200 Areas are visible from segments of State Route 240 and 

elevated locations such as Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and Rattlesnake Mountain. They are not visible 

from the Columbia River. Because the 200-East and 200-West Areas are highly developed industrial 

areas, they have a VRM Class IV rating. Natural features of visual interest within the vicinity of the 

200 Areas include Gable Butte, 6.9 kilometers (4.3 miles) to the northwest; Gable Mountain, 8 kilometers 

(5 miles) to the northeast; Rattlesnake Mountain, 14 kilometers (8.7 miles) to the south; and the Columbia 

River, as close as 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) to the northwest. 

3.3.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.3.2.1 Geology 

Hanford lies within the Columbia Basin, which comprises the northern part of the Columbia Plateau 

physiographic province and the Columbia River flood-basalt geologic province (Duncan 2007:4.25; 

Reidel et al. 1993:1, 2). Within this region, Hanford lies within the Pasco Basin, a structural and 

topographic depression of generally lower-relief plains and anticlinal ridges (Duncan 2007:4.25, 4.26). 

Elevations across the basin floor at Hanford range from about 119 meters (390 feet) above mean sea level 

at the Columbia River to 229 meters (750 feet) above mean sea level across the 200 Areas. Rattlesnake 

Mountain (see Figure 3–3), the highest of the Rattlesnake Hills, reaches an elevation of 1,050 meters 

(3,447 feet) above mean sea level, the highest elevation in the area (DOE 1999a:4.12, 4.13; 

Duncan 2007:4.25, 4.26, 4.29, 4.159). 
Affected Environment 

3–21

Mapped faults in the Hanford area include reverse or thrust faults on the north side of the Saddle 

Mountains on the northern Hanford boundary and in association with Rattlesnake Mountain and the 

Rattlesnake Hills in the southwestern portion of the site (Duncan 2007:4.35, 4.37). Other faults include 

the Cold Creek Fault, on the west end of the Cold Creek syncline, and the May Junction Fault, located 

nearly 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) east of the 200-East Area. Moreover, a potential for Quaternary-age 

(Holocene) faulting has been identified on the Gable Butte–Gable Mountain Segment of the Umtanum 

Ridge–Gable Mountain anticline—specifically, on Gable Mountain where the Central Gable Mountain 

Fault has offset sediments 13,000 years old (Reidel et al. 1993:12–14). 

The major geologic units immediately underlying Hanford are, in descending order, (1) the Hanford 

formation, Cold Creek Unit, and the Ringold Formation, collectively known as the suprabasalt sediments; 

and (2) the Columbia River Basalt Group and interbedded Ellensburg Formation. The unit informally 

called the Hanford formation is composed of unconsolidated sediments with sizes ranging from 

boulder-size gravel to sand and silt deposits of up to 100 meters (330 feet) thick, which are products of 

Ice-Age floods that inundated the Pasco Basin and Hanford during the Pleistocene epoch 

(DOE 2002a:3-9; Duncan 2007:4.33, 4.39). Locally, surficial Quaternary-age (Holocene) deposits 

(gravel, sand, and silt) with a total thickness of generally less than 5 meters (16 feet) immediately overlie 

the Hanford formation and span much of Hanford. Eolian (wind-deposited) deposits of fine-grained sand 

and silt also occur, particularly in the southern part of the 200-East Area and in the 200-West Area 

(Hartman 2000:3.4). 

The Cold Creek Unit includes alluvial and eolian sediments, as well as a series of extensively weathered, 

carbonate-rich, buried soil profiles (paleosols) (DOE 2002a:3-1, 3-2). Materials comprising the Ringold 

Formation consist of a mix of variably cemented gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited by the ancestral 

Columbia River system (Duncan 2007:4.31; Hartman 2000:32). The Ringold Formation at Hanford is as 

much as 185 meters (600 feet) thick (Reidel et al. 1993:3). 

The Columbia River Basalt Group consists of sequences of Miocene-age continental flood basalts that 

cover an extensive area across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. These basalts erupted over a period 

ranging from approximately 6 million to 17 million years ago. Beneath Hanford is a minimum of 

50 basalt flows with a combined thickness greater than 3,000 meters (9,800 feet). Basalt outcrops are 

exposed on ridges at Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and the Saddle Mountains in the northern part of 

Hanford, and on Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima Ridge on the western and southwestern edges of the site. 

The basalts are interbedded with, and in some places overlain by, volcaniclastic (volcanic-sedimentary) 

and fluvial (stream-deposited) materials of the Ellensburg Formation (Duncan 2007:4.29; Reidel 

et al. 1993:2). 

Geologic resources, including relatively large volumes of gravel, sand, and silt, are available from the 

suprabasalt sediments and associated soils at Hanford. Basalt is also plentiful. A number of active gravel 

and sand pits and two rock quarries at Hanford (such as Borrow Area C) have been identified for use, or 

are currently used, as a continuing source of borrow materials for new facility construction and the 

maintenance of existing facilities and transportation corridors, as well as fill and capping material for 

remediation and other sites (DOE 1999a:D–7, 2001a:2-2, 3-1–3-4). As for other geologic resources on 

the site, placer gold was historically extracted along the Columbia River on and near Hanford, and small 

volumes of natural gas were produced from wells developed on Rattlesnake Mountain from about 1929 to 

1941 (DOE 1999a:4-18). 

3.3.2.2 Soils 

Fifteen different soil types occur at Hanford. These soils vary from sand to silty and sandy loam. The 

dominant soil types are Quincy (Rupert) sand, Burbank loamy sand, Ephrata sandy loam, and Warden Silt 

loam (Duncan 2007:4.39, 4.40). No soils at Hanford are currently classified as prime farmland soils 

because there are no current soil surveys, and the only prime farmland soils in the region are irrigated 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–22

(DOE 1999a:4-23, 4-24). The parent material for the predominant soil types at Hanford includes Hanford 

formation and Holocene-age surficial deposits, as discussed in Section 3.3.2.1. Quincy (Rupert) sand is 

the most widespread soil type at Hanford and makes up much of the southeast and east-central portions of 

the site. However, it is also found across portions of the 200-East Area and the majority of the western 

portion of the 200-West Area. It developed from sandy alluvial deposits mantled by windblown sand. 

The soils are deep to moderately deep—51 to 76 centimeters (20 to 30 inches) 

(DOE 1999a:4-23–4-27; Duncan 2007:4.40–4.42). 

3.3.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

The seismicity of the Columbia Plateau, as determined by the rate of earthquakes per area and the 

magnitude of these events, is lower than that of other regions in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, 

Hanford has been affected by earthquakes within and beyond the Columbia Plateau. The largest known 

earthquake in the Columbia Plateau occurred in 1936 near Milton-Freewater, Oregon. This moderate 

earthquake had a magnitude of 5.75 and a maximum MMI of VII, and it featured a number of aftershocks 

(Duncan 2007:4.43). Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited in this 

Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and their effects. Other moderate-to-major earthquakes 

with magnitudes greater than 5 or MMIs of VI have occurred along the boundaries of the Columbia 

Plateau northwest of Hanford and extending into the northern Cascade Range. A strong-to-major 

earthquake occurred in north-central Washington in 1872. This event had an estimated magnitude of 

7.4 and an estimated maximum MMI ranging from VIII to IX (Duncan 2007:4.43; USGS 2009e). 

Evidence of landslides near Lake Chelan, Washington, suggests an epicenter near there. A more-recent 

review of this event indicates a magnitude of 6.8, a maximum MMI of VIII, and a location at the south 

end of Lake Chelan (Duncan 2007:4.43). Near Lake Chelan, huge landslides, massive fissures in the 

ground, and a 9-meter-high (29-foot-high) geyser were reported. Shaking-intensity maps produced for 

the event indicate that MMI VI shaking extended southeast across the Columbia Plateau and beyond 

Hanford (USGS 2009e). The two largest earthquakes near Hanford occurred in 1918 and 1973; each had 

an approximate magnitude of 4.4 and an MMI of V. They occurred in the central portion of the Columbia 

Plateau north of Hanford near Othello, Washington (Duncan 2007:4.43). 

The Saddle Mountains region in which the December 20, 1973, Othello earthquake occurred is one of the 

most active earthquake areas in eastern Washington; earthquakes there tend to occur in clusters or 

“swarms” (i.e., the earthquakes are concentrated in an area and occur in a series over a short period of 

time) (Noson, Qamar, and Thorsen 1988). Earthquake swarms have also occurred in several locations 

within Hanford. Deeper earthquakes in the central Columbia Plateau occur up to depths of about 

30 kilometers (18.6 miles). These deeper earthquakes are less clustered and generally occur as isolated 

events. Survey data indicate that the shallow earthquake swarms are occurring in the Columbia River 

basalts and the deeper earthquakes in deeper, crustal layers (Duncan 2007:4.43, 4.45). A total 118 small 

earthquakes (ranging in magnitude from 2.5 to 4.3) have been recorded within a radius of 100 kilometers 

(62 miles) of the Central Plateau of Hanford (200 Areas) since the December 1973 earthquake. The 

closest of these was a magnitude-3.3 event on November 13, 1994; it had an epicenter about 8 kilometers 

(5 miles) north of the 200 Areas (USGS 2009f). 

As part of the operating license review for Energy Northwest, NRC has estimated a maximum earthquake 

magnitude of 6.5 for the Rattlesnake-Wallula alignment and a 5.0 event for Gable Mountain 

(Duncan 2007:4.45, 4.46). Earthquake-produced ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force 

of acceleration relative to that of Earth’s gravity). As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest 

probabilistic PGA data from the USGS are used in this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various 

mercury storage candidate sites. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability of 

exceedance in 50 years. This corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 

2,500. For a Hanford central location (i.e., centered on the 200 Areas), the calculated PGA is 

approximately 0.18 g (USGS 2009d). Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses are used to determine ground 

motions expected from multiple earthquake sources, which are then used to design or evaluate facilities at 
Affected Environment 

3–23

Hanford and other sites. On the basis of the most recent site-specific seismic analyses, it is estimated that 

an earthquake producing a horizontal (ground) acceleration of 0.10 g at Hanford would be experienced on 

average every 500 years (annual probability of occurrence of 1 in 500). An earthquake producing a peak 

horizontal (ground) acceleration of up to 0.2 g is calculated to have an annual probability of occurrence of 

1 in 2,500, which is in approximate agreement with the latest USGS seismic hazard estimates 

(Duncan 2007:4.46). 

Several major volcanoes are in the Cascade Range west of Hanford, including Mount Adams and Mount 

St. Helens, 164 kilometers (102 miles) and 220 kilometers (137 miles), respectively, from the site. 

Ashfalls from at least three Cascade volcanoes have blanketed the central Columbia Plateau since the late 

Pleistocene epoch. Generally, ashfall layers have not exceeded more than a few centimeters (less than 

1.5 inches) in thickness, with the exception of the Mount Mazama (Crater Lake, Oregon) eruption, when 

as much as 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) of ash fell over eastern Washington (DOE 2000:3-116). 

200 AREAS

The Central Gable Mountain Fault is the nearest potentially active fault to the 200 Areas; it is 

4 kilometers (2.5 miles) northeast of the 200-East Area and more than 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the 

200-West Area. The 200-West Area has one of the most complete suprabasalt stratigraphic sections at 

Hanford, including the Cold Creek Unit, with a stratigraphic thickness of up to 168 meters (550 feet) 

(Hartman 2000:3.11). Gravel-dominated sediments make up most of the Hanford formation in the 

northern part of the 200-East Area and across the 200-West Area. Beneath the 200-West Area, the Cold 

Creek Unit overlies the tilted and eroded Ringold Formation where both the lower and upper portions of 

the unit have been identified. The Lower Cold Creek Unit mainly consists of basaltic to quartzitic 

gravels, sands, silt, and clay that are cemented with one or more layers of calcium carbonate and other 

assemblages. The Upper Cold Creek Unit primarily consists of a distinctive silt-rich interval representing 

eolian deposits in the 200-West Area (Duncan 2007:4.38, 4.39). 

The Ringold Lower Mud Unit is present under much of Hanford and is a nearly continuous feature 

beneath the 200-West Area and the southern half of the 200-East Area. The Lower Mud Unit consists 

primarily of lake bed silt and clay deposits, with at least one well-developed paleosol at the top of the 

sequence in the 200-West Area. Where present, the Lower Mud Unit forms the base of the unconfined 

aquifer at Hanford and acts as an aquitard, separating groundwater in the underlying Ringold Unit A from 

the unconfined aquifer (Duncan 2007:4.31, 4.38). As described in Section 3.3.2.2, the predominant soil 

types across the 200 Areas developed from surficial sediments are Quincy (Rupert) sand and Burbank 

loamy sand. 

3.3.3 Water Resources 

3.3.3.1 Surface Water 

Major surface-water features at Hanford include the Columbia River; Columbia riverbank seepage; 

springs; and ponds, including those constructed for effluent management (see Figure 3–4). In addition, 

the Yakima River flows along a short section of the southern boundary of the site. The Columbia River is 

the second-largest river in the contiguous United States in terms of total flow and is the dominant 

surface-water feature on the site. Flow of the Columbia River is regulated by several dams including 

seven upstream and four downstream from the site. The nearest dam upstream from Hanford is the 

Priest Rapids Dam, and the nearest one downstream is the McNary Dam (Duncan 2007:4.49). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–24

Figure 3–4. Surface-Water Features and Floodplains on the Hanford Site 
Affected Environment 

3–25

The 82-kilometer (51-mile) Hanford Reach, which is the last free-flowing, nontidal section of the river in 

the United States, extends from the Priest Rapids Dam to the upstream edge of Lake Wallula behind the 

McNary Dam. Because the flows are regulated by the Priest Rapids Dam, flow rates in the Hanford 

Reach can vary considerably. Mean annual Columbia River flow near the Priest Rapids Dam over the 

90-year period of record averaged nearly 3,330 cubic meters (117,600 cubic feet) per second 

(Duncan 2007:4.49, 4.51). In 2007, the Columbia River had normal flows; the average daily flow rate 

downstream of Priest Rapids Dam was 3,300 cubic meters (116,500 cubic feet) per second (Poston, 

Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.29). As a result of daily fluctuations in discharges from the Priest Rapids 

Dam, the depth of the river varies widely over a short time period, with stage changes of up to 3 meters 

(10 feet) during a 24-hour period along the Hanford Reach. The width of the river varies from 

approximately 300 to 1,000 meters (1,000 to 3,300 feet) along the Hanford Reach (Duncan 2007:4.51; 

Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.29, 10.31). 

Primary uses of the Columbia River include hydroelectric power generation, irrigation of crops in the 

Columbia Basin, and materials transport by barge. The Hanford Reach is the upstream navigable limit of 

barge traffic. Barges are used to transport reactor vessels from decommissioned nuclear vessels to 

Hanford for disposal. The Columbia River is also used extensively for recreation, including fishing, 

hunting, boating, sailboarding, water skiing, diving, and swimming. In addition to its use as a water 

supply source for Hanford, the river is a source of drinking water for several communities 

(Duncan 2007:4.52). Further, the Washington State Department of Ecology has designated that segment 

of the Columbia River, extending from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Washington–Oregon border and 

encompassing the Hanford Reach, for the following uses: salmon and trout spawning and rearing; primary 

contact recreation; domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply; stock watering; wildlife habitat; 

harvesting, commerce and navigation; boating; and aesthetic values (WAC 173-201A). DOE continues to 

assert a federally reserved water withdrawal right for the Columbia River (DOE 1999a:4-49, 4-50). 

Water use is further discussed in Section 3.3.7.4. 

No federally designated wild and scenic rivers exist in the Hanford vicinity. In 1996, the National Park 

Service proposed designation of the Hanford Reach as a “recreational river” under the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System as part of broader resource conservation initiatives (DOE 1999a:4-5). The Hanford 

Reach was proclaimed a National Monument in 2000. Creation of the National Monument did not 

convey with it full protection of the river’s eligibility as a wild and scenic river. Section 404 of the 

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333) amended the original study 

legislation (P.L. 100-605) to mandate that no Federal agency may construct any dam, channel, or 

navigation project. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and U.S. Department 

of the Interior practices, USFWS manages the river as if it were a wild and scenic river and will take no 

actions that would change its status. This protection only partially extends to other Federal agencies. 

Those agencies are obliged to take all reasonable care to protect the river’s free flow and “outstandingly 

remarkable resources,” as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but they are not obliged to forego 

projects if no reasonable alternative exists (USFWS 2008:3-2012). 

Flooding of the site has occurred along the Columbia River, but the likelihood of a recurrence of 

large-scale flooding has been greatly reduced by the upstream construction of several flood control/water 

storage dams. Major floods are typically due to melting of the winter snowpack combined with 

above-normal precipitation. No maps of flood-prone areas have been produced by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency because maps are produced only for areas that could be developed and 

are not under Federal control. However, analyses have been completed to determine the potential for the 

probable maximum flood. The probable maximum flood for the Columbia River below the Priest Rapids 

Dam has been calculated at 40,000 cubic meters (1.4 million cubic feet) per second, which is greater than 

the 500-year flood (DOE 1999a:4-34; Duncan 2007:4.58). The extents of the 1894 and 1948 floods and 

of the probable maximum flood are shown in Figure 3–4. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–26

Springs occur in the western portion of the site and flow into intermittent streams that infiltrate rapidly 

into the surface sediments. Water discharged from Rattlesnake Springs flows down Dry Creek, a 

tributary to Cold Creek, for about 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) before infiltrating into the ground. The 

seepage of groundwater into the Columbia River along the Hanford Reach has been documented long 

before Hanford operations began. Seepage flows are rather small and intermittent, influenced primarily 

by changes in the river level. Contaminants originating at Hanford have been documented in some of 

these discharges along the Hanford Reach (DOE 1999a:4-29–4-32; Duncan 2007:4.55, 4:56). 

Other naturally occurring surface-water features at Hanford include West Lake and, in three clusters, 

approximately 20 vernal ponds or pools. The clusters are located on the eastern end of Umtanum Ridge, 

in the central part of Gable Butte, and at the eastern end of Gable Mountain. The ponds appear to form 

during the wetter winter periods in shallow depressions underlain by a layer of basalt (DOE 1999a:4-31, 

4-32; Duncan 2007:4.64). In addition, there are irrigation ponds and wetlands in the northwest portion of 

the site and north of the Columbia River (Duncan 2007:4.50, 4.73). 

Hanford has one EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit—No. 

WA-002591-7. This permit covered three active outfalls: outfall 001 for the 300 Area Treated Effluent 

Disposal Facility and outfalls 003 and 004 in the 100-K Area. The site continues to be covered by the 

EPA NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit No. WAR05A57F, which establishes the terms 

and conditions under which stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity are authorized. 

Facilities such as the 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility Ponds, Effluent Treatment Facility and 

Liquid Effluent Retention Facility in the 200-East Area, the Fast Flux Test Facility Ponds, the 100-N 

Area sewage lagoon, and consolidated industrial activities are covered by state waste discharge permits 

issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology rather than NPDES permits. State-issued NPDES 

general permits for mining activities are also in place. Numerous sanitary waste discharges to the ground 

from sanitary systems serving the 100 and 200 Areas are permitted by the Washington State Department 

of Health. Sanitary wastewater from the 400 Area is discharged to a treatment facility at Energy 

Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:5.13, D.2). 

Hanford’s Surface Environmental Surveillance Project is responsible for measuring the concentrations of 

radiological and nonradiological contaminants in environmental media on site and off site at perimeter, 

community, and distant locations and for determining the potential effects of these materials on the 

environment and the public. This includes routine sampling and analysis of surface water and sediment, 

as well as water and sediment from Columbia River shoreline springs, for radionuclides and chemicals, 

including metals, organics, and anions. As in past years, small amounts of radioactive materials were 

detected downriver from Hanford. However, all individual radiological contaminant concentrations 

measured in Columbia River water during 2007 were less than 4 percent of the applicable DOE-derived 

concentration guideline levels (DOE Order 5400.5) for ingested water and well below Washington State 

ambient surface-water-quality criteria. The concentrations of metals and anions observed in river water 

during 2007 were similar to those observed in the past and remain below regulatory limits. During 2007, 

there was no indication of any deterioration of Columbia River water or sediment quality resulting from 

operations at Hanford (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:xv–xvii, 10.4, 10.34, 10.38). 

200 AREAS

The 200 Areas are located in the Central Plateau of Hanford approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) 

southeast of the Columbia River. Neither the 200-East nor 200-West Area lies within the probable 

maximum flood area of the Columbia or Yakima River (see Figure 3–4). However, the southwest corner 

of the 200-West Area is within the probable maximum flood area of Cold Creek. This portion of the 

200-West Area has limited development at present. West Lake, located north of the 200-East Area, is a 

natural feature recharged from groundwater. The lake has not received direct effluent discharges from 

Hanford facilities; rather, its existence is attributable to the intersection of the elevated water table with 

the land surface in the topographically low area. The water level and size of the lake have been 
Affected Environment 

3–27

decreasing over the past several years because of reduced wastewater discharge (Duncan 2007:4.64). 

Water for the 200 Areas is provided by the 283-W Water Treatment Plant. The water source for this 

filtration and chlorination plant is the Columbia River (see Section 3.3.7.4). 

3.3.3.2 Groundwater 

Beneath the vadose zone, groundwater under Hanford occurs in confined and unconfined aquifer systems. 

The unconfined aquifer system, also referred to as the “suprabasalt aquifer system” or “Hanford/Ringold 

aquifer system,” lies within the sands and gravels of the Hanford formation and, to a greater degree, the 

sediments of the Ringold Formation, as previously described in Section 3.3.2.1. Portions of the 

suprabasalt aquifer system are locally confined because major sand and gravel units of the Ringold 

Formation are separated by fine-grained (e.g., silt- and clay-dominated) units. In some places, the 

fine-grained units act as aquitards that locally confine groundwater in deeper permeable sediments. 

Nevertheless, groundwater generally flows eastward across the site from recharge areas in the higher 

elevations on the western site boundary and discharges primarily to the Columbia River. The Yakima 

River is also considered a source of recharge. Since the beginning of Hanford operations in 1943, the 

water table has risen about 9.1 meters (30 feet) under disposal ponds near the 200-East Area and as much 

as 27 meters (89 feet) in the 200-West Area. This has caused groundwater mounding with radial and 

northward flow components in the 200 Areas, although groundwater elevations have declined since 1984 

with decreased wastewater disposal. However, a groundwater mound beneath the 200-West Area still 

exists, as do small groundwater mounds near active 200 Area wastewater disposal facilities 

(Duncan 2007:4.68–4.71; Hartman 2000:3.4, 3.5). 

Perched water table conditions have been encountered in sediment above the unconfined aquifer system 

in the 200-West Area. While the depth to the regional water table across the site ranges from less than 

1 meter (3.3 feet) along the Columbia River to more than 100 meters (330 feet) near the center of the site, 

daily river-level fluctuations may result in changes in the water table of up to 3 meters (10 feet) near the 

Columbia River during periods of high-river stage. Typically, this inland flow of river water is restricted 

to within several hundred meters of the shoreline (Duncan 2007:4.69). 

The confined aquifer system at Hanford consists of a sequence of basalt-confined aquifers within the 

Columbia River Basalt Group. Individual aquifers consist of the relatively permeable sedimentary 

interbeds and the more-porous tops and bottoms of basalt flows that compose the group. The upper 

basalt-confined aquifer is believed to be recharged from upland areas along the margins of the Pasco 

Basin as a result of the infiltration of precipitation and surface water where the basalt and interbeds are 

exposed at or near the ground surface. Hydraulic head information indicates that groundwater in the 

basalt-confined aquifers generally flows toward the Columbia River and, in some places, toward areas of 

enhanced vertical interflow with the unconfined aquifer system (Duncan 2007:4.69; Hartman 2000:3.4, 

3.5). 

Tritium and carbon-14 measurements indicate that groundwater residence or recharge time (the length of 

time that groundwater has been in the subsurface) is up to thousands of years for the unconfined aquifer 

and more than 10,000 years for groundwater in the shallow confined aquifer. These rather long residence 

times are consistent with semiarid-site recharge conditions. However, groundwater travel time from the 

200-East Area to the Columbia River has been shown to be much faster—in the range of 10 to 30 years. 

This is because of the large volumes of recharge from wastewater disposed of in the 200 Areas between 

1944 and the mid-1990s and the rather high permeability of Hanford formation sediments, which are 

below the water table between the 200 Areas and the Columbia River. Residence times in this portion of 

the aquifer are expected to increase because of the reduction in wastewater recharge in the 200 Areas. 

Plume monitoring indicates that groundwater from the 200-West Area has moved about 6 kilometers 

(3.7 miles) during the past 50 years (Duncan 2007:4.72). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–28

Water use in the Pasco Basin, which includes Hanford, is primarily via surface-water diversion; 

groundwater accounts for less than 10 percent of water use (DOE 1999a:4-49). While most of the water 

used by Hanford is surface water withdrawn from the Columbia River, some groundwater is used. One of 

the principal users of groundwater was the Fast Flux Test Facility in the 400 Area, which used about 

697,000 liters (184,000 gallons) per day when it operated (DOE 2000:3-109). No aquifers have been 

designated sole-source aquifers in the Columbia Plateau (EPA 2009c). 

Groundwater quality beneath large portions of Hanford has been affected by past liquid waste discharges, 

primarily to ponds, cribs, and trenches (ditches), and from spills, injection wells, and leaks from waste 

storage tanks. Additional contaminants from spills, leaking waste tanks, and burial grounds (landfills) 

have also impacted groundwater in some areas. Contaminant concentrations in the existing groundwater 

plumes are expected to decline through radioactive decay, chemical degradation, and dispersion. 

Contaminants also exist within the vadose zone (unsaturated zone) beneath waste sites, as well as in waste 

storage and disposal facilities. These contaminants could continue to move downward into the 

unconfined aquifer system. Some contaminants, such as tritium, move with the groundwater, while 

movement of other contaminants (e.g., strontium, cesium, and plutonium) is slower because they react 

with or are sorbed on the surface of minerals within the aquifer or the vadose zone (Duncan 2007:4.73, 

4.74). Groundwater contamination is monitored and is being actively remediated in several areas through 

pump-and-treat operations. The unconfined aquifer system contains radiological and nonradiological 

contaminants at levels that exceed water quality criteria and standards. Overall, tritium, nitrate, and 

iodine-129 continue to be the most widespread groundwater contaminants associated with past Hanford 

operations (Hartman, Richie, and Rediker 2009:1.0-3). 

200 AREAS

Along the southern edge of the 200-East Area and in the 200-West Area, the water table occurs almost 

entirely in the upper gravel layers of the Ringold Formation, while in most of the 200-East Area, it occurs 

primarily in the Hanford formation and in the lower gravel layers of the Ringold Formation. Because the 

Hanford formation and Cold Creek Unit sand and gravel deposits are much more permeable than the 

Ringold gravels, the water table is rather flat in the 200-East Area, but groundwater flow velocities are 

higher (Duncan 2007:4.75). 

As previously described, the subsurface hydrology of the 200 Areas has been strongly influenced by the 

discharge of large quantities of wastewater to the ground for more than 50 years. In recent years, 

discharges of water to the ground have been greatly reduced, and corresponding decreases in the water 

table elevation have been measured. The decline in part of the 200-West Area has been more than 

8 meters (26 feet) to date (Duncan 2007:4.75, 4.81). The depth to the water table in the 200-West Area 

varies from about 50 meters (164 feet) to greater than 100 meters (330 feet). Beneath the 200-West Area, 

the saturated thickness (i.e., the vertical thickness of aquifer material that is saturated with water) of the 

unconfined aquifer varies from about 65 meters (213 feet) to greater than 150 meters (492 feet) 

(Hartman 2000:4.9, 4.16). 

Groundwater beneath the 200-West Area generally flows from west to east across most of the area, but 

trends toward the northeast in the northern part of the area; flow is locally altered by pumping, injection, 

and waste discharge. The decline in liquid effluent discharges to the soil in the 200-West Area and the 

resulting decline in the water table have changed the flow direction in the northern part of the area about 

35 degrees over the past decade from a north-northeast to a more-eastward direction (Hartman, Richie, 

and Rediker 2009:2.8-1). 
Affected Environment 

3–29

3.3.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.3.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate at Hanford and the surrounding region is characterized as that of a semiarid steppe. The 

humidity is low, and winters are mild. According to data collected from 1946 through 2004, the average 

monthly temperatures at the Hanford Meteorological Station (located between the 200-East and 200-West 

Areas) range from a low of –0.7 °C (31 °F) in January to a high of 24.7 °C (76 °F) in July. Annual 

average relative humidity is 55 percent. While the average annual precipitation is 17 centimeters 

(6.8 inches), most precipitation occurs during the late autumn and winter, with more than half of the 

annual amount occurring from November though February. The monthly average windspeeds are lower 

during the winter, averaging 2.7 to 3.1 meters per second (6 to 7 miles per hour); during the summer they 

average 3.6 to 4.0 meters per second (8 to 9 miles per hour). Prevailing winds in the 200 Areas are from 

the northwest, and in the 400 Area predominant winds are from the northwest and south-southwest 

(Duncan 2007:4.5–4.13). The maximum windspeed at Yakama, Washington (highest 1-minute average), 

is 21 meters per second (48 miles per hour) (NOAA 2009b:70). 

Tornadoes are infrequent and generally of low magnitude in the northwestern portion of the United States. 

In the 10 counties closest to Hanford (Benton, Franklin, Grant, Adams, Yakima, Klickitat, Kittitas, and 

Walla Walla in Washington and Umatilla and Morrow in Oregon), 30 tornadoes have been recorded 

for the period from 1950 through July 2009. The average occurrence of thunderstorms in the vicinity 

of the Hanford Meteorological Station is 10 per year, with about 1.9 percent considered severe 

(Duncan 2007:4.13, 4:14; NCDC 2009b). 

Most of Hanford is within the South-Central Washington Intrastate Air Quality Control Region No. 230, 

but a small portion of the site is in the Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate Air Quality Control 

Region No. 62. None of the areas within Hanford and its surrounding counties are designated as 

nonattainment areas with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air 

pollutants (40 CFR 81.348). Particulate matter (PM) concentrations can reach relatively high levels in 

eastern Washington State because of extreme natural events such as duststorms and large brush fires. 

Duststorms are treated as uncontrollable natural events under EPA policy (Nichols 1996). Accordingly, 

the air quality impact of such storms can be disregarded in determining whether an area is in 

nonattainment for atmospheric particulates. However, states are required to develop and implement a 

natural events action plan (Duncan 2007:4.19). Applicable NAAQS and Washington State ambient air 

quality standards are presented in Table 3–3. 

The primary sources of criteria and toxic air pollutants at Hanford include emissions from power 

generation and chemical processing (Duncan 2007:4.19). Other sources include vehicular emissions 

and construction, environmental remediation, and waste management activities (Wisness 2000). The tank 

farms in the 200 Areas produced reportable quantities of ammonia emissions in 2007 (Poston, Duncan, 

and Dirkes 2008:10.10). The ambient air pollutant concentrations at the site boundary attributable to 

existing sources at Hanford are presented in Table 3–3. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–30

Table 3–3. Modeled Nonradiological Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations from 

Hanford Site Sources and Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Most Stringent 

Standard or Guidelinea

Maximum Hanford Site 

Concentrationb

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period (micrograms per cubic meter) 

Criteria Pollutants 

8 hours 10,000c 39.5 Carbon monoxide 

1 hour 40,000c 162 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100c 0.263 

Ozone 8 hours 

1 hour 

147d

235f

(e) 

(e) 

PM10

Annual 

24 hours 

50f, g

150c

0.134 

0.884 

PM2.5

Annual 

24 hours 

15d

35d

0.134h

0.884h

Annual 50f 0.00621 

24 hours 260f 0.52 

3 hours 1,300c 2.01 

1 hour 1,000f 4.56 

Sulfur dioxide 

1 hour 660f, i 4.56 

Other Regulated Pollutants 

Total suspended Annual 60f 0.134h

particulates 24 hours 150f 0.884h

Ammonia 24 hours 100j 1.91 

a The more stringent of the Federal and state standards is presented if both exist for the averaging period. The National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50), other than those for ozone, particulate matter, lead, and those standards based on 

annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The annual arithmetic mean PM standard is attained 

when the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration (3-year average) is less than or equal to the standard. The 24-hour 

PM standard is met when the 98th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to the 

standard value. The 24-hour PM standard is met when the 99th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour concentrations is less 

than or equal to the standard value. 

2.5

2.5

10

b Site contributions based on a 2005 emissions inventory, including emissions from the 200 Areas. 

c Federal and state standard. 

d Federal standard. 

e Not directly emitted or monitored by the site. 

f State standard. 

g The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM standard. 10

h Assumed to be the same as the concentration of PM10 because there are no specific data for total suspended particulates or 

PM2.5. 

i Not to be exceeded more than twice in any 7 consecutive days. 

j State acceptable source impact level. 

Note: The National Ambient Air Quality Standards include standards for lead. Lead emissions identified at the site are small 

(less than 1 kilogram [2.2 pounds] per year) and were not modeled. The State of Washington also has ambient standards for 

fluorides. No emissions of fluorides have been reported at Hanford. To convert cubic meters to cubic feet, multiply by 35.315. 

Key: PMn=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to n micrometers. 

Source: 40 CFR 50; 71 FR 61144, DOE 2006a, 2009c:3-22; WAC 173-460, 173-470, 173-474, 173-475, 173-481, 173-490. 
Affected Environment 

3–31

These concentrations are based on dispersion modeling using year 2005 emissions for Hanford, which are 

presented in Table 3–4. Emissions from carbon tetrachloride vapor extraction work in the 200-West Area 

are included among the toxic pollutant emissions shown. Emissions from tank vents other than 

ammonia and criteria pollutants are included among the composite toxic air pollutants. These emissions 

include 1,3-butadiene, 2-hexanone, 2-pentanone, acetone, acetonitrile, benzene, heptane, hexane, 

methyl amyl ketone, nonane, octane, phosphoric acid tributyl ester, and toluene (DOE and 

Ecology 1996:G-36–G-38). The concentrations at the site were calculated from 2000–2004 

meteorological data using the AERMOD [American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model] 

dispersion model. 

Table 3–4. Nonradioactive Constituents Emitted to the Atmosphere 

at the Hanford Site, 2005 

Constituent Emissions (kilograms) 

Carbon monoxide 14,000 

Nitrogen oxides 12,000 

Particulate matter 

 PM10

 PM2.5

6,500 

2,800 

1,000 

Sulfur oxides 3,000 

Lead 0.47 

Volatile organic compoundsa 14,000b

Ammonia 12,000c

Other toxic air pollutants 6,600d

a Produced from burning fossil fuels for steam generation and electrical generators and 

calculated from estimates of emissions from the 200-East and 200-West Area tank farms; 

evaporation losses from fuel dispensing; and operation of the 242-A Evaporator, 

200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility, Central Waste Complex, T Plant complex, and 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility. 

b Estimate does not include emissions from certain laboratory operations and mobile 

sources. 

c Calculated estimates of releases from the 200-East and 200-West Area tank farms and 

operation of the 242-A Evaporator and the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility. 

d A composite of calculated estimates of toxic air pollutants, excluding ammonia. 

Note: To convert kilograms to pounds, multiply by 2.2046. 

Key: PMn=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 

n micrometers. 

Source: DOE 2009c:3-23.

Background concentrations of criteria pollutants are well below ambient standards. As shown in 

Table 3–3, these modeled concentrations from Hanford sources represent a small percentage of the 

ambient air quality standards. Hanford emissions should not result in air pollutant concentrations that 

violate the ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Detailed information on emissions of 

other pollutants at Hanford is discussed in the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year

2007 (Including Some Early 2008 Information) (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.10–10.12). 

The nearest PSD Class I areas to Hanford are Mount Rainier National Park, 160 kilometers (100 miles) to 

the west; Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, about 145 kilometers (90 miles) to the west; Mount Adams 

Wilderness Area, about 153 kilometers (95 miles) to the southwest; and Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, 

about 177 kilometers (110 miles) to the northwest (40 CFR 81.434; Duncan 2007:4.19; Ecology 2005). 

Hanford and its vicinity are classified as a Class II area. The PUREX and Uranium Trioxide Plants were 

issued a PSD permit for nitrogen oxide emissions in 1980. These facilities were permanently shut down 

in the late 1980s and deactivated in the 1990s. None of the currently operating Hanford facilities have 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–32

nonradiological emissions of sufficient magnitude to warrant consideration under PSD regulations 

(Duncan 2007:4.17). DOE has applied for and received a PSD permit for the Waste Treatment Plant 

(WTP), which includes the Pretreatment Facility, high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and low-activity 

waste vitrification facilities, six steam generating boilers, two diesel fire pumps, and three emergency 

diesel generators (Ecology 2001, 2003, 2005). New emission sources may require a PSD increment 

consumption analysis if they have significant emissions and air quality impacts. None of the alternatives 

considered in this EIS are expected to require a PSD permit. 

A sitewide air operating permit for Hanford (permit No. 00-05-006) became effective in July 2001 and 

was renewed in December 2006 (Duncan 2007:6.23) in accordance with Title V of the Clean Air Act and 

Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Federal and state programs under “State Operating 

Permit Programs” (40 CFR 70), and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-401). 

As determined by monitoring conducted off site by the Benton County Clean Air Authority, in 2004 the 

maximum and annual average PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations were below EPA and Washington State 

standards (Duncan 2007:4.19). Ambient air quality at Hanford is discussed in more detail in the Hanford 

Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2007 (Including Some Early 2008 Information) (Poston, 

Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.13–10.26). The air operating permit indicates that toxic air pollutants from 

tank farm activities in the 200 Areas have been demonstrated to be below the acceptable source impact 

levels and are required to remain below these levels (Ecology 2001, 2006). 

Routine monitoring of most nonradiological pollutants is not conducted at the site. Continuous 

monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 was initiated at the Hanford Meteorological Station and the 300 Area in 

2001. The PM monitors involved in this effort are not used to determine compliance with ambient 

standards (Poston et al. 2006:10.26). Ambient monitoring of ammonia and other toxic pollutants is not 

routinely conducted at Hanford. 

200 AREAS

Prevailing winds in the 200 Areas are from the west-northwest to northwest (Duncan 2007:4.8, 4.9). The 

200 Areas emit various nonradiological air pollutants. The sources of criteria and toxic air pollutant 

emissions in the 200 Areas include generators; tank farm exhausters; evaporators; boilers; vehicles; and 

construction, environmental remediation, and waste management activities (DOE 2006a; Hebdon 2003; 

Wisness 2000). The tank farms in the 200 Areas produced reportable ammonia emissions in 2007 

(Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.10). Year 2005 emissions for the 200 Areas are included in the 

sitewide emissions presented in Table 3–3. Emissions from carbon tetrachloride vapor extraction work in 

the 200-West Area are included in the toxic pollutant emissions shown in Table 3–4. Emissions from 

tank vents other than ammonia and criteria pollutants are included in the composite toxic air pollutants. 

These emissions include 1,3-butadiene, 2-hexanone, 2-pentanone, acetone, acetonitrile, benzene, heptane, 

hexane, methyl amyl ketone, nonane, octane, phosphoric acid tributyl ester, and toluene (DOE and 

Ecology 1996:G-36–G-38). 

The Hanford Site Air Operating Permit (Ecology 2006) includes emission and reporting requirements for 

various sources in the 200 Areas, including oil-fired boilers, large internal-combustion engines, tank 

exhausters, waste retrieval systems, rotary-mode core sampling systems, tank sluicing, emergency fire 

pump generators, the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility, tank waste retrieval, tank farm ventilation 

systems, storage of vented waste containers at the Central Waste Complex, and Waste Receiving and 

Processing Facility. 

3.3.4.2 Noise 

Major noise sources within Hanford include various facilities, equipment, and machines (e.g., cooling 

systems, transformers, engines, pumps, boilers, steam vents, paging systems, construction and 
Affected Environment 

3–33

material-handling equipment, vehicles). However, most Hanford industrial facilities are far enough from 

the site boundary that noise from these sources at the boundary is either unmeasurable or barely 

distinguishable from background levels (DOE 1996a:3-29, 3-31; Duncan 2007). 

Background noise levels at Hanford were measured during two surveys in 1996 and 2007. Data from a 

survey of 15 sites at Hanford found that background noise levels (measured as the 24-hour equivalent 

sound level) ranged from 30 to 60.5 dBA. A second survey of 5 isolated areas concluded that background 

sound levels in undeveloped areas could best be described as a mean 24-hour equivalent sound level of 

24 to 36 dBA. Wind was identified as the primary contributor to background sound levels at Hanford 

(Duncan 2007:4.162, 4.164). 

The primary source of noise at the site and nearby residences is traffic. The potential impact of traffic 

noise resulting from activities at Hanford was evaluated for a draft EIS addressing the siting of the 

proposed New Production Reactor (Duncan 2007:4.164). Estimates were made of baseline traffic noise 

along two major access routes: State Route 24, from Hanford west to Yakima, and State Route 240, south 

of the site and west of Richland, where it handles maximum traffic volume. About 9 percent of the 

employees at Hanford commute by vanpool or bus. Modeled traffic noise levels (equivalent 1-hour sound 

level) at 15 meters (50 feet) from State Route 24 for both peak and offpeak periods were 62 dBA. Traffic 

noise levels from State Route 240 for both peak and offpeak periods were 70 dBA. These traffic noise 

levels were projections based on employment levels about 30 percent higher than actual levels at Hanford 

in 1997. Existing traffic noise levels may be different due to changes in site employment and ridesharing 

activities (DOE 1999b:38; Duncan 2007:4.161–4.165). 

Washington State has established noise standards for different source and receiving areas. Hanford 

belongs to source area Class C (industrial). The maximum allowable noise level for residential, 

commercial, and industrial areas is 50 to 70 dBA (WAC 173-60). For industrial areas impacting a 

residential area, the limit is 60 dBA during daylight hours and 50 dBA at night. Land use compatibility 

guidelines adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Interagency Committee on 

Urban Noise indicate that yearly day-night average sound levels less than 65 dBA are compatible with 

residential land uses (14 CFR 150). These guidelines further indicate that noise levels up to 75 dBA are 

compatible with residential uses if suitable noise reduction features are incorporated into structures. It is 

expected that, for most residences near Hanford, the day-night average sound level is less than 65 dBA 

and thus compatible with residential land use, although noise levels may be higher for some residences 

along major roadways. 

200 AREAS

No distinguishing noise characteristics in the 200 Areas have been identified. The 200 Areas are far 

enough away from the nearest site boundary (10 kilometers [6.2 miles]) that industrial noise emanating 

from these areas is either unmeasurable or barely distinguishable from background levels at the site 

boundary. The 200-West Area is about 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) from the closest part of the Hanford 

Reach National Monument. 

3.3.5 Ecological Resources 

3.3.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

Hanford occupies approximately 151,775 hectares (375,040 acres). Shrub-steppe plant community 

dominates the majority of the site and provides habitat for a variety of both native and nonnative plant 

species. A total of 727 species of vascular plants have been recorded, 179 of which are nonnative species. 

Within the shrub-steppe habitat, sagebrush-dominated communities predominate. Typical vegetation 

includes big sagebrush, threetip sagebrush, bitterbrush, gray rabbitbrush, winterfat, snow buckwheat, and 

spiny hopsage (Duncan 2007:4.89). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–34

Approximately 300 species of terrestrial vertebrates have been observed at Hanford, including 

46 mammals, 258 birds, 10 reptiles, and 5 amphibians. Mammals include large game animals, such as the 

Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer, and predators, such as coyotes and bobcats. Forty-one bird species 

are common to shrub and grassland habitats, including the western meadowlark, horned lark, and 

long-billed curlew. The side-blotched lizard is the most abundant species of lizard at Hanford, while the 

Great Basin gopher snake, western yellow bellied racer, and western rattlesnake are the most common 

snakes. The Great Basin spadefoot toad, Woodhouse’s toad, Pacific tree frog, tiger salamander, and 

bullfrog are the only amphibians found on the site (Duncan 2007:4.83, 4.84, 4.90 4.92). 

200 AREAS

Undisturbed portions of the 200 Areas are characterized by the following communities: big 

sagebrush/bunchgrass-cheatgrass, cheatgrass-bluegrass, crested wheatgrass-bunchgrass-cheatgrass, and 

gray rabbitbrush/cheatgrass-bluegrass. The former two communities are prominent in the 200-East Area, 

while the latter two are more common in the 200-West Area. Most of the waste disposal and storage sites 

are covered by nonnative vegetation or are kept in a vegetation-free condition by the controlled 

application of approved herbicides because plants could potentially accumulate waste constituents. Due 

to the disturbed nature of most of the 200 Areas, including the Central Waste Complex, wildlife use is 

limited; however, surveys have recorded the badger, coyote, Great Basin pocket mouse, mule deer, 

long-billed curlew, killdeer, horned lark, Say’s phoebe, American robin, American kestrel, western 

meadowlark, and common raven (Sackschewsky 2003a:3, 2003b:9, 10; Sackschewsky and Downs 2007). 

3.3.5.2 Wetlands 

Riparian habitat occurring in association with the Columbia River includes riffles, gravel bars, backwater 

sloughs, and cobble shorelines. These habitats occur infrequently along the Hanford Reach and have 

acquired greater significance because of the loss of wetland habitat elsewhere within the region. 

Vegetation that occurs along the river shoreline includes willow, mulberry, Siberian elm, water 

smartweed, reed canary grass, sedges, and rushes (Duncan 2007:4.29, 4.93). 

Other large wetland areas at Hanford can be found north of the Columbia River within the Saddle 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Unit. These two areas encompass all the lands 

extending from the north bank of the Columbia River northward to the site boundary and east of the 

Columbia River down to Ringold Springs. Wetland habitat in these areas consists of fairly large ponds 

resulting from irrigation runoff. These ponds have extensive stands of cattails and other emergent aquatic 

vegetation surrounding the open-water regions. They are extensively used as nesting sites by waterfowl 

(Duncan 2007:4.93). 

200 AREAS

The only wetland area in the vicinity of the 200 Areas is West Lake. With the cessation of nuclear 

materials production activities at Hanford, the amount of water discharged to the ground in the 200 Areas 

substantially decreased. Thus, over the past 10 years, the lake has decreased in size and currently consists 

of a group of small, isolated pools and mudflats. Predominant plants at West Lake include alkali salt 

grass, common plantain, and salt rattlepod. Bulrush grows along the shoreline; however, the water is too 

saline to support aquatic macrophytes (i.e., large aquatic plants) (Duncan 2007:4.98, 4.99). 

3.3.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River flows through the northern portion of the site and forms the 

eastern site boundary. It is the last free-flowing, nontidal segment of the Columbia River in the United 

States. Of specific importance is the spawning habitat the river provides for various salmon species, 

including the king salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The Yakima River borders the southern 
Affected Environment 

3–35

portion of Hanford. Fish found in the river in the site vicinity include smallmouth bass, salmon, steelhead 

trout, and channel catfish (Duncan 2007:4.99). 

There are several springs at Hanford. Rattlesnake Springs, Bobcat Springs, and Snively Springs, located 

on the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, form short streams that seep into the ground. 

None of the springs support any fish populations; however, dense blooms of watercress occur, and 

aquatic insect populations are higher than they are in mountain streams. Site springs are an important 

source of water for terrestrial animals such as those listed in Section 3.3.5.1 (DOE 2000:3-120; 

Duncan 2007:4.103). 

Three clusters of approximately 20 vernal pools are distributed on the eastern end of Umtanum Ridge, in 

the central part of Gable Butte, and at the eastern end of Gable Mountain (DOE 1999b:4.31). Vernal 

pools are seasonally flooded depressions that retain water much longer than the surrounding uplands; 

nonetheless, the pools are shallow enough to dry up each season. Only plants and animals that are 

adapted to this cycle of wetting and drying can survive in vernal pools over time. These pools can host 

freshwater crustaceans and other invertebrates and are of value to terrestrial species. 

200 AREAS

The Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and Treated Effluent Disposal Facility, located in and adjacent to 

the 200-East Area, contain five ponds. There are three evaporation ponds associated with the Liquid 

Effluent Retention Facility, each of which is about 0.8 hectares (2 acres) in size. The two disposal ponds 

associated with the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility are each about 2 hectares (5 acres) in size. While 

these ponds do not support fish populations, they are accessible to wildlife. West Lake, located north of 

the 200 Areas, has decreased in size in recent years and is the only other water body near the 200 Areas; 

however, the lake is too saline to support aquatic macrophytes (Duncan 2007:4.98, 4.99). 

3.3.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Threatened, endangered, and other federally and state-listed special status species that occur at Hanford 

are presented in Table 3–5. Three federally endangered species and 2 federally threatened species may be 

found on the site. Two species of plants, 1 species of birds, and 1 species of mammals are listed as 

Federal candidates. Candidate species do not receive legal protection; however, they should be 

considered during project planning. At the state level, 2 species of plants, 2 species of birds, and 

1 species of mammals are listed as endangered and 10 plants and 2 birds are listed as threatened. 

Table 3–5. Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring at the Hanford Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Plants 

Awned halfchaff sedge Lipocarpha (=Hemicarpha) 

aristulata 

Threatened 

Desert dodder Cuscuta denticulate Threatened 

Geyer’s milkvetch Astragalus geyeri Threatened 

Grand redstem Ammannia robusta Threatened 

Great Basin gilia Gilia leptomeria Threatened 

Loeflingia Loeflingia squarrosa var. squarrosa Threatened 

Lowland toothcup Rotala ramosior Threatened 

Persistent sepal yellowcress Rorippa columbiae Species of concern Endangered 

Rosy pussypaws Calyptridium roseum Threatened 

Umtanum desert buckwheat Eriogonum codium Candidate Endangered 

White Bluffs bladderpod Lesquerella tuplashensis Candidate Threatened 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–36

Table 3–5. Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring 

at the Hanford Site (continued) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Plants (continued)

White eatonella Eatonella nivea Threatened 

Fish 

Bull trouta Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Candidate 

Leopard dacea Rhinichthys flacatus Candidate 

Mountain suckera Catastomus platyrhynchus Candidate 

River lampreya Lampetra ayresi Species of concern Candidate 

Spring-run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Endangeredb Candidate 

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangeredb

Threatenedc

Candidate 

Reptiles 

Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporous graciosus Species of concern Candidate 

Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Candidate 

Birds 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Endangered 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Species of concern Candidate 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Species of concern Threatened 

Flammulated owla Otus flammeolus Candidate 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Candidate 

Lewis’s woodpeckera Melanerpes lewis Candidate 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern Candidate 

Merlin Falco columbarius Candidate 

Northern goshawka Accipter gentilis Species of concern Candidate 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Candidate 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Candidate 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Endangered 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Candidate 

Western sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus phaios Candidate Threatened 

Mammals 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Candidate 

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Candidate 

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Endangered Endangered 

Townsend’s ground squirrel Spermophilus townsendii Candidate 

Washington ground 

squirrela

Spermophilus washingtoni Candidate Candidate 

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Candidate 

a Reported but seldom seen on the Hanford Site. 

b Protected as an Evolutionarily Significant Unit for the upper Columbia River. 

c Protected as an Evolutionarily Significant Unit for the middle Columbia River. 

Source: DOE 2009c:3-69–3-72; WDFW 2009. 
Affected Environment 

3–37

Although no critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, as defined in the Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), exists at Hanford, Washington State considers pristine shrub-steppe habitat 

to be a priority habitat (WDFW 2009). It is so designated because of its relative scarcity in the state and 

its requirement as nesting/breeding habitat by several federally and state-listed species. Designation and 

characterization of priority habitat provide a basis for sound and defensible land management planning 

and assist DOE in integrating stewardship activities into site management to protect regulated species. 

200 AREAS

No federally or state-listed endangered or threatened plants or animals have been observed within, or in 

the immediate vicinity of the 200 Areas, including the Central Waste Complex. However, the sage 

sparrow, loggerhead shrike, and black-tailed jackrabbit are state candidates and have been observed in the 

200 Areas (DOE 2009c:3-73). 

3.3.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

To date, approximately 32,630 hectares (80,640 acres) of Hanford and adjacent areas have been surveyed 

for archaeological resources. Approximately 1,550 cultural resource sites and isolated finds and 

531 buildings and structures have been documented. Forty-nine cultural resource sites are listed in the 

NRHP. Most of these sites are associated with the American Indian landscape and are part of six 

archaeological districts situated on the shores and islands of the Columbia River. To protect resources, 

the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Section 304, and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), Section 9, require agencies to withhold from public 

disclosure information on the location and character of cultural resources (Duncan 2007:4-115). 

3.3.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

More than 8,000 years of prehistoric human activity in the largely arid environment of the middle 

Columbia River region have left extensive archaeological deposits along the river shores. Well-watered 

areas inland from the river also show evidence of concentrated human activity, and recent surveys have 

indicated transient use of arid lowlands for hunting. These cultural sites were occupied continuously or 

intermittently over substantial timespans (Neitzel 2005:4.103). 

Prehistoric period sites common to Hanford include remains of numerous pothouse villages, various types 

of open campsites, spirit quest monuments (rock cairns), hunting camps, game drive complexes, quarries 

in mountains and rocky bluffs, hunting and kill sites in lowland stabilized dunes, and small temporary 

camps near perennial sources of water away from the river (Duncan 2007:4-120). 

Although development and amateur artifact collectors have disturbed many prehistoric resources 

throughout the region, restricted public access imposed at Hanford has resulted in less destruction than in 

many other areas (Duncan 2007:4.120). Destruction from other causes is also slight. A preliminary 

assessment of possible effects of the 24 Command Fire in 2000, for example, determined that a minimum 

of 190 previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites could have been affected 

(DOI 2000:80). Postfire surface visibility, in fact, has been greatly enhanced, presenting opportunities for 

archaeologists and historians to refine the boundaries of known sites and to locate new sites, though it 

also increases the potential for looting and vandalism. 

200 AREAS

A number of cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the 200 Areas (Chatters and 

Cadoret 1990; Prendergast-Kennedy 2003). The most important archaeological resource discovered in 

the 200 Areas is White Bluffs Road, an extensive linear feature that passes diagonally northeast to 

southwest through the 200-West Area. In the prehistoric period, the road was used as an American Indian 

trail (Chatters and Cadoret 1990:11). White Bluffs Road in its entirety has been determined to be eligible 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–38

for listing in the NRHP. Two intact segments of the road within the 200-West Area are considered 

contributing elements. These occur in the southwest and northeast parts of the 200-West Area. A 

100-meter (330-foot) easement was created to protect these segments of the road from uncontrolled 

disturbance. The remaining central portion of the road within the 200-West Area has been determined to 

be noncontributing (Chatters and Cadoret 1990:11, 21; Duncan 2007:4-130). 

Additional finds within and adjacent to the 200 Areas that are associated with the prehistoric period 

include two cryptocrystalline flakes (i.e., fragments chipped from a rock core during tool making) and a 

cryptocrystalline silica base of a projectile point (Chatters and Cadoret 1990:15, 16). The former 

was located within the northwestern portion of the 200-West Area, approximately 300 meters (1,000 feet) 

northwest of White Bluffs Road. The latter was discovered immediately to the east of the 200-East Area 

(Prendergast-Kennedy 2003:2). These artifacts have become part of the curated Hanford collection. 

3.3.6.2 Historic Resources 

It was not until the 1860s that merchants set up stores, a freight depot, and the White Bluffs Ferry on the 

Hanford Reach, and gold miners began to work the gravel bars. Cattle ranches opened in the 1880s and 

farmers soon followed. Several small thriving towns, including Hanford, White Bluffs, and Ringold, 

grew up along the riverbanks in the early twentieth century. These towns, and nearly all other structures, 

were razed after the U.S. Government acquired the land for the original Hanford Engineer Works (part of 

the Manhattan Project) in the early 1940s (Neitzel 2005:1.104). Today, the remnants of homesteads, farm 

fields, ranches, and abandoned military installations can be found throughout Hanford (DOE and 

Ecology 1996:4-37). 

Approximately 650 historic archaeological sites associated with the early settler cultural landscape have 

been recorded since 1987. Archaeological resources from this period are scattered over Hanford and 

include numerous areas with gold-mining features along the Columbia riverbanks, as well as the remains 

of homesteads, building foundations, agricultural equipment and fields, ranches, and irrigation features 

(Neitzel 2005:4.106). 

During the years of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, numerous nuclear reactors and associated 

processing facilities were constructed at Hanford. The reactor sites cover over 930 hectares (2,300 acres) 

of land. Approximately 900 buildings and structures were identified as either contributing properties with 

no individual documentation requirement (not selected for mitigation) or as noncontributing/exempt 

properties. There are 528 Manhattan Project and Cold War era buildings/structures and complexes 

eligible for NRHP listing as contributing properties within the Historic District. Of that number, 190 

have been recommended for individual documentation (Duncan 2007:4-119, 4-124). The Programmatic 

Agreement Among the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operation Office, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, 

Deactivation, Alteration, and Demolition of the Built Environment of the Hanford Site, Washington (PA) 

(DOE 1996b) and associated Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Cold War Historic District Treatment 

Plan (Treatment Plan) (Marceau 1998) contain stipulations addressing mitigation requirements for 

Manhattan Project and Cold War era artifacts. The Treatment Plan describes how DOE will implement 

and carry out the mitigation described in the PA stipulations. All adverse effects on Manhattan Project 

and Cold War era buildings and associated infrastructure located at Hanford have been or are being 

mitigated in accordance with the PA and Treatment Plan. The Hanford 105-B Reactor, the world’s first 

full-scale plutonium production reactor, is listed in the NRHP and is designated a National Mechanical 

Engineering Landmark, a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark, and a National Nuclear 

Engineering Landmark (DOE and Ecology 1996:4-37; Neitzel 2005:4.109). Additionally, on 

August 19, 2008, the B Reactor was designated as a National Historic Landmark (DOE and DOI 2008). 
Affected Environment 

3–39

200 AREAS

White Bluffs Road, which passes diagonally northeast to southwest through the 200 Areas, was an 

important transportation route during mining, cattle ranching, and settlement eras in the Washington 

Territory (Chatters and Cadoret 1990:17; Neitzel 2005:4.113). The survey conducted during 2000 on 

White Bluffs Road recorded an additional 54 historic isolated finds and two precontact isolated finds, as 

well as six dump features (i.e., features containing waste products relating to everyday life) 

(Duncan 2007:4-130). 

The only historic artifacts more than 50 years old that were found in the 200-East Area are a hole-in-top 

can and a flat-topped crimped can. These artifacts were found in the south-central part of the area 

(Chatters and Cadoret 1990:11, 13, 15, 16; Prendergast-Kennedy 2003:2). 

A historic property inventory has been completed for 72 buildings and structures in the 200 Areas. Of 

that number, 58 have been deemed eligible for NRHP listing as contributing properties within the historic 

district and thus have been recommended for mitigation (Duncan 2007:4-130). 

An additional feature of historic importance located to the west of the 200-East Area is a small portion of 

one of the Hanford Atmospheric Dispersion Test Facility arc roads. This portion of the road was 

determined to be a contributing property within the Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Cold War Era 

Historic District and was recommended for individual documentation. A Historic Property Inventory 

Form was completed, and numerous artifacts were identified as having interpretive or educational value 

in potential exhibits. A selected, representative number of these artifacts were removed and added to the 

curated Hanford collection (Prendergast-Kennedy 2003:2). 

3.3.6.3 American Indian Resources 

In prehistoric and early historic times, American Indians of various tribal affiliations heavily populated 

the Hanford Reach, and some of their descendants still live in the region. Present-day tribal members 

retain traditional secular and religious ties to the region, and many have knowledge of the ceremonies and 

lifeways of their culture. The Washani, or Seven Drums religion, which has ancient roots, is still 

practiced by many American Indians. Native plant and animal foods, some of which can be found at 

Hanford, are used in ceremonies performed by tribal members (DOE 2000:3-125). 

Under separate treaties signed in 1855, a number of regional American Indian tribes ceded lands that 

included the present area of Hanford to the United States. Under the treaties, the tribes reserved the right 

to fish at usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the territory. They also retained the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed 

land. However, it is the position of DOE that Hanford, like other ceded lands that were settled or used for 

specific purposes, is not open and unclaimed land. American Indian ties to the environment are complex. 

To many American Indians, individual and collective well-being is derived from membership in a healthy 

community that has access to, and utilization of ancestral lands and traditional resources, so that they may 

fulfill their part of the natural cycles and their responsibility to uphold the natural law. Air quality, 

physical resources, geological resources, water, biological resources, terrestrial resources, aquatic 

resources, climate, cultural resources, human health, environmental justice, economics, and transportation 

are all elements that are linked to the survival and cultural identity of the American Indians. They 

consider it their responsibility to protect, preserve and enhance the earth and manage modern affairs and 

environmental practices in a manner consistent with ancient teachings (CTUIR 2009). These tribes have 

expressed concerns about hunting, fishing, pasture rights, and access to plant and animal communities and 

important sites. American Indian traditional cultural properties within Hanford include, but are not 

limited to, various archaeological sites, cemeteries, trails and pathways, campsites and villages, fisheries, 

hunting grounds, plant-gathering areas, holy lands, landmarks, places important in Indian history, places 

of persistence and resistance, and “landscapes of the heart” (Duncan 2007:4.120). Culturally important 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–40

geographic features include Rattlesnake Mountain, Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, Coyote Rapids, and the 

White Bluffs portion of the Columbia River. 

200 AREAS

Much of the 200 Areas have been altered by Hanford operations. The Hanford Cultural Resources 

Program conducted a comprehensive archaeological resources survey of the fenced portions of the 

200 Areas during 1987 and 1988 (Chatters and Cadoret 1990). The results indicate minimal evidence of 

American Indian cultural landscape resources and early settler/farming landscape resources, with the 

exception of White Bluffs Road, which traverses the 200-West Area and was originally used as an 

American Indian trail. Archaeological surveys conducted since that time have revealed the same pattern 

(Duncan 2007:4.6.4.2). 

In addition, several isolated finds, such as cryptocrystalline flakes and projectile points, have been found 

near the 200 Areas. Traditional cultural properties known to be located in the vicinity of the 200 Areas 

include the Gable Mountain and Gable Butte Cultural District (to the north of the 200 Areas), which 

contains many sites used for hunting and religious activities (Duncan 2007:4.130). 

3.3.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

Remains from the Pliocene and Pleistocene ages have been identified at Hanford. The Upper Ringold 

Formation dates to the late Pliocene age and contains fish, reptile, amphibian, and mammal fossil 

remains. Late Pleistocene Touchet Beds have yielded mammoth bones. These beds are composed of 

fluvial sediments deposited along the ridge slopes that surround Hanford (DOE 2000:3-126). 

200 AREAS

No paleontological resources have been identified in the 200 Areas (Schinner 2003). 

3.3.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of Hanford’s sitewide infrastructure 

characteristics is presented in Table 3–6. 

Table 3–6. Hanford Site Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers) 

Roads 607a 607a

Railroads 184 184 

Electricity 

Energy consumption 

(megawatt-hours per year) 

172,585 1,743,240 

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) 977,840 Not Applicable 

Fuel oil (liters per year) 2,954,100 (b) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) 1,191,900 (b) 

Gasoline (liters per year) 150,330 (b) 

Propane (liters per year) 551,410 (b) 

Water (liters per year) 816,560,000 18,500,000,000c

a Includes asphalt-paved roads only. 

b Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

c Capacity of the Hanford Site Export Water System. 

Note: All values based on reported use in fiscal year 2006. To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic 

meters to cubic feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, by 0.26417. 

Source: DOE 2009c; Duncan 2007:4.150, 4.152; Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachments 1 and 2. 
Affected Environment 

3–41

3.3.7.1 Ground Transportation 

Hanford is located north of Richland and Benton City, Washington (see Figure 3–3). The 

DOE-maintained road network within Hanford consists of 607 kilometers (377 miles) of asphalt-paved 

road and provides access to various work centers. Primary access roads on the site are Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 

6, 10, and 11A and Beloit Avenue. The Hanford rail system originally consisted of about 210 kilometers 

(130 miles) of track. It connected to the Union Pacific commercial track at the Richland Junction and to 

the now-abandoned commercial right-of-way (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad) near 

Vernita Bridge in the northwest section of the site. In October 1998, 26 kilometers (16 miles) of track 

were transferred to the Port of Benton and are currently operated and maintained by the Tri-City and 

Olympia Railroad Company (DOE 2009c; Duncan 2007:4.150, 4.152). 

200 AREAS

The 200 Areas are located within the Central Plateau of Hanford. Public access to the 200 Areas and 

interior locations of Hanford is restricted by guarded gates at the Wye Barricade (at the intersection of 

Routes 10 and 4), the Yakima Barricade (at the intersection of State Route 240 and Route 11A), and 

the Rattlesnake Barricade (south of the 200-West Area) (Duncan 2007:4.152). The 200-East Area is 

accessed primarily by Route 4 South from the east, by Route 4 North off Route 11A from the north, 

and by Route 4 North off Route 11A for vehicles entering the site at the Yakima Barricade. The 

200-West Area is accessed from State Route 240 by Beloit Avenue. A network of both improved and 

semi-improved roads provide access to individual facilities within the 200-East and 200-West Areas and 

to the WTP site. Rail spurs traverse portions of the 200-East and 200-West Areas (DOE 2009c). 

3.3.7.2 Electricity 

Electrical power for Hanford is purchased wholesale from the Bonneville Power Administration, which 

provided nearly 90 percent of the electricity consumed on the site in 2006 (Duncan 2007:4.157). Hanford 

is a priority firm customer, and the Bonneville Power Administration is contractually obligated to provide 

as much power as Hanford requires. Because the transmission line capacity across the site was developed 

when the nine 100 Area reactors were operating, historically there has been surplus capacity on the 

Hanford electric transmission system (Ferns 2003a). 

Annual electricity consumption at the site during fiscal year 2006 was 172,585 megawatt-hours per year, 

with a sitewide capacity of 1,743,240 megawatt-hours per year (Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachment 2).

Power to the electrical system that serves the 100 and 200 Areas is provided from two sources, the 

Bonneville Power Administration Midway Substation at the northwestern site boundary and a 

transmission line from the Bonneville Power Administration Ashe Substation. The 100 and 200 Area 

electrical system consists of about 80 kilometers (50 miles) of 230-kilovolt transmission lines, six primary 

substations, about 217 kilometers (135 miles) of 13.8-kilovolt distribution lines, and 124 secondary 

substations. (DOE 1999b:3-47). The 251-W Substation (located in the 600 Area) serves to route power 

to the 200 Areas and is the electrical dispatch center for seven primary substations (including the six in 

100 and 200 Areas) and 4 secondary substations (including one in the 200-East Area and one in the 

200-West Area (ICF KH Engineers Hanford 1995:4). 

Annual electricity consumption at the site during fiscal year 2006 was 53,915 megawatt-hours in the 

200-East Area and 43,888 megawatt-hours in the 200-West Area, for a total of 97,803 megawatt-hours in 

the 200 Areas (Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachment 2). Available capacity of the 200 Areas is 

191,844 megawatt-hours per year (based on 21.9 megawatts for 8,760 hours in the 200 Areas) (ICF KH 

Engineers Hanford 1995:4). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–42

3.3.7.3 Fuel 

Both fuel oil and natural gas are used as energy sources at Hanford facilities. A commercial vendor 

supplies fuel oil to the site, including the 200 Areas (Duncan 2007:4.157; Ferns 2003a). In addition, 

diesel fuel, gasoline, and liquid propane are consumed to operate vehicles and other equipment at 

Hanford. Fuel consumption by nonfleet vehicles and equipment was substantially lower in fiscal 

year 2006 than in previous years due to the slowdown in WTP construction (Fluor 

Hanford 2006:Attachment 1:4, Attachment 2).

In fiscal year 2006, Hanford sitewide natural gas consumption was about 978,000 cubic meters 

(35 million cubic feet); fuel oil consumption, reflecting demands in the 200 Areas, was about 

3 million liters (780,000 gallons); diesel fuel consumption was about 1.2 million liters (315,000 gallons); 

gasoline consumption was about 150,000 liters (40,000 gallons); and total propane consumption was 

about 551,000 liters (146,000 gallons) (Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachment 2). 

Individual oil-fired package boilers supply heat and process steam to specific facilities in the 200 Areas 

(DOE 1999a:4-112). Fuel oil use reported in 2006 in the 200-West Area was 3 million liters 

(780,000 gallons) (Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachment 2). 

3.3.7.4 Water 

The Hanford water system includes numerous buildings, pumps, valve houses, reservoirs, and wells, as 

well as a distribution piping system that delivers water to all areas of the site. The Export Water System, 

the largest system at Hanford, delivers water from the Columbia River to the 100 and 200 Areas, as well 

as parts of the 600 Area (DOE 1999a:4-112). The Hanford water system is further divided into 

nine DOE-owned, contractor-operated, regulated drinking water systems. Only one of the nine systems 

(the 400 Area system) uses groundwater from the unconfined aquifer instead of water from the Columbia 

River (Poston et al. 2007:10.55). 

The total raw water capacity of the Export Water System is currently rated at approximately 35,000 liters 

(9,300 gallons) per minute, or about 18.5 billion liters (4.9 billion gallons) per year. However, the potable 

water capacity of the treatment plant is about 5,680 liters (1,500 gallons) per minute, or about 3 billion 

liters (788 million gallons) per year, which is limited by the plant’s chlorination capacity (Ferns 2003b). 

Hanford sitewide water production and usage totaled approximately 817 million liters (216 million 

gallons) in fiscal year 2006, including groundwater withdrawals in the 400 Area (see Table 3–6). 

The original Export Water System was designed to supply raw water to the 100-B, 100-D, 100-F, and 

100-H Area reactor operations in addition to the 200 Areas. Since reactor shutdown, it has been 

reconfigured to mainly furnish water to the 200 Areas and has undergone further modification. Water for 

the 200 Areas is filtered and chlorinated at the 283-W Water Treatment Plant (Fluor 

Hanford 2006:Attachment 1:8; Poston et al. 2007:10.55, 10.60). 

The total amount of water produced and used in the 200 Areas was 303 million liters (80.1 million 

gallons) during fiscal year 2006 (Fluor Hanford 2006:Attachment 1:8). 

3.3.8 Waste Management 

Hanford historic operations have included the use of nine plutonium production reactors, five nuclear 

reprocessing facilities, and more than 900 support facilities and radiological laboratories. As a result of 

this activity, the site now supports multiple large environmental cleanup projects (DOE 2009d). 
Affected Environment 

3–43

DOE manages the following wastes at Hanford: HLW, transuranic (TRU) waste, mixed TRU waste, 

low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW), hazardous waste, and 

nonhazardous waste. Hanford is listed as an RCRA large-quantity generator and contains permitted 

treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities for on- and offsite waste treatment. All site wastes 

are managed using appropriate technologies, in compliance with all applicable Federal and state statutes 

and DOE orders. 

In summary, Hanford has the following types/quantities of waste/material/contamination/facilities 

(DOE 2009d). 

 2,100 metric tons (2,315 tons) of spent nuclear fuel (80 percent of the irradiated uranium fuel in 

DOE’s inventory). 

 About 750,000 cubic meters (980,962 cubic yards) of buried or stored solid waste in 175 waste 

trenches. 

 About 1 trillion liters (264 billion gallons) of groundwater contaminated above EPA drinking 

water standards, spread out over 20,720 hectares (51,200 acres). The contaminants include 

metals, chemicals, and radionuclides. 

 1,936 stainless steel capsules of radioactive cesium and strontium, containing roughly 125 million 

curies of material in water-filled pools. 

 More than 1,700 identified waste sites and 500 contaminated facilities. 

 More than 200 million liters (53 million gallons) of liquid radioactive waste remain in 170 aging, 

underground single-shell tanks (7 single-shell tanks retrieved to date). 

3.3.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

Information on radioactive solid waste generated from activities at Hanford from 2000 through 2006 is 

provided in Table 3–7. Liquid waste quantities generated and stored within the tank farm system at 

Hanford from 2000 through 2006 are provided in Table 3–8. The tables show typical waste generation 

rates in recent years when no substantial waste generation from tank waste treatment and single-shell tank 

closure activities occurred. 

Table 3–7. Quantities of Radioactive Solid Wastea Generated on the Hanford Site, 2000–2006 

Year 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Waste Category (kilograms)

Mixedb 441,000 328,500 1,025,000 421,000 144,512 349,416 315,188 

Radioactivec 700,000 1,675,200 1,588,000 758,000 906,591 1,188,212 465,340 

a Includes containerized liquid waste but not waste in the tank farm system. 

b Includes transuranic and low-level radioactive waste and has both radioactive and dangerous nonradioactive constituents. 

c Categorized as transuranic and low-level radioactive waste. 

Note: To convert kilograms to pounds, multiply by 2.2046. 

Source: Poston et al. 2007. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–44

Table 3–8. Quantities of Radioactive Liquid Wastea Generated and Stored Within the 

Tank Farm System on the Hanford Site, 2000–2006 

Year 

2000b 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Type of Waste (liters) 

Liquids added to 

double-shell tanks 

8,920,000 2,980,000 9,280,000 9,710,000 3,316,000 3,668,000 3,547,000 

Total waste in 

double-shell tanks 

(year end) 

79,630,000 79,980,00

0 

87,683,00

0 

92,693,000 95,275,000 98,943,000 101,411,000 

Liquid waste 

evaporated at 242-A 

Evaporator 

2,580,000 2,580,000 1,578,000 4,720,000 734,000 706,700 1,052,000 

Liquids pumped from 

single-shell tanksb

2,250,000 590,000 5,288,000 6,185,000 2,778,000 888,000 2,953,000c

a Liquid waste sent to underground double-shell storage tanks during these years, rounded to the nearest 1,000 liters. This does

not include containerized (e.g., barreled) solid waste. 

b Does not include dilution or flush water. 

c Volume does include dilution or flush water. 

Note: To convert liters to gallons, multiply by 0.26417. 

Source: Poston et al. 2007. 

High-Level Radioactive Waste 

HLW was generated from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to recover uranium and plutonium 

generated in the production reactors. This HLW is considered mixed waste because it also contains 

hazardous constituents subject to RCRA. The waste, generated as liquids and sludges, is stored and 

managed within the site tank farm system (various tank farms located in the 200-East and 200-West 

Areas). In addition, the onsite HLW inventory includes 1,312 cesium capsules, 23 overpacked cesium 

capsules, and 601 strontium capsules stored and managed within the Waste Encapsulation and Storage 

Facility (in the 200-East Area) (DOE 2001b:39). 

Transuranic and Mixed Transuranic Waste 

The waste contained in the underground storage tanks system (149 single-shell tanks and 28 double-shell 

tanks) is managed as HLW; however, DOE believes it can demonstrate that some of the tanks should be 

classified as containing TRU waste, based on the origin of the waste. Nontank TRU waste is being placed 

in above-grade storage buildings within the 27,871-square meter (300,000-square foot) Central Waste 

Complex located in the 200-East Area (DOE 2002b). The current volume of waste (which includes LLW, 

TRU waste, and radioactively contaminated polychlorinated biphenyle [PCBs]) stored at the complex 

totals approximately 7,500 cubic meters (9,809 cubic yards) (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2009). TRU 

waste is maintained in storage on site until it is shipped to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, for disposal (DOE 2002b). TRU waste disposal began in 1999 with the opening 

of WIPP, and Hanford began the process (TRU waste certification and packaging) to ship waste in 

July 2000. Hanford processed and shipped 515 cubic meters (674 cubic yards) of waste off site in 2008 

(Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2009). 
Affected Environment 

3–45

Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

At Hanford, solid LLW includes protective clothing, plastic sheeting, gloves, paper, wood, analytical 

waste, contaminated equipment, contaminated soil, nuclear reactor hardware, nuclear fuel hardware, and 

spent deionizer resin from the purification of water in radioactive material storage basins. Hanford’s solid 

LLW is disposed of on site within the low-level radioactive waste burial grounds (LLBGs). The LLBGs 

cover a noncontiguous combined area of about 220 hectares (544 acres) (DOE 1997). Only three of the 

LLBGs are used for the disposal of LLW, MLLW, and defueled U.S. Navy reactor compartments. The 

LLBGs have been permitted under an RCRA Part A permit since 1985 (Poston, Duncan, and 

Dirkes 2009). 

LLW resulting from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) cleanup activities is disposed of at the Environmental Restoration 

Disposal Facility (between the 200-East and 200-West Areas), which has been the central Hanford 

disposal site for contaminated waste generated during such activities since 1996. This facility meets the 

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and TSCA 

(15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The landfill is designed to provide disposal capacity for Hanford waste over the 

next 20 to 30 years. The landfill is constructed to substantive RCRA Subtitle C Minimum Technology 

Requirements. In 2006, approximately 475,792 metric tons (524,470 tons) of remediation waste was 

disposed of at the facility (Poston et al. 2007). 

Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Hanford’s MLLW (i.e., LLW with a dangerous waste component is regulated by WAC 173-303) was 

generated from the operation, maintenance, and cleanup of reactors, chemical separation facilities, tank 

farms, and laboratories. MLLW contains the same types of contaminated materials as LLW; it typically 

consists of materials such as sludges, ashes, resins, paint waste, lead shielding, contaminated equipment, 

protective clothing, plastic sheeting, gloves, paper, wood, analytical waste, and contaminated soil. 

Hazardous components may include mercury, lead, and other heavy metals, solvents, paints, oils, and 

other hazardous organic materials. The Central Waste Complex includes 12 small mixed waste storage 

buildings, 27 modules for low-flash point MLLW, and 12 modules for alkali metals (DOE 2002b). 

MLLW is treated and/or directly disposed of in LLBG 218-w-s (trenches 31 and 34), LLBG 218-w-12b 

(trench 94), and the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. 

Hazardous Waste 

There are no treatment facilities for hazardous waste at Hanford; therefore, the waste is accumulated in 

satellite storage areas (for less than 90 days) or at interim RCRA-permitted facilities. The common 

practice for newly generated hazardous waste is to ship it off site using U.S. Department of 

Transportation–approved transporters for treatment, recycling, recovery, and disposal at RCRA-permitted 

commercial facilities. In 2008, 1,530 metric tons (1,690 tons) of sanitary and hazardous wastes were 

recycled through sitewide programs (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2009). 

Various waste forms containing mercury are managed at Hanford (e.g., those contained in HLW tanks 

and those derived from site decommissioning and remediation activities). Site waste processing at the 

T Plant and Waste Receiving and Processing Facility in the 200 Areas includes the amalgamation of 

mercury or other metals (Poston et al. 2007). Approximately 440 cubic meters (15,538 cubic feet) of 

hazardous waste was forecasted to be generated at Hanford in fiscal year 2008 (DOE 2009e). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–46

Nonhazardous Waste 

Sanitary wastewater is discharged to several different treatment facilities, including the Energy Northwest 

sanitary station, the City of Richland, and a series of onsite sewage systems. In recent years, extensive 

efforts have been made to regionalize the onsite sewage system. Many of the smaller systems have been 

replaced with large systems with design capacities up to 55,000 liters (14,500 gallons) per day (Poston, 

Duncan, and Dirkes 2009). 

Nonhazardous solid waste includes construction debris, office trash, cafeteria waste, furniture and 

appliances, nonradioactive friable asbestos, powerhouse ash, and nonradioactive and nonhazardous 

demolition debris. Such waste is disposed of at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill near Goldendale, 

Washington. Nonradioactive friable asbestos and medical waste are shipped off site for disposal at 

commercial facilities (DOE 2000:3-139). 

3.3.8.2 Waste Minimization 

The Hanford Site Pollution Prevention Program is a comprehensive, continual effort to systematically 

reduce the quantity and toxicity of hazardous, radioactive, mixed, and sanitary wastes; conserve resources 

and energy; reduce hazardous substance use; and prevent or minimize pollutant releases to all 

environmental media from all operations and site cleanup activities. In accordance with sound 

environmental management practices, the program seeks to prevent pollution through establishing goals 

related to affirmative procurement (the purchase of environmentally preferable products containing 

recycled material), source reduction, and environmentally safe recycling. In 2008, Hanford recycled 

1,530 metric tons (1,690 tons) of sanitary and hazardous wastes (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2009). 

3.3.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.3.9.1 Normal Operations 

Activities at Hanford have the potential to release small quantities of hazardous chemicals and 

radionuclides to the environment. These releases could result in exposures of members of the public to 

concentrations of chemicals or radionuclides. Types and quantities of chemicals and radionuclides 

released from Hanford operations in 2006 are listed in the Hanford Site Environmental Report for 

Calendar Year 2006 (Including Some Early 2007 Information). Chemical impacts are not quantified; 

however, radiation doses to the public are discussed (Poston et al. 2007:10.11, 10.27, 10.144–10.145). 

These doses fall within the limits established in DOE Order 5400.5 and are much lower than those due to 

background radiation. There are several non-DOE-related sources of radiation exposure at or near 

Hanford. The combined annual dose to a member of the public in 2006 from Hanford area DOE and 

non-DOE sources was well below any regulatory dose limit (Poston et al. 2007:10-149). 

Adverse public health impacts may result from the inhalation of hazardous chemicals released to the 

atmosphere during normal Hanford operations. Risks to public health from other possible pathways, such 

as the ingestion of contaminated drinking water or direct contact with hazardous chemicals, are lower 

than those from inhalation. Administrative and design controls have been instituted to reduce hazardous 

chemical releases to the environment and help achieve compliance with permit requirements (e.g., air 

emission permits, NPDES permits). Moreover, baseline studies have been performed to estimate the 

highest existing offsite concentrations and the highest concentrations to which members of the public 

could be exposed; these studies have been used to develop baseline air emission and other applicable 

standards for hazardous chemicals. Hazardous chemical concentrations remain in compliance with 

applicable guidelines and regulations. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of all controls and mitigation 

measures is constantly verified through routine monitoring and inspection (DOE 2009c:3-91). 
Affected Environment 

3–47

Contamination from Hanford wastes and past operation of coal-fired power plants at Hanford, as well as 

releases of trace metals from upriver mining and smelting, may contribute to accumulation of mercury 

and other contaminants in fish and wildlife tissue. In 2007, samples of tissue from geese collected along 

the Hanford Reach contained elevated concentrations of mercury compared with samples collected at a 

reference location. Tissue samples from fish collected in the Columbia River near Hanford did not show 

elevated mercury concentrations compared with upriver samples. Fish samples were not collected near the 

100 Areas in 2007 (Poston, Duncan, and Dirkes 2008:10.44, 10.131-10.135). In 2008, samples of tissue 

from fish collected near the 100 Areas had maximum concentrations of mercury similar to or less than 

those collected at the reference location, and samples collected near the 300 Area had elevated 

concentrations compared with those collected at the reference location (Poston, Duncan, and 

Dirkes 2009:10.140, 10.141). 

Exposure pathways to Hanford workers during normal operations include the inhalation of contaminants 

in the workplace atmosphere and direct contact with hazardous materials. DOE policy requires that the 

workplace be as free as possible from recognized hazards—i.e., conditions likely to cause illness or 

physical harm. Thus, DOE policy states that workers are generally protected from such hazards through 

adherence to Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA limits on atmospheric and drinking 

water concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Exposure to hazardous chemicals is also 

minimized by appropriate training, use of personal protective equipment, monitoring of the workplace 

environment, limits on the duration of exposure, and engineered and administrative controls. Monitoring 

and controlling hazardous chemical usage in operational processes help ensure that workplace standards 

are not exceeded and worker risk is minimized (DOE 2009c:3-91). 

Epidemiological studies related to radiological exposure at Hanford are discussed in the Draft Tank 

Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (DOE 2009c:3-91–3-93). 

3.3.9.2 Facility Accidents 

A number of incidents that had actual or potential health impacts on workers have occurred in the course 

of routine facility operations, decommissioning, and environmental remediation activities in and near the 

200 Areas. The most notable of these was a May 1997 explosion caused by spontaneous reaction of 

nonradioactive chemicals left over from discontinued activities in the Plutonium Recovery Facility. 

Although no one was directly injured by the explosion and no radioactive materials were released to the 

environment (DOE 2000:3-133), eight workers who may have been exposed to unidentified fumes later 

complained of symptoms that included headaches, dizziness, and an unidentified metallic taste. All were 

transferred to a nearby medical center where they were examined and released. 

Other incidents with worker health implications over the period from 2000 through 2007, as reflected in 

Occurrence Reporting and Processing System records, include exposures to chromium, lead, carbon 

monoxide, plutonium, americium, methylene chloride, curium-244, mercury, nitrobenzene, asbestos 

fibers, high noise levels, electrical shocks, and unknown vapors/fumes (DOE 2007a, 2008a). 

Since about 1987, exposure of tank farm workers to chemical vapors has been of concern at Hanford. The 

tanks are continuously vented to the atmosphere and inhalation is assumed to be the primary route of 

chemical exposure to workers during routine operations. Evaluations conducted at different times by the 

tank farms contractor, Hanford DOE officials, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the DOE 

Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, and the Office of the Inspector General 

have resulted in the implementation of physical (engineered) and administrative controls to reduce or 

eliminate the potential for worker chemical vapor exposures (DOE 2009c:3-94). 

The most recent incident involving chemical and radiation exposures occurred in July 2007 (DOE 2007b). 

Approximately 320 liters (85 gallons) of highly radioactive mixed waste from tank 241-S-102 in the 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–48

200-West Area were spilled on the ground. Overpressurization of a hose in a dilution line was 

determined to be the cause. In the hours and days following the spill, a number of Hanford workers 

identified odors, experienced symptoms or health effects, or expressed concerns about their potential 

exposure to the waste chemicals from the spill. As of September 1, 2007, 24 workers had reported 

possible exposure to tank vapors resulting from the spill. The worker health impacts could be attributed 

to other causes, so it is unclear whether the spill directly contributed to these health effects. Because of 

the low concentrations and short duration of the event, overexposure or chronic health impacts are 

unlikely. Consequences of the tank 241-S-102 event could have been more severe if workers had been in 

the immediate vicinity of the spill at the time of the release, and thus had been exposed to higher radiation 

or chemical vapor concentrations for a longer period. The board reviewing the accident made a number 

of recommendations to help prevent future spills and to mitigate worker exposures through, among other 

things, improvement in safety programs and coordination of emergency and medical response 

(DOE 2009c:3-94). 

In nearly all of these cases, the worker health impacts were minimal or temporary. Information 

concerning these and other safety-related events at Hanford and other sites is maintained in DOE’s 

Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (DOE 2009c:3-94). 

In addition to the incidents reported above, a report by the Government Accountability Project cited 

evidence of 45 chemical vapor exposure events that required medical attention for at least 67 workers 

over the period from January 2002 to August 2003 (GAP 2003:11). 

As required by DOE orders and policies, Hanford has established a comprehensive Emergency 

Management Program that provides detailed, hazard-specific planning and preparedness measures to 

minimize the health impacts of accidents involving loss of control over radioactive material or toxic 

chemicals. This Emergency Management Program embodies the following principles: 

 Identification and characterization of the hazardous substances 

 Analysis of potential accidents and hazardous releases 

 Prediction of consequences of the releases at various locations 

 Planned response actions to minimize exposure of workers and the public to the hazard 

Emergency response procedures are practiced and exercised regularly to ensure that optimum protective 

measures can be taken in response to most identified accident conditions and to provide the capability for 

flexible, effective responses to accidents that were not specifically considered in the emergency planning 

scenarios. 

DOE’s Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) maintains the Hanford emergency plan and implementing 

procedures by which the department and its contractors will respond in the event of an accident. DOE-RL 

also provides technical assistance to other Federal agencies and to state and local governments. Hanford 

contractors are responsible for maintaining emergency plans and response procedures for all facilities, 

operations, and activities under their jurisdiction and for implementing those plans and procedures during 

emergencies. The DOE-RL, its contractors, and state and local government plans are fully coordinated 

and integrated. Emergency control centers have been established by DOE-RL and its contractors for the 

principal work areas to provide oversight and support to emergency response actions within those areas 

(DOE 2009c:3-94–3-95). 

3.3.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and radioactive 

materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incident-free) 

transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive or 
Affected Environment 

3–49

radioactive materials. There is no current risk assessment available for ongoing nonradioactive and 

radioactive material transportation to and from Hanford. Risk from transportation of nonradioactive and 

radioactive materials resulting from implementing various tank closure, Fast Flux Test Facility 

decommissioning, and waste management alternatives are presented in the Draft Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

(DOE 2009c:4-444). 

3.3.10 Socioeconomics 

Hanford is located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington. Over 90 percent of the people 

employed at Hanford reside in Franklin and Benton Counties (Duncan 2007). Therefore, Franklin and 

Benton Counties have been identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis. In fiscal year 2006, 

Hanford employed 9,759 persons. 

3.3.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the ROI increased by approximately 24 percent to 123,121. By 

July 2009, the unemployment rate for the ROI was 6.1 percent, which was lower than the unemployment 

rate for Washington State (8.6 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.3.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the two-county ROI was 235,841. From 2000 to 2008, the 

ROI population grew by 23 percent, compared with 11 percent growth throughout the state of Washington 

(DOC 2009b). The percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 was 29 percent; women ages 18 

to 39 composed 15 percent (DOC 2009c). Young children and pregnant women are considered to be 

among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. There were 85,591 housing units in the 

ROI in 2007 (DOC 2008), 64 percent of which were owner occupied, 27 percent were renter occupied, 

and 8.8 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 

3.3.10.3 Local Transportation 

The primary transportation routes to access Hanford include State Route 24 from points north or west, 

and State Route 240, Stevens Drive, and George Washington Way from points south. State Route 240 

stretches from State Route 395 in Kennewick to State Route 24. Traffic volume along this route is at a 

maximum between Columbia Park Trail and the junction with Interstate 182. In 2008, the average traffic 

volume along this segment was 60,000 vehicles per day. Similarly, traffic volume along Interstate 182 is 

at a maximum at the interchange with State Route 240 and George Washington Way. In 2008, the 

average traffic volume of this segment was 52,000 vehicles per day (WSDOT 2008). State Route 240 

enters the site from the south near West Richland and passes through the southwestern part of the site 

before converging with State Route 24 south of the Vernita Bridge. State Route 24 intersects State 

Route 243 north of the Columbia River. Routes 4 and 10 from Stevens Drive to the Wye Barricade also 

provide access to the site. 

Freight rail service to the Tri-Cities area (Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco) is provided by Union Pacific 

Railroad and BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) Railroads. Rail passenger service to the area is 

provided by Amtrak in the city of Pasco. There is also a short-line railroad operated by DOE that extends 

into Hanford, where it services various facilities; however, portions of this line are no longer in service 

(BCPD 2007:14). Waste management facilities at Hanford do not currently have rail access. 

There are four public airports servicing the Tri-Cities. Vista Field in the city of Kennewick and Prosser 

Airport are classified as general aviation. The Richland Airport is classified as commuter services, and 

the Tri-Cities Airport in Pasco is classified as a regional air carrier (BCPD 2007:15). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–50

Hanford also utilizes the Columbia River for transportation by barge. There is a barge landing that 

operates in the Port of Benton; it is primarily used to transport spent U.S. Naval reactors to the 200 Areas 

for disposal. Due to developing land use conflicts, options are being explored to relocate the barge 

landing north of the 300 Area (BCPD 2007:8). 

3.3.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage locations at Hanford encompasses parts of 

three counties in Washington: Benton, Franklin, and Grant. Figure 3–5 shows populations residing in the 

three-county area, as reported in the 1990 and the 2000 censuses and the 2007 ACS 1-Year Estimates

(DOC 2009d, 2009e, 2009f). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show populations in 1990, white bars 

show those in 2000, and darker bars show those in 2007. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the total 

population of Benton, Franklin, and Grant Counties increased by approximately 30 percent to 266,520; 

the minority population increased by approximately 106 percent to 77,710; and the low-income 

population increased by 16 percent to 36,606. Between 2000 and 2007, the total population increased by 

17 percent to 312,039, while the minority population increased by 36 percent to 105,304 and the 

low-income population increased by 15 percent to 42,124. Demographic data from the 2007 census show 

that the population self-identified as “some other race” (meaning those who provided write-in entries such 

as Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) residing in the three-county area accounted for approximately 

48 percent of the county’s total minority population. Persons who declared that they are of Hispanic or 

Latino origin are included in the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–5, regardless of race. 

They composed approximately 84 percent of the total minority population residing in the three-county 

area around Hanford in 2007. 

200 AREAS

There were no people living within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the 200-West Area at Hanford in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). There are two American Indian reservations in proximity to the Hanford region. The 

Yakama Reservation is located approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of the 200-West Area, 

and the Umatilla Reservation is located 113 kilometers (70 miles) southeast of the 200-West Area. 
Affected Environment 

3–51

Figure 3–5. Populations Residing in the Three-County Area Surrounding 

the Hanford Site in 1990, 2000, and 2007 

3.4 HAWTHORNE ARMY DEPOT 

3.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.4.1.1 Land Use 

Land use at the Hawthorne Army Depot is consistent with that of light to general industry. The vast 

depot complex encompasses approximately 59,500 hectares (147,000 acres) within Mineral County, 

Nevada. More than 3,000 structures are present on the installation, including approximately 

1,800 explosive storage buildings distributed throughout three large areas (the North, Central, and South 

Magazine Areas). The remaining portions of the depot are divided into the Industrial Area, which is 

located along U.S. Route 95 in the west-central portion of the depot and includes headquarters and office 

buildings, housing areas, a golf course, and maintenance shops; the Western Area Demilitarization 

Facility, located on the northwestern most portion of the depot; and several production areas, located west 

and southwest of the Central Magazine Area. The depot is bounded by the Wassuk Range to the west, the 

Gillis Range to the east, the Excelsior Mountains to the south, and Walker Lake to the north 

(DLA 2004:3-1, 3-85). 

Land use surrounding the Hawthorne Army Depot is predominantly vacant, open space containing a small 

number of active mining operations. The town of Hawthorne is bordered to the north, east, and south by 

the depot, with the Hawthorne Municipal Airport extending northwest toward the North Magazine Area 

of the depot (DLA 2004:3-85). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–52

3.4.1.2 Visual Resources 

Developed areas of the Hawthorne Army Depot are consistent with BLM’s VRM Class III or IV. 

Class III includes areas in which there have been moderate changes in the landscape that could attract 

attention, but do not dominate the view of the casual observer. Class IV includes areas in which major 

modifications to the character of the landscape have occurred. These changes may be dominant features 

of the view and the major focus of viewer attention (DOI 1986:App. 2). The tallest structures located at 

the depot are two 85-meter (280-foot) water storage tanks located in the Central Magazine Area. The 

viewshed around the Hawthorne Army Depot consists mainly of open range within the Walker Lake 

Valley, containing low-profile military storage, residential, and light industrial areas dominated by views 

of the Wassuk Range to the west and the Gillis Range to the east. This viewshed is generally consistent 

with VRM Class II (where visible changes to the character of the landscape are low and do not attract the 

attention of the casual observer) and Class III (DLA 2004:3-85). 

3.4.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.4.2.1 Geology 

Hawthorne Army Depot in southwest Nevada lies within the Great Basin section of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province. The majority of the Hawthorne Army Depot facilities are specifically located in 

the eastern half of the depot property within the Whiskey-Flat-Hawthorne subarea of Walker Lake Valley. 

Walker Lake Valley is a high-desert valley that trends north-northwesterly and is bordered by the Wassuk 

Range to the west and southwest and by the Gillis Range and Garfield Hills to the east and southeast. Just 

to the northwest of the main depot complex, Walker Lake occupies the topographic low point in the 

Walker Lake Valley. Walker Lake is a remnant of a glacial lake that once covered much of the 

northwestern Great Basin. Relief and topography across the 59,500-hectare (147,000-acre) depot differ 

greatly. Elevations range from 3,426 meters (11,240 feet) above mean sea level at Mount Grant in the 

Wassuk Range in the far western portion of the depot property to about 1,207 meters (3,960 feet) above 

mean sea level just to the northwest of the depot facility complex along the shoreline of Walker Lake. 

Along the valley floor, where the main depot complex is located, the topography is gently sloping 

(DLA 2004:3-76). 

The east face of the Wassuk Range is an active fault scarp that has down-dropped the west side of the 

Walker Lake Valley relative to the east side. This fault roughly bisects the Hawthorne Army Depot. The 

fault is part of the regional Walker Lake fault zone. Faulting has occurred in the foothills bordering the 

depot (DLA 2004:3-76). 

Geologic strata comprising the Walker Lake basin and the Walker Lake Valley as a whole consist of 

unconsolidated alluvium (basin fill) that includes alluvial fan, floodplain, windblown channel and lake 

deposits, as well as terrace gravels and evaporites. While the maximum depth of the basin fill to bedrock 

is unknown, it is at least 307 meters (1,008 feet) based on well completion records for Hawthorne Utilities 

Well No. 5. Rocks of the Wassuk Range are principally granitic rocks dominated by quartz monzonite. 

Rocks of the Excelsior Formation, which unconformably overlie the rocks of the Wassuk Range, are 

composed of metamorphosed volcanic rocks (e.g., flows, tuffs, breccias, basalt, and rhyolite) as well as 

sedimentary interbeds. The Excelsior Formation is also exposed in the Garfield Hills to the southeast of 

the depot facility complex. Limestones of the Luning Formation also occur southeast of the depot. 

Additionally, unaltered volcanic rocks are exposed in the vicinity of the depot (e.g., in the Garfield Hills) 

(DLA 2004:3-76). 

Mineral County’s principal mineral products include gold and silver. The Lucky Boy Mining District 

extends into the far southern portion of the depot, along State Route 359. The district is a source for 

silver and lead. A portion of the Pamlico Mining District encroaches into the South Magazine Area of the 

depot. Ore in the district contains gold, copper, silver, iron, and uranium. Pamlico Wash drains a portion 
Affected Environment 

3–53

of the district in the Garfield range (Garfield Hills) and flows onto the depot in the South Magazine Area. 

In general, some small mineral deposits may occur within the depot property, but the metallic mineral 

development potential of the depot is considered low. A minor geothermal resource has also been 

identified in the region. Several hot wells (i.e., with water temperatures exceeding 37 oC [98 oF]) are 

reported from several locations in and around the town of Hawthorne. In fact, groundwater from the 

depot’s main supply well has a temperature of about 49 oC (120 oF) (DLA 2004:3-76). 

3.4.2.2 Soils 

A soil survey of the Hawthorne Army Depot was conducted by the NRCS in 1991. Soils on the valley 

floor and encompassing the main portion of the depot operational areas were delineated as belonging to 

the Mazuma-Patna-Soda Lake group. These soils consist of deep, nearly level, well-drained to 

excessively drained soils on beach or lake plains. Soil textures covering the majority of the depot 

complex include silty sands, gravelly silt-sand mixtures, inorganic clay, and silt intermixed with sand and 

gravel (DLA 2004:3-77). Recent soil unit mapping identifies natural soils across the northwestern portion 

of the Central Magazine Area of the depot as Lakasm-Demill Complex, with 0 to 2 percent slopes; Isolde 

fine sand, with 2 to 8 percent slopes; and Patna loamy sand, with 0 to 2 percent slopes. These soils have 

little or no assessed limitations for building site development (NRCS 2009b). No soils are subject to 

designation as prime farmland or other important farmland soils. 

An environmental baseline survey was conducted in 1999 at the Hawthorne Army Depot to review and 

evaluate the depot for existing or potential environmental contamination that may be a threat to human 

health or the environment. Hawthorne Army Depot has had an active Installation Restoration Program to 

address actual or suspected sources of soil and/or groundwater contamination associated with legacy 

operations. A remedial investigation report, completed in 1999, evaluated 90 sites (i.e., solid waste 

management units [SWMUs]) across the depot with 41 determined to require corrective action before 

final closure. Of the 41 sites, removal was the recommended action at 29 sites where high concentrations 

of explosive compounds exist in site soils. Groundwater monitoring was the recommended corrective 

action at 7 landfill sites (DLA 2004:3-77, 3-78). 

Activities are ongoing at more than 30 sites under either the Installation Restoration Program or Military 

Munitions Response Program (NDEP 2009a). 

3.4.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

Nevada is one of the most seismically active states and has experienced the effects of a number of major 

earthquakes within the past 100 years. Among these, the October 15, 1915, Pleasant Valley earthquake 

occurred in a relatively uninhabited area of the state about 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of 

Hawthorne. Attributed to a fault on the east side of the Pleasant Valley, it had an estimated magnitude of 

7.75 and produced an MMI of X at its epicenter. The earthquake destroyed many adobe homes in 

Pleasant Valley and was felt from beyond Salt Lake City, Utah, to western Oregon and south to San 

Diego, California. A magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred on December 20, 1932, and also produced an 

MMI of X. This earthquake was located about 55 kilometers (34 miles) northeast of Hawthorne near the 

Mineral–Nye County line. This earthquake destroyed two cabins near the epicenter and threw down 

chimneys (reflecting MMI VIII damage) in Hawthorne (DLA 2004:3-77). Since 1973, within a radius of 

100 kilometers (62 miles) of the central portion of the depot, a total of at least 1,076 earthquakes (with 

most in the magnitude 3.0 to 4.0 range) have been recorded. One of the larger and closest events was a 

magnitude 5.4 earthquake on September 18, 1988, that was located about 24 kilometers (15 miles) 

southeast of the depot. It had an MMI of V. In September 1974, the largest recorded earthquake in the 

Hawthorne region was a magnitude 6.1 event centered approximately 97 kilometers (60 miles) to the 

northwest (USGS 2009g). Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited in 

this Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and their effects. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–54

Earthquake-produced ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force of acceleration relative to 

that of Earth’s gravity). As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from 

the USGS are used in this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate 

sites. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This 

corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For a Hawthorne Army 

Depot central location, the calculated PGA is approximately 0.57 g (USGS 2009d). 

Hawthorne Army Depot lies approximately 97 kilometers (60 miles) north of the Mono-Inyo Craters 

volcanic chain. This active volcanic complex extends southward for some 48 kilometers (30 miles) from 

Mono Lake in east-central California. Over the past 5,000 years, an eruption has occurred somewhere 

along the chain every 250 to 750 years, with the last eruption on its northern end at Paoha Island in Mono 

Lake about 250 years ago. Southwestern Nevada and Mineral County in particular could experience 

ashfalls from future eruptions in excess of 5 centimeters (2 inches) in thickness (DLA 2004:3-77). 

3.4.3 Water Resources 

3.4.3.1 Surface Water 

Hawthorne Army Depot is located southeast of Walker Lake (see Figure 2–12). Walker Lake is a 

freshwater lake covering approximately 15,000 hectares (37,000 acres), with a maximum depth of some 

35 meters (115 feet). The lake is the terminal point for surface drainage entering the Walker Lake Valley. 

The Walker Lake Valley floor adjacent to the lake basin consists of a broad alluvial apron drained by 

ephemeral streams. No perennial streams cross the valley floor. Relative to Walker Lake, the closest 

depot facilities (i.e., the Western Area Demilitarization Facility Complex) are located about 8 kilometers 

(5 miles) southeast of the lakeshore. Little surface water normally reaches Walker Lake directly. Water 

levels and the surface extent of the lake have generally been declining due to upstream diversion. 

Between 1950 and 1979, the lake level declined by 13 meters (44 feet) and the south shoreline adjacent to 

the depot facility complex receded at a rate of about 70 meters (230 feet) per year. However, increased 

snowfall and runoff in the late 1990s have raised lake levels slightly (DLA 2004:3-78). 

The State of Nevada designates beneficial uses and applicable water quality standards and criteria to all 

natural streams and lakes, reservoirs or impoundments on natural streams, and other specified waterways 

in the state (unless excepted on the basis of existing irreparable conditions that preclude such use). New 

water quality standards were adopted for Walker Lake in 2001. Designated uses include contact and 

noncontact recreation; propagation of wildlife; and propagation of aquatic life (DLA 2004:3-78; 

NAC 445A.1693). In the vicinity of the depot, Cottonwood, Rose, and Squaw Creeks in the Wassuk 

Range are designated Class A waters. Class A waters are located in areas of little human habitation, no 

industrial development, or intensive agriculture, where the watershed is relatively undisturbed by man’s 

activity. The beneficial uses of Class A waters are municipal or domestic supply, or both, with treatment 

by disinfection only; aquatic life; propagation of wildlife; irrigation; watering of livestock; and contact 

and noncontact recreation (NAC 445A.124). 

A combination of surface-water and groundwater sources is used to provide potable water for the 

Hawthorne Army Depot. From November to May, water is predominantly derived via a catchment and 

reservoir system in the Wassuk Range. Water is collected and conveyed from Cottonwood, Squaw, Rose, 

and House Creeks to Black Beauty Reservoir. There, it is chlorinated and distributed via the depot water 

distribution system. The Black Beauty Reservoir is located about 6.1 kilometers (3.8 miles) west of the 

town of Hawthorne. During the remainder of the year, this surface-water source is supplemented by 

groundwater (via Well Number 1) (see Section 3.4.3.2), although groundwater has never provided more 

than 40 percent of the depot’s total use. Water use is further discussed in Section 3.4.7.4. The depot is 

above the 100- and 500-year floodplains. However, some portions of the depot are subject to periodic 

flash flooding. Therefore, dikes (levees) have been constructed along principal drainages and diversion 

ditches throughout the depot to protect facilities from flash flooding (DLA 2004:3-78). A principal 
Affected Environment 

3–55

drainage feature (Pamlico Ditch) bisects the southern half of the Central Magazine Area and terminates at 

a diversion dike approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) south of the proposed DOE mercury storage 

area. 

Sanitary and industrial wastewater is generated at the depot. Three NPDES permits regulate depot 

wastewater and stormwater discharges (SOC 2009:3). A sewage treatment facility serves the industrial 

and the housing areas of the depot, which are located northwest of the town of Hawthorne and just west of 

U.S. Route 95. Treated effluent is discharged to a bank of 20 evaporation/percolation ponds in 

accordance with a current NPDES permit (No. NEV50029). A second NPDES permit (No. NV0021946) 

covers the discharge of treated wastewater, boiler blowdown, and sanitary wastewater to the evaporation 

basins as well as stormwater and treated water used for dust suppression. The depot also has a third 

NPDES permit for general stormwater discharges (No. GNV0022233) (DLA 2004:3-80). 

3.4.3.2 Groundwater 

The principal source of groundwater in the area of Hawthorne Army Depot is the basin-fill aquifer system 

beneath the Walker Lake Valley. Groundwater occurs under both confined and unconfined conditions. 

Gravel, sand, and silt are the predominant sediments to a depth of about 150 meters (492 feet). Finegrained silt is interbedded with the sand and gravel, which accounts for the confined and semi-confining 

conditions reported for water-bearing horizons beneath the valley. The coarser-grained materials (e.g., 

sand and gravel) yield large amounts of water. Several wells near the town of Hawthorne have a 

saturated thickness exceeding 90 meters (300 feet). However, no specific well yield data are available for 

Walker Lake Valley wells completed in the basin-fill aquifer system. Because the Walker Valley is a 

closed hydrogeologic basin with no flow between adjacent basins, groundwater losses are mainly due to 

evapotranspiration, small springs, and groundwater pumping. Precipitation and runoff, including 

snowmelt from the Wassuk Range, are the primary sources of recharge to the basin-fill aquifer system. 

The safe yield of the basin-fill aquifer system has been estimated at 5.7 million cubic meters 

(4,600 acre-feet) per year. Walker Lake is the terminal point for all groundwater flow within the Walker 

Lake Valley, and the basin-fill aquifer system contributes an average of approximately 13.6 million cubic 

meters (11,000 acre-feet) of groundwater inflow to Walker Lake annually (DLA 2004:3-80). 

The direction of groundwater flow across the valley, and beneath the depot in particular, averages westnorthwest toward Walker Lake and the axis of the valley, but is locally variable based on topographic 

changes and well pumping influence. Depth to groundwater beneath the depot ranges from about 

1.5 meters (5 feet) below land surface on the north side of the depot to about 61 meters (200 feet) in the 

southern portion of the depot. Groundwater is used to supplement surface water on a seasonal basis. 

Groundwater for the main depot area has historically been supplied via a single supply well (Well 

Number 1) located northwest of the town of Hawthorne and just north of the depot’s Industrial Area. The 

well discharges to the Black Beauty Reservoir. A low-flow float in the reservoir turns on the well, and 

the water then passes through a cooling tower before being pumped to the reservoir for distribution. 

Water from the town of Hawthorne is supplied to the Central and South Magazine Areas. Well 

Number 3, located near Magazine Group 6 in the South Magazine Area, is used to supply water for dust 

control equipment. Several other wells (Wells Number 5, 7, and 8) located within the main depot area are 

not used for potable supply due to high levels of several chemical constituents, including arsenic, fluoride, 

and nitrate. Groundwater quality data for the basin indicate relatively high sulfate and total dissolved 

solids concentrations. Total dissolved solids concentrations in old supply Well Number 5, located just 

west of the depot’s Industrial Area, approach EPA’s secondary drinking water standard of 500 milligrams 

per liter (40 CFR 143). Dissolved solids concentrations increase downgradient toward Walker Lake. 

Nevertheless, all basin-fill aquifers would be considered Class II aquifers (current or potential sources of 

drinking water or other beneficial use). There are no designated Class I sole-source aquifers in Nevada 

(DLA 2004:3-80, 3-81). Water supply and use are further discussed in Section 3.4.7.4. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–56

A depot-wide Groundwater Monitoring Program was first instituted in 1997 with the installation of 

55 monitoring wells. These monitoring wells, as well as other existing wells, have been monitored 

quarterly since 1997 for the purposes of investigation and monitoring groundwater quality and 

hydrogeologic conditions beneath the depot. The depot’s 1999 remedial investigation report identified 

seven landfill sites at the depot in which groundwater has been impacted by explosions or volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), according to groundwater monitoring data. Groundwater monitoring has confirmed 

groundwater contamination beneath two areas in the North Magazine Area (Group 103-34/41 Complex 

Area and north of the former Navy Area) and two areas in the Central Magazine Area of the depot 

(Group 49 and Group 101 Areas). Explosive compound and petroleum product contamination has also 

been detected in groundwater at several other locations scattered throughout the depot, including the 

Group 102 and 108 Areas and the Western Area Demilitarization Facility Complex (DLA 2004:3-81). 

3.4.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.4.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate of the Hawthorne Army Depot area is semiarid. The average annual rainfall is 

16.3 centimeters (6.4 inches). Maximum rainfall occurs in late spring and during the fall. Minimum 

rainfall months are July and August. Damaging hailstorms rarely occur (DLA 2004:3-71). The average 

annual snowfall at Hawthorne is 6.4 centimeters (2.5 inches); however, the maximum snow depth, 

51 centimeters (20 inches), occurred in 2005 (WRCC 2009b). 

No tornadoes were reported in Mineral County between January 1950 and April 2002. Several 

occurrences of high winds typically occur every year. The average annual windspeed is 2.7 meters per 

second (6 miles per hour). The maximum windspeed at Reno (the nearest location for which these data 

are readily available), based on the highest 1-minute average value, is 30 meters per second (67 miles per 

hour) (NOAA 2009b:67). The mean number of days per year with thunderstorm activity at Reno is 13.5 

(DLA 2004:3-72). 

The average annual temperature at Hawthorne is 12.3 °C (54.1 °F) (DLA 2004:3-72). At Reno the 

average annual temperature is 10 °C (50.1 °F); temperatures range from a monthly average minimum 

temperature of 6.4 °C (20.5 °F) in January to a monthly average maximum of 32.2 °C (89.9 °F) in July. 

The maximum recorded temperature at Reno is 42 °C (108 °F) (NOAA 2009c). 

The Hawthorne Army Depot is in an area of Mineral County that is designated better than national 

standards for sulfur dioxide and better than national standards or unclassifiable for nitrogen dioxide. The 

area is unclassifiable/attainment regarding attainment of the standards for carbon monoxide and PM2.5

and unclassifiable for PM10. The area is unclassifiable/attainment for ozone. EPA has not assigned an 

attainment status designation for lead (40 CFR 81.329). 

The nearest PSD Class I areas are Yosemite National Park and Hoover National Wilderness Area, about 

80 kilometers (50 miles) to the southwest. Hawthorne Army Depot and its vicinity are classified as a 

Class II area. No PSD permits are required for any emission source at the Hawthorne Army Depot 

(DLA 2004:3-72). 

The primary sources of criteria pollutants at the Hawthorne Army Depot are fuel oil-fired boilers; 

material-recovery processes; propane furnaces; rock crushing, screening, and stacking operations; 

portable generators; surface coating operations; and ordinance disposal operations. The Hawthorne Army 

Depot has an operating permit that covers these sources, as required under the Federal Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and companion State of Nevada regulations and a permit for the Plasma 

Ordinance Disposal Operations. The plasma ordinance disposal system may emit mercury. The system 

includes emissions controls and monitoring (NDEP 2009b). The storage buildings are not heated; there 

are no emission sources associated with them that are required to be permitted (DLA 2004:3-72). 
Affected Environment 

3–57

There are no monitors for criteria air pollutants in Mineral County. The nearest monitors are in Lyon, 

Washoe, Clark, Douglas, and Churchhill Counties. The nearest monitor for mercury is in Reno 

(EPA 2009d). 

3.4.4.2 Noise 

Major noise emission sources within the Hawthorne Army Depot include various equipment and 

machines—heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; material-handling equipment 

(i.e., forklifts and loaders); and vehicles. Some impulsive noise is generated from test firing and 

demolition of military munitions, weapons, and small arms. An environmental noise study for the depot 

concluded that incompatible and normally incompatible noise zones from onsite activities do not extend 

beyond the installation boundary. Noise levels from the depot are expected to be compatible with nearby 

residential areas and other noise-sensitive land use. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are in the city of 

Hawthorne (DLA 2004:3-72, 3-73). The closest residence is approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) from 

the proposed mercury storage location. 

The State of Nevada and Mineral County have not established community noise standards, which specify 

acceptable noise levels applicable to the depot. Sound level measurements have not been recorded near 

the depot; however, it is expected that the acoustic environment near the site boundary ranges from that 

typical of rural to industrial locations. Traffic is the primary source of noise at the site boundary. There 

is occasional noise from aircraft operations at Hawthorne Municipal Airport. Traffic is the primary 

source of noise at residences located near roads. The traffic generated by the depot, including employee 

vehicles and trucks used for shipping, has little effect on traffic on nearby roads and associated traffic 

noise. Roads that provide access to the Hawthorne Army Depot include U.S. Route 95 and State 

Route 359 (see Section 3.4.10.3). Railroad activity related to the depot (i.e., delivery or removal of 

railcars) is occasional, with 474 incoming or outgoing railcars per year, and would result in short-term 

increases in sound levels near the depot (DLA 2004:3-73). 

3.4.5 Ecological Resources 

3.4.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

The Hawthorne Army Depot occupies 59,500 hectares (147,000 acres) of basin and range ecosystems 

typical of those found throughout the Great Basin region. Although the eastern half of the site has been 

developed into administrative, industrial, and housing areas, the western half of the depot remains largely 

undeveloped, mountainous land. The depot encompasses representative basin and range ecosystems of 

the Great Basin, which provide habitat for a diversity of native plants and animals (DLA 2004:3-1, 

3-81–3-84). 

The biodiversity of the region is extensive due to the variety of plant communities and terrain. A 

comprehensive survey for flora produced a preliminary checklist of 476 species of vascular plants, 

including 21 trees, 96 shrubs, 95 grasses and grass-like plants, and 264 other herbaceous perennial and 

annual plants. A survey of fauna recorded 70 mammals, 185 birds, 45 reptiles, 10 amphibians, and 

27 invertebrates. Common mammals include the striped skunk, coyote, and black-tailed jackrabbit. Birds 

include the great-tailed grackle, western meadowlark, and a variety of raptors. Common reptiles include 

the ringneck snake, side-blotched lizard, and the common garter snake. Amphibians include the northern 

leopard frog and western woodhouse toad (DLA 2004:3-81–3-84). 

Within the Central Magazine Area, the majority of the land is disturbed. As a result, biodiversity is low 

and vegetation, in general, is limited to nonnative flora tolerant of human activities and disturbance 

(DLA 2004:3-81–3-84). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–58

3.4.5.2 Wetlands 

A number of wetlands occur on the Hawthorne Army Depot; the largest is located at the southern end of 

Walker Lake. This area is classified as palustrine emergent by USFWS. Palustrine wetlands generally 

include nontidal wetlands dominated by persistent emergent vegetation, shrubs, and/or trees. A number 

of additional small palustrine areas (primarily consisting of scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation) occur 

along streams draining the Wassuk Range. Only one small wetland area is located near the proposed 

storage site. This wetland, which is classified as palustrine, unconsolidated shore, is associated with a 

dike and intermittent stream located just to the northeast of the storage site (DLA 2004:3-81–3-84). 

No natural wetlands occur within the proposed location for the mercury storage facility in the Central 

Magazine Area. 

3.4.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

Walker Lake, the only naturally occurring water body on site, is located along the northern site boundary. 

The lake provides habitat for the Lahontan cutthroat trout, Lahontan tui chub, Tahoe sucker, and other 

native fish. It is also used by thousands of birds, including loons, grebes, pelicans, waterfowl, sea gulls, 

terns, and ducks. Several species supported by the lake including the Lahontan cutthroat trout, are listed 

as a federally or state-protected species (DLA 2004:3-81–3-84). 

No natural water bodies occur within the proposed location for the mercury storage facility in the Central 

Magazine Area. 

3.4.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The federally threatened and state-endangered Lahontan cutthroat trout occurs in Walker Lake located 

less than 16 kilometers (10 miles) to the north of the storage site (USFWS 2009c). Though not 

endangered or threatened, the sand cholla, found throughout the Hawthorne Army Depot, is protected by 

the State of Nevada as a cactus under the state’s cactus, yucca, or Christmas tree list (NNHP 2009). 

Due to the developed nature of the proposed mercury storage facility site, no federally or state-listed 

threatened or endangered species are expected to occur in this area. 

3.4.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

3.4.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

In 1976, an archaeological site inventory of the 59,500-hectare (147,000-acre) Hawthorne Army Depot 

was initiated. By 1996, 22 surveys had been conducted over 4,193 hectares (10,360 acres) by BLM and 

the Nevada Department of Transportation and other organizations, mostly involving road construction 

projects. The discovery of campsites, gathering areas, hunting blinds, and hot springs suggests prehistoric 

habitation of the Hawthorne Army Depot area from the Paleo-Indian through the Protohistoric eras. 

Fifteen prehistoric sites were designated for listing in the NRHP. Many of the archaeological sites were 

located on property adjacent to and managed by the depot for water conservation and ordinance 

protection purposes (DLA 2004:3-83). 

3.4.6.2 Historic Resources 

An NRHP nomination for architectural resources was drafted for the Hawthorne Army Depot in 1989. 

Factors for the nomination included its significance as the largest depot in the world; its importance 

during World War II and to Nevada history; and the integrity of its landscape, infrastructure, and 

architecture. By 1994, 73 percent of all architectural resources were inventoried, including almost all 

pre-1946 buildings and structures and less than half of the Cold War resources. This survey concluded 
Affected Environment 

3–59

that 1,790 of the inventoried architectural resources were eligible for listing in the NRHP, including the 

1942-era general-purpose warehouses (DLA 2004:3-83). 

Surveys conducted prior to 1996 (see Section 3.4.6.1) revealed homesteads, cabins, railroad beds, and 

identification of the former Oro City community, providing evidence of the historic period. Three 

historic sites were designated for listing in the NRHP (DLA 2004:3-83). 

3.4.6.3 American Indian Resources 

The state of Nevada has 25 federally recognized American Indian tribes and colonies, including the 

Walker River Indian Reservation, which is located in Mineral County near the Hawthorne Army Depot. 

The Walker Lake Basin area has been home to American Indians for nearly 11,000 years. Members of 

the Paiute Tribe, the Agai Ducutta Numa (Trout Eater People), lived in this area and were a hunter-gather 

society at what is now called Walker Lake. The Walker River Indian Reservation currently occupies this 

area (DLA 2004:3-83). 

3.4.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

No paleontological resources have been identified on the Hawthorne Army Depot. 

3.4.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of Hawthorne Army Depot’s sitewide 

infrastructure characteristics is presented in Table 3–9. 

Table 3–9. Hawthorne Army Depot Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers) 

Roads 395 395 

Railroads 341 341 

Electricity 

Energy consumption 

(megawatt-hours per year) 

7,386 109,500a

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) (b) (b) 

Fuel oil (liters per year) 3,790,000 (c) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) Not available Not available 

Gasoline (liters per year) 644,300 (c)

Propane (liters per year) 234,980 (c) 

Water (liters per year) 310,877,000 2,150,000,000 

a Assumes 1 kilovolt-ampere equals 1 kilowatt (power factor of 1.0). 

b Fuel resource not used on site. 

c Limited only by the ability to transport resources to the site. 

Note: All values based on reported use in 2002. To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to 

cubic feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, by 0.26417. 

Source: DLA 2004:3-86. 

3.4.7.1 Ground Transportation 

Hawthorne Army Depot is located in Mineral County in Hawthorne, Nevada, approximately 

209 kilometers (130 miles) southeast of Reno. U.S. Route 95 crosses the center of the depot and is the 

main Federal north/south highway in the region. The depot can also be accessed from the south by State 

Route 359 and from the north by State Route 839. The area is serviced by a U.S. Army–owned railroad 

maintained by Special Operations Consulting (DLA 2004:3-85; SOC 2009:Section 2). All rail shipments 

to the depot go through the Walker River Indian Reservation and the middle of town. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–60

3.4.7.2 Electricity 

Sitewide electricity is purchased from the Sierra Pacific Power Company, although the infrastructure is 

owned by the U.S. Army. The depot is served by three 2,500-kilowatt substations and one 5,000-kilowatt 

substation (DLA 2004:3-86). Currently there is no transmission line electrical power to the magazines, 

the proposed storage area. Electrical power in the magazine area is supplied by portable generators as 

needed (SOC 2009). 

Annual electricity consumption at the Hawthorne Army Depot in 2002 was 7,386 megawatt-hours per 

year with a sitewide capacity of 109,500 megawatt-hours per year (DLA 2004:3-86). 

3.4.7.3 Fuel 

Currently, fuel oil is the type of fuel used on the Hawthorne Army Depot to fire boilers used for heating. 

Additionally, propane is used in some buildings for heat, hot water, and miscellaneous uses. Fuel oil and 

propane are both stored at the depot in above-and belowground storage tanks. Gasoline is used at the 

depot for small equipment such as mowers and is stored in one aboveground storage tank with a capacity 

of 3,790 liters (1,000 gallons). Currently, neither natural gas nor coal is used on the Hawthorne Army 

Depot (DLA 2004). 

In 2002, sitewide fuel oil consumption at the Hawthorne Army Depot was about 3.8 million liters 

(1.0 million gallons); gasoline consumption was about 644,000 liters (170,000 gallons); and propane 

consumption was about 235,000 liters (62,000 gallons) (DLA 2004:3-86). 

3.4.7.4 Water 

The primary source of water for the Hawthorne Army Depot comes from the watershed of the Wassuk 

Mountains on the western site boundary. Surface-water runoff is diverted into three holding reservoirs—

Rose Creek, Cat Creek, and Black Beauty. All of the surface water flows through Black Beauty 

Reservoir and is treated with chlorine before being sent to the depot distribution system. Water in Black 

Beauty Reservoir is supplemented by a well when surface flow reaches a predetermined minimum level. 

Water from this distribution system is transported throughout the depot via over 402 kilometers 

(250 miles) of pipe (DLA 2004:3-86). 

Annual sitewide water consumption was approximately 311 million liters (82 million gallons) with a 

capacity of approximately 2 billion liters (568 million gallons) per year in 2002 (DLA 2004:3-86). 

3.4.8 Waste Management 

Nonhazardous and hazardous wastes are generated at the Hawthorne Army Depot as a result of routine 

site operations, environmental restoration activities, and construction activities. All Hawthorne Army 

Depot wastes are managed on site using appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal technologies, in 

compliance with applicable Federal and state statutes (DLA 2004:3-73). 

In February 2006, the Hawthorne Army Depot was formally identified as the mercury consolidation 

location for the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense National Stockpile Center. The Defense National 

Stockpile Center mercury inventory targeted for consolidation at the Hawthorne Army Depot is 

approximately 4,436 metric tons (4,890 tons) (DNSC 2006; NDEP 2009a). 

3.4.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

In general, the primary missions of the Hawthorne Army Depot involve the storage of military 

ammunition and the recycling of conventional ammunition. The Hawthorne Army Depot has five 

primary locations for the storage and management of hazardous waste. In total, these areas have capacity 
Affected Environment 

3–61

to store 3,972 55-gallon (208-liter) drums, 56,700 kilograms (125,000 pounds) of various ammunitions, 

and 174,182 kilograms (384,000 pounds) of contained hazardous material on pallets. Explosive 

hazardous waste is treated at the New Bomb Disposal Facility, located on 1,295 hectares (3,200 acres) of 

land 35 kilometers (22 miles) south of the main depot. The remaining hazardous waste (including large 

quantities of petroleum, oil, and lubricants in addition to other hazardous materials, such as solvents, 

pesticides, and compressed gases) is shipped off site for treatment and disposal at commercial facilities. 

Approximately 47,442 kilograms (104,590 pounds) of hazardous waste is generated each year at the 

Hawthorne Depot (DLA 2004:3-73). 

The Hawthorne Army Depot holds two hazardous waste RCRA Part B permits. One permit is for the 

treatment and storage of hazardous waste at the main Hawthorne Army Depot. The second permit is for 

the New Bomb Disposal Facility. The Hawthorne Army Depot is classified as an RCRA large-quantity 

generator. Ongoing RCRA-based remedial investigations have been initiated at 128 onsite SWMUs as a 

result of past site operations (DLA 2004:3-73). 

Nonhazardous wastes generated at the Hawthorne Army Depot include construction and demolition 

waste (e.g., wood, concrete, metal objects, soil, and roofing materials), office waste, lunchroom waste, 

and janitorial waste. Nonhazardous waste generated in the housing area is collected by a commercial 

waste–hauling contractor and disposed of at the Hawthorne Landfill west of Hawthorne. Construction 

debris, inert mock-munitions items, office waste, lunchroom waste, and horticultural waste generated on 

the remainder of the depot are disposed of in the state-permitted, onsite construction and debris landfill. 

Treated wood and asbestos are disposed of in the state-permitted Asbestos and Treated Wood Landfill. 

This landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 467,900 cubic meters (612,000 cubic yards) and consists 

of six unlined cells; one cell is designated for asbestos-containing material (DLA 2004:3-74). 

Sanitary wastewater generated in the industrial and housing areas of the Hawthorne Army Depot is 

discharged to a sewage treatment facility. The Hawthorne Army Depot is in the process of connecting its 

sanitary sewer system to the Town of Hawthorne sewage treatment facility. Locations other than the 

Western Area Demilitarization Facility Area and the Industrial Area are serviced by site septic systems 

(settling tanks that discharge into subsurface drain fields) (DLA 2004:3-74). 

3.4.8.2 Waste Minimization 

As one of its primary facility missions, the Hawthorne Army Depot supports various ammunition 

demilitarization programs. These demilitarization programs include ongoing requirements to recycle 

metal ammunition components (NDEP 2009a). 

3.4.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.4.9.1 Normal Operations 

Environmental studies at the Hawthorne Army Depot have not specifically focused on mercury exposure 

health effects; however, investigations are ongoing to delineate areas of environmental concern. 

Depot-wide monitoring has consistently detected the presence of VOCs and explosives in groundwater. 

Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, and methyl tertiary-butyl ether have been detected in the 

subsurface soil as a result of diesel fuel and gasoline releases (DLA 2004:3-75). 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, indicates that human health studies 

have not been conducted in the vicinity of Hawthorne Army Depot outside of the ongoing Installation 

Restoration Program studies. Historically, mercury mining has been conducted in the area, thus, mercury 

occurs naturally and the mercury detected in Walker Lake is not thought to be related to Hawthorne Army 

Depot activities. Mercury detections in Walker Lake are currently being studied by the USFWS. 

Mercury has not been detected in the drinking water supply; however, occasionally elevated 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–62

concentrations of antimony, arsenic, and fluoride are detected. The Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection indicates that no evidence of elevated mercury concentrations has been found in the soil at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot. Extensive explosives contamination (TNT [trinitrotoluene] and RDX 

[cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine]) in the soil is currently under remediation (DLA 2004:3-75). Soil and 

groundwater conditions are described in Sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.3.2. The infrastructure currently 

available in the proposed mercury storage warehouses consists of concrete floors and transite roofing. 

The buildings are vented; however, there is currently no provision for fire protection (DLA 2004:2-11, 

3-86; Hawthorne 2009:2.1). 

3.4.9.2 Facility Accidents 

The structures at Hawthorne Army Depot have not had any spills, fires, explosions, leaks, or other such 

incidents. Explosives are housed in a magazine within the site Quantity Distance arcs of the candidate 

buildings (Hawthorne 2009:2.8.3). A fire in a storage magazine containing mercury batteries did not 

release a reportable quantity of hazardous constituents. Remediation of the site was completed and the 

fire-damaged building was removed (DLA 2004:3-75). 

The Hawthorne Army Depot has an established spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan and 

integrated contingency plan to maintain adequate response preparedness for fire and hazardous materials 

releases. The Hawthorne Army Depot operates and maintains onsite fire and emergency services and 

emergency response teams. The site contractor provides emergency service to respond to all fires, 

explosions, and spills where the real or potential threat of fire and explosion exists. Emergency services 

are initiated through 911 reporting (DLA 2004:3-75–3-76). Mutual response assistance agreements are in 

place with nearby agencies (Hawthorne 2009:2.8.2). 

3.4.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive materials, 

effects of air pollutant emissions emitted during normal (incident-free) transportation, and accidents 

resulting in death or injury where there is no release of radioactive or nonradioactive materials. There is 

no current risk assessment available for transportation of materials to and from the Hawthorne Army 

Depot. 

3.4.10 Socioeconomics 

Due to the local employment dynamics compiled by the Census Bureau, the majority of people employed 

in the Hawthorne area are estimated to reside in three counties: Mineral, Lyon, and Churchill 

(DOC 2009a). Therefore, these three counties have been identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics 

analysis. In 2001, the Hawthorne Army Depot employed 500 persons (Hawthorne 2001:3). 

3.4.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the ROI increased by approximately 21 percent to 38,883. By 

July 2009, the unemployment rate of the ROI was 13 percent, which was approximately equal to the 

unemployment rate for Nevada (12.7 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.4.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the three-county ROI was 82,602. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 30 percent, nearly identical to the growth rate throughout the entire state of Nevada 

(30.1 percent) (DOC 2009b). In 2000, the percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 was 

28 percent; women ages 18 to 39 composed 13.2 percent (DOC 2009d). Young children and pregnant 

women are considered to be among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. There were 
Affected Environment 

3–63

31,654 housing units in the ROI in 2007, an increase of 18 percent from 2000 (DOC 2008). In 2000, 

64 percent of housing units were owner occupied, 25 percent were renter occupied, and 10 percent were 

vacant (DOC 2009d). 

3.4.10.3 Local Transportation 

The primary transportation routes in the area of the Hawthorne Army Depot are U.S. Route 95 and State 

Route 359. The depot is accessible from U.S. Route 95, rail, and a regional airport. The highest volume 

of traffic on U.S. Route 95 occurs just north of C Street. The average annual daily traffic count on this 

segment of U.S. Route 95 in 2008 was 5,000 vehicles per day (NVDOT 2009). Rail access is provided by 

a U.S. Army–owned railroad, which runs through the Walker River Indian Reservation and connects to 

the Union Pacific main line that spans northern Nevada. The Hawthorne Industrial Airport is a 

county-owned airport classified as general aviation. 

3.4.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage location at the Hawthorne Army Depot 

encompasses part of Mineral County, Nevada. Figure 3–6 shows populations residing in Mineral County, 

as reported in the 1990 and 2000 censuses (DOC 2009d, 2009e). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show 

populations in 1990, while the darker bars show those in 2000. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the 

total population of Mineral County declined by approximately 22 percent to 5,071; the minority 

population decreased by approximately 5 percent to 1,516; and the low-income population decreased by 

5 percent to 761. Demographic data from the 2000 census show that the American Indian and Alaska 

Native populations residing in Mineral County composed approximately 51 percent of the county’s total 

minority population. Among the minority populations, only the American Indian population increased 

from 1990 to 2000; all other minority populations declined. Persons who declared that they are of 

Hispanic or Latino origin are included in the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–6, regardless 

of race. They composed approximately 28 percent of the total minority population residing in Mineral 

County in 2000. 

No additional data beyond the 2000 census are available for Mineral County due to the total population 

falling short of the threshold required for inclusion in the 1-year and 3-year ACS estimates (65,000 and 

20,000, respectively). 

Approximately 3,561 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Hawthorne Army Depot in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). This area included an estimated 20 percent minority and 10 percent low-income 

population. By comparison, Mineral County included a 30 percent minority and 15 percent low-income 

population, and Nevada included a 35 percent minority and 10 percent low-income population. There are 

five census block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the Hawthorne 

Army Depot, none of which contained a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income 

individuals. Figure 3–7 shows the cumulative populations living at a given distance from the Hawthorne 

Army Depot. The population living within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Hawthorne Army Depot is 

concentrated in the town of Hawthorne. The Walker River Indian Reservation is located approximately 

13 kilometers (8 miles) north of the Hawthorne Army Depot site boundary; however, the reservation does 

not lie within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the proposed storage location at the depot. 

No one resides within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the storage location at the Hawthorne 

Army Depot (DOC 2009d). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–64

Figure 3–6. Populations Residing in Mineral County, Nevada, Surrounding the 

Hawthorne Army Depot in 1990 and 2000 

Figure 3–7. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of 

the Hawthorne Army Depot 
Affected Environment 

3–65

3.5 IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY 

3.5.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.5.1.1 Land Use 

INL occupies 230,323 hectares (569,135 acres) in southeastern Idaho, approximately 39 kilometers 

(24 miles) west of Idaho Falls. Most of the site is within Butte County, but portions are also in Bingham, 

Jefferson, Bonneville, and Clark Counties. Presently INL is administered, managed, and controlled by 

DOE (O’Rourke 2006:4, 11). Much of INL is open space that has not been designated for specific use, 

with approximately 2 percent of the total INL site area (4,600 hectares [11,400 acres]) used for facilities 

and operations (DOE 2002c:4-123). Facility areas, including the Radioactive Waste Management 

Complex (RWMC) and Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), are sited within a 

Central Core Area of about 93,100 hectares (230,000 acres). Public access to most facilities is restricted. 

Figure 3–8 shows the generalized land use at INL. DOE land use plans and policies applicable to INL are 

discussed in the Idaho National Laboratory Comprehensive Land Use and Environmental Stewardship 

Report (O’Rourke 2006). 

In 1999, 29,244 hectares (72,263 acres) of open space in the northwest corner of the site was designated 

as the INL Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystem Reserve. This area represents one of the last sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystems in the United States and provides a home for a number of rare and sensitive species of plants 

and animals (O’Rourke 2006:26, 53). 

Land use designations at INL include Facility Operations, Grazing, General Open Space, and 

Infrastructure (e.g., roads). Approximately 60 percent of the site is used for cattle and sheep grazing. 

Facility Operations include industrial and support operations associated with energy research and waste 

management activities. Land is also used for environmental research associated with the designation of 

INL as a National Environmental Research Park. 

The Federal Government, the State of Idaho and various private parties own lands immediately 

surrounding INL; BLM administers about 75 percent of the adjacent land. Regional land uses include 

grazing, wildlife management, mineral and energy production, recreation, and crop production 

(O’Rourke 2006:13). Small communities and towns near the INL boundaries include Mud Lake and 

Terreton to the east; Arco, Butte City, and Howe to the west; and Atomic City to the south. Two National 

Natural Landmarks border INL: Big Southern Butte (2.4 kilometers [1.5 miles] south) and Hell’s Half 

Acre (2.6 kilometers [1.6 miles] southeast). A portion of Hell’s Half Acre National Natural Landmark is 

designated as a wilderness study area. The Black Canyon Wilderness Study Area is adjacent to INL, and 

the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area is about 19 kilometers (12 miles) southwest of the site’s western 

boundary. On November 9, 2000, President Clinton signed a proclamation that added 267,500 hectares 

(661,000 acres) to the 21,850-hectare (54,000-acre) Craters of the Moon National Monument, which 

encompasses this wilderness area. Fort Hall Reservation, the permanent homeland of the Shoshone 

Bannock Peoples, is located approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of INL. Certain areas of 

the INL site are recognized as having significant cultural and religious significance to members of these 

tribes. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–66

Figure 3–8. Generalized Land Use at Idaho National Laboratory and Vicinity 
Affected Environment 

3–67

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

Land in the RWMC is used for industrial activities associated with disposal and transfer of hazardous and 

radioactive waste. Other land uses include support-related facilities such as offices and maintenance 

shops. The RWMC occupies approximately 76 hectares (187 acres) in the southwest corner of the 

Central Core Area, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the site boundary and 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) south of the Big Lost River. The RWMC is divided into four zones: the Administrative Area, 

the Operation Zone, the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA), and the Transuranic Storage Area 

(DOE 1999c:4.2-1, 4). 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

Land within INTEC is disturbed; it is used to store spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, treat 

radioactive waste, and develop waste management technologies. The area includes about 85 hectares 

(210 acres) within the perimeter fence and an additional 22 hectares (54 acres) outside the fence. A 

number of wastewater and percolation ponds are also present on the site. INTEC is 12 kilometers 

(7.5 miles) north of the site boundary and 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) southeast of the Big Lost River. 

Facilities at INTEC include spent nuclear fuel storage and processing areas, a waste solidification facility 

and related HLW storage facilities, remote analytical laboratories, warehouse facilities, and a coal-fired 

steam-generating plant that is in standby (DOE 1999c:4.2-4; 2000:3-45). 

3.5.1.2 Visual Resources 

The Bitterroot, Lemhi, and Lost River Mountain ranges border INL on the north and west. Volcanic 

buttes near the southern boundary of INL can be seen from most locations on the site. INL generally 

consists of open desert land covered by big sagebrush and grasslands. Uncultivated grazing range borders 

much of the site. Although INL has prepared a comprehensive land use and environmental stewardship 

plan, no specific visual resource standards have been established (O’Rourke 2006). INL facilities have 

the appearance of low-density commercial/industrial complexes that are widely dispersed throughout the 

site. Structure heights generally range from 3 to 30 meters (10 to 100 feet); a few stacks and towers reach 

76 meters (250 feet). Although many INL facilities are visible from highways, most are more than 

0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) from public roads (DOE 2000:3-46). 

Public lands adjacent to INL are under BLM jurisdiction and have a VRM Class II rating. Undeveloped 

lands within INL have a VRM rating consistent with Classes II and III. Management activities within 

these classes may be seen, but should not dominate the view. The VRM class rating of developed areas 

of the site is consistent with Class IV, indicating that management activities dominate the view and are 

the focus of viewer attention (DOI 1986:6, 7). The Black Canyon Wilderness Study Area is located 

adjacent to the northwestern boundary of INL, and the Hell’s Half Acre Wilderness Study Area is located 

2.6 kilometers (1.6 miles) southeast of INL’s eastern boundary. The Craters of the Moon Wilderness 

Area is approximately 19 kilometers (12 miles) southwest of INL’s western boundary. Other natural 

features of visual interest within a 40-kilometer (25-mile) radius include Big Lost River, Middle Butte, 

Big Southern Butte National Natural Landmark, East Butte, and Saddle Mountain (DOE 2000:3-46). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

The RWMC is a restricted-access area located in a depression circumscribed by basaltic lava ridges. The 

ground surface is relatively flat at an elevation of about 1,525 meters (5,000 feet) above mean sea level. 

The RWMC maintains industrial uses consistent with a VRM Class IV rating, which means management 

activities dominate the view and are the focus of the viewer’s attention (DOE 1999c:4.5-1). The RWMC 

is visible from U.S. Routes 20 and 26, which traverse the southern portion of INL. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–68

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

While the Fuel Processing Facility is the largest building at INTEC, the tallest structure is the main stack, 

which is 76 meters (250 feet) tall. The VRM rating of INTEC is Class IV. INTEC is visible in the 

middle ground from U.S. Routes 20 and 26, with Saddle Mountain in the background (DOE 2000:3-46). 

3.5.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.5.2.1 Geology 

INL occupies a rather flat area on the northwestern edge of the Eastern Snake River Plain, which is part of 

the Columbia Plateau physiographic province. The area consists of a broad plain built up from the 

eruptions of multiple flows of basaltic lava over the past 4 million years. Four northwest-trending 

volcanic rift zones that cut across the Eastern Snake River Plain have been identified as the source areas 

for the most recent basaltic eruptions that occurred between 2,100 and 4 million years ago. Elevations on 

the site range from 1,450 to 1,953 meters (4,780 to 6,410 feet) above mean sea level. Generally, the 

terrain slopes toward the Big Lost River. The Eastern Snake River Plain is bounded on the north and 

south by the north-to-northwest-trending mountains of the northern Basin and Range physiographic 

province, with peaks up to 3,660 meters (12,000 feet) in height that are separated by intervening basins 

filled with terrestrial sediments and volcanic rocks. The peaks are sharply separated from the intervening 

basins by late Tertiary to Quaternary normal faults. To the northeast, the Eastern Snake River Plain is 

bounded by the Yellowstone Plateau (DOE 2002d:4-20, 4-21, 4-23; INL 2009a:1-9, 1-26–1-28). 

The Arco Segment of the Lost River Fault is mapped as ending about 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) from the 

INL boundary. The Howe Segment of the Lemhi Fault ends near the northwest boundary of the site. 

Both segments are considered capable or potentially active. A capable fault is one that has had movement 

at or near the surface at least once within the past 35,000 years or recurrent movement within the past 

500,000 years (10 CFR 100; DOE 2005b:3-12). 

The Eastern Snake River Plain formed as a result of interaction of the North American tectonic plate with 

a rising plume and hot mantle rocks, the so-called Yellowstone Hotspot. As the North American plate 

moved southwestward, its interaction with the hotspot produced the low-elevation, low-relief volcanic 

province that is the Eastern Snake River Plain. The crust of the INL area was directly above the hotspot 

about 4.3 to 6.5 million years ago (INL 2009a:1-27). 

The upper 1 to 2 kilometers (0.6 to 1.2 miles) of the crust beneath INL is composed of a sequence of 

Quaternary (recent to 2 million years old) basalt lava flows and poorly consolidated sedimentary interbeds 

that are collectively called the Snake River Group. The lava flows at the surface range from 2,100 to 

2 million years old (DOE 2005b:3-10; INL 2009a:1-27). The sediments are composed of fine-grained 

silts that were deposited by wind; silts, sands, and gravels deposited by streams; and clays, silts, and sands 

deposited in lakes such as Mud Lake and its much larger Ice Age predecessor, Lake Terreton. Basaltic 

volcanism on the Eastern Snake River Plain has been a sporadic process, with sediments accumulating 

between volcanic episodes. During short periods of volcanic activity, basalt lava flows were erupted from 

vents concentrated in the four volcanic rift zones and along the central axis of the Eastern Snake River 

Plain (the Axial Volcanic Rift Zone). The basalts, along with intercalated sediments, are underlain by a 

great thickness of rhyolitic volcanic rocks that erupted when the area was over the Yellowstone Hotspot 

more than 4 million years ago (INL 2009a:1-27, 1-30). 

Several Quaternary rhyolite domes are located along the Axial Volcanic Rift Zone near the southern and 

southeastern borders of INL. Their names and ages are Big Southern Butte (300,000 years), a rhyolite 

dome near Cedar Butte (400,000 years), East Butte (600,000 years), Middle Butte (age unknown), and an 

unnamed butte near East Butte (1.2 million years). Paleozoic carbonate rocks (limestones), late-Tertiary 

rhyolitic volcanic rocks, and large alluvial fans occur in limited areas along the northwest margin of INL. 
Affected Environment 

3–69

A wide band of Quaternary mainstream alluvium (unconsolidated gravels and sands) extends along the 

course of Big Lost River from the southwestern corner of INL to the Big Lost River Sinks area in 

north-central INL. Elsewhere at INL, the basaltic lava flows are variably covered with a thin veneer of 

eolian silt (loess), which can be up to several meters thick, but mostly ranges in thickness from 0 to 

2 meters (6.6 feet) (INL 2009a:1-30). 

Mineral resources within INL include sand, gravel, pumice, silt, clay, and aggregate (e.g., sand, gravel, 

crushed stone). These resources are extracted at several quarries or pits at INL and are used for road and 

new facility construction and maintenance, waste burial activities, and ornamental landscaping. The 

geologic history of the Eastern Snake River Plain makes the potential for petroleum production at INL 

very low. The potential for geothermal energy exists at INL and in parts of the Eastern Snake River 

Plain; however, a study conducted in 1979 identified no economically productive geothermal resources 

(DOE 2005b:3-12). 

3.5.2.2 Soils 

Four basic soilscapes exist at INL: river-transported sediments deposited on alluvial plains, fine-grained 

sediments deposited into lake or playa basins, colluvial sediments originating from bordering mountains, 

and windblown sediments (silt and sand) over lava flows. The alluvial deposits follow the courses of the 

modern Big Lost River and Birch Creek. The playa soils are found in the north-central part of the site; 

the colluvial sediments, along the western edge of INL; and the windblown sediments, throughout the rest 

of the site. Surficial sediments range in thickness from less than 0.3 meters (1 foot) at basalt outcrops east 

of INTEC to 95 meters (312 feet) near the Big Lost River sinks. No soils designated as prime farmland 

exist within the INL boundaries (DOE 2005b:3-15). 

3.5.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

The seismic characteristics of the Eastern Snake River Plain and the adjacent Basin and Range Province 

are different. The Eastern Snake River Plain has historically experienced infrequent small-magnitude 

earthquakes (DOE 2005b:3-12). In contrast, the major episode of Basin and Range faulting that began 

approximately 16 million years ago continues today (Rodgers et al. 2002). Since the installation of INL’s 

seismic network in 1971, only 35 microearthquakes (magnitude of less than 2.0) have been detected 

within the Eastern Snake River Plain. However, INL’s seismic stations record about 2,000 annually 

elsewhere in southeast Idaho (INL 2009b). Thus, the Eastern Snake River Plain and INL have lower 

seismicity than adjacent regions. Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited 

in this Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and their effects. 

The largest historic earthquake near INL took place on October 28, 1983, about 90 kilometers (56 miles) 

northwest of the western site boundary, near Borah Peak in the Lost River Range (part of the Basin and 

Range Province). It occurred in the middle portion of the Lost River Fault. The earthquake had a 

surface-wave magnitude of 7.3 (moment magnitude of 7.0). An MMI of up to IX was assigned for effects 

at the event’s epicenter (DOE 2005b:3-12; INL 2009a:1-37). The Advanced Test Reactor within the INL 

Advanced Test Reactor Complex (ATRC) experienced an MMI of VI during this event, with no damage 

to the facility found upon inspection (DOE 2005b:3-12). Since 1973, 25 earthquakes, other than the 

Borah Peak event and its immediate after shocks, have been recorded within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of 

south-central INL, ranging in magnitude from 2.6 to 3.9. These represent minor earthquakes, with none 

centered closer than 76 kilometers (47 miles) from the south-central portion of the site. Most of the 

earthquakes had epicenters to the north and west of INL in the Basin and Range Province (USGS 2009h). 

Earthquakes with moment magnitudes higher than 5.5 and associated strong ground shaking and surface 

fault rupture are not likely within the Eastern Snake River Plain given the region’s seismic history and 

geology. Moderate-to-strong ground shaking from earthquakes in the Basin and Range Province, 

however, could affect INL (DOE 2002d:4-23). Consequently, INL authorities have supported efforts to 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–70

estimate, for all regional earthquake sources, the levels of ground shaking that are expected at INL 

facilities—specifically, estimate of ground shaking levels that would not be exceeded in specified time 

periods. A probabilistic ground-motion study for all facility areas was finalized in 2000 (INEEL 2000). 

The INL ground-motion evaluation incorporated the results of all geologic, seismologic, and geophysical 

investigations conducted since the 1960s. The fault segments closest to INL facilities, the Lost River, 

Beaverhead, and Lemhi Faults, were studied in detail. Results of these investigations indicated that these 

faults are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 6.6 to 7.2, and that the most recent earthquakes 

on the southernmost fault segments occurred more than 15,000 years ago. The data collected also 

continue to support historic observations that the alternating sequence of basalt and sedimentary interbeds 

composing the Eastern Snake River Plain tend to dampen seismic energy, resulting in reduced earthquake 

ground motions as compared to locations with uniform basaltic rock (INL 2009b). 

Earthquake-produced ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force of acceleration relative to 

that of Earth’s gravity). As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from 

the USGS are used in this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate 

sites. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This 

corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For a south-central INL 

location, the calculated PGA is approximately 0.12 g (USGS 2009d). For comparison, the 

aforementioned Borah Peak earthquake produced PGA’s ranging from 0.022 g to 0.078 g across INL 

(INL 2009a:1-37; Jackson and Boatwright 1985:51, 57). 

Basaltic volcanic activity occurred over a period from about 2,100 to 4 million years ago in the INL site 

area. Although no eruptions have occurred on the Eastern Snake River Plain during recorded history, lava 

flows from the Hell’s Half Acre lava field erupted near the southern INL boundary as recently as 

5,400 years ago. The most recent eruptions within the area occurred about 2,100 years ago in an area 

31 kilometers (19 miles) southwest of the site at the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area. The estimated 

recurrence interval (repeat time) for volcanism associated with the five identified volcanic zones ranges 

from 16,000 to 100,000 years (DOE 2005b:3-15). Because the Yellowstone Hotspot is no longer present 

beneath the INL area, there is no threat of catastrophic volcanism such as at Yellowstone. The main 

volcanic threat at INL is from basaltic lava flows. INL seismic stations are located near or within 

identified volcanic rift zones to provide early warning of any signs of renewed volcanic activity 

(INL 2009b). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

The RWMC is situated approximately 29 kilometers (18 miles) to the west of the terminus of the Arco 

Segment of the Lost River Fault and on the eastern edge of the Arco Volcanic Rift Zone. This rift zone 

has an estimated recurrence interval of 16,000 years (DOE 2005b:3-11). Topographically, RWMC is 

situated in a small valley surrounded by basaltic ridges rising to about 18 meters (60 feet) above the 

landscape. Surface sediments vary in thickness from about 0.6 to 7 meters (2 to 23 feet) and consist of 

unconsolidated clay, silt, and gravel. The elevation of the RWMC is 1,527 meters (5,010 feet) above 

mean sea level (DOE 1999c:4.6-1). 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

The Arco Segment of the Lost River Fault terminates approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) to the west 

of INTEC. INTEC is also situated near the western edge of the Howe-East-Butte Volcanic Rift Zone, 

which has an estimated recurrence interval for volcanic activity of 100,000 years (DOE 2005b:3-11). 

However, no volcanic vents in the vicinity of INTEC are younger than 400,000 years, and the probability 

of volcanic activity from this source is considered low based on the estimated recurrence interval 

(DOE 2002d:4-23–4-25). The complex is situated adjacent to the Big Lost River in relatively flat terrain. 

The average elevation of INTEC is approximately 1,499 meters (4,917 feet) above mean sea level. 

Surface sediments are alluvial deposits from the Big Lost River that are composed of gravel-sand-silt 
Affected Environment 

3–71

mixtures that are 7.6 to 19.8 meters (25 to 65 feet) thick and that contain locally interbedded silt and clay 

deposits that are generally less than 2.7 meters (9 feet) thick. All soil near INTEC was originally fine 

loam over a sand or sand-cobble mix deposited in the floodplain of the Big Lost River. However, all 

natural soils within INTEC fences have been disturbed. The soils beneath the INTEC area are not subject 

to liquefaction because of the high content of gravel mixed with the alluvial sands and silts. In addition, 

the sediments are not saturated (DOE 2000:3-63). 

As a result of past practices, radioactive and hazardous materials have been released to surface soils at 

INTEC. Contaminants found in the soil include metals, organic compounds and radionuclides. Results 

from CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) risk assessments indicated that radionuclides are the most 

significant soil contaminants (DOE 2002d:4-23). 

3.5.3 Water Resources 

3.5.3.1 Surface Water 

INL is in the Mud Lake–Lost River Basin (also known as the Pioneer Basin). This closed drainage basin 

includes three main streams—Big and Little Lost Rivers and Birch Creek (see Figure 3–9). These three 

streams are essentially intermittent and drain the mountain areas to the north and west of INL, although 

most flow is diverted for irrigation in the summer months before it reaches the site boundaries. Flow that 

reaches INL infiltrates the ground surface along the length of the streambeds in the spreading areas at the 

southern end of INL and, if the streamflow is sufficient in the ponding areas (playas or sinks), in the 

northern portion of INL as well. During dry years, there is little or no surface-water flow on the INL site. 

Because the Mud Lake–Lost River Basin is a closed drainage basin, water does not flow off INL, but 

instead infiltrates the ground surface to recharge the aquifer or is consumed by evapotranspiration. Big 

Lost River flows southeast from Mackay Dam, past the city of Arco, and onto the Snake River Plain. On 

the INL site near the southwestern boundary, a diversion dam prevents flooding of downstream areas 

during periods of heavy runoff by diverting water to a series of natural depressions or spreading areas. 

During periods of high flow or low irrigation demand, Big Lost River continues northeastward past the 

diversion dam, passes within about 61 meters (200 feet) of INTEC, and ends in a series of playas 24 to 

32 kilometers (15 to 20 miles) northeast of INTEC, where the water infiltrates the ground surface 

(DOE 2002d:4-40, 2005b:3-15–3-17). 

Flow from Birch Creek and Little Lost River infrequently reaches INL. The waters in these streams are 

diverted in summer months for irrigation prior to reaching the site. Yet during periods of unusually high 

precipitation or rapid snowmelt, those waters can enter INL from the northwest and infiltrate the ground, 

recharging the underlying aquifer (DOE 2005b:3-17). 

The only other surface-water bodies on the site are natural wetland-like ponds and manmade percolation 

and evaporation ponds (DOE 2005b:3-17). The latter are used for wastewater management at INL. 

Discharges to the ground surface are made through infiltration ponds, trenches (ditches), and a sprinkler 

irrigation system. Wastewater at INTEC also is discharged to the INTEC Sewage Treatment Plant and 

associated infiltration trenches and a sprinkler irrigation system at the Central Facilities Area that is used 

during the summer months to apply industrial and treated sanitary wastewater (DOE 2008b:5.2, 5.3, 

5.18). Discharge of wastewater to the land surface is regulated under Idaho Wastewater Reuse Permit 

(WRP) rules (IDAPA 58.01.17). An approved WRP normally requires the monitoring of nonradioactive 

parameters in the influent waste, effluent waste, and groundwater, as applicable. WRPs generally require 

compliance of specified groundwater monitoring wells with Idaho groundwater quality primary and 

secondary constituent standards (IDAPA 58.01.11). The facilities covered by WRPs include the Central 

Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Facility, the INTEC New Percolation Ponds, and the Test Area 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–72

Figure 3–9. Surface-Water Features at Idaho National Laboratory 
Affected Environment 

3–73

North/Technical Support Facility Sewage Treatment Facility. In addition, the ATRC Cold Waste Pond 

has been authorized to operate under the Idaho WRP rules, although no permit has been issued. Also, 

INL has submitted an application to the State of Idaho to obtain a WRP for the Materials and Fuels 

Complex Industrial Waste Pond (DOE 2008b:5.1–5.5). 

Water bodies in Idaho are designated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for specific and 

varied uses to ensure protection of the water quality for such uses. Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and 

Birch Creek in the vicinity of INL have been designated as cold water aquatic communities available for 

use in salmonid spawning and primary contact recreation, and the Big Lost River sinks and channel and 

lowermost Birch Creek, as domestic water supplies and special resource waters (IDAPA 58.01.02). In 

general, the waters of Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek are similar in quality because 

they reflect the similar carbonate mineral compositions of the mountain ranges drained by them, as well 

as chemically similar irrigation water return flows. There is no use or discharge of effluents to surface 

water on the site (DOE 2005b:3-17). 

INL’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites was issued in June 1993 and 

has been renewed twice since then. INL site contractors obtain coverage under the General Permit for 

Individual Construction Projects. Stormwater pollution prevention plans are completed for individual 

construction projects. Inspections of construction sites are performed in accordance with permit 

requirements. Only construction projects that are determined to have a reasonable potential to discharge 

pollutants to a regulated surface water are required to have a stormwater pollution prevention plan and 

permit (DOE 2008b:2.10, 2.11). 

Flooding of the Big Lost River was evaluated for its potential impact on INL facilities. Included was an 

evaluation of the impact of the probable maximum flood due to the failure of Mackay Dam, 72 kilometers 

(45 miles) upstream of INL (see Figure 3–9). This flood would result in a peak surface-water elevation at 

INTEC of 1,499 meters (4,917 feet)—the average elevation at that facility—as well as a peak flow of 

1,892 cubic meters (66,830 cubic feet) per second in Big Lost River, measured near INTEC. Thus, 

INTEC would be flooded, especially at the north end. Moreover, because the ground surface at INL and 

INTEC is rather flat, the floodwaters would spread over a large area and pond in the lower-lying areas. 

Although predicted flood velocities would be fairly slow and water depths shallow, some facilities could 

be impacted. There is no record of historical flooding at INTEC from Big Lost River, although evidence 

of flooding in geologic time exists. The INL diversion dam, constructed in 1958 and enlarged in 1984, 

was designed to secure INL from the 300-year flood (estimated peak flow of slightly above 142 cubic 

meters [5,000 cubic feet] per second) of Big Lost River by directing flow through a diversion channel into 

four spreading areas. Effects of a systematic (noninstantaneous) failure of the diversion dam were 

included in the probable maximum flood analysis (DOE 2005b:3-19; Koslow and Van Haaften 1986:24, 

26, 30). 

Studies have also been performed that have indicated the potential for varying degrees of flooding based 

on assumptions relative to the 100-year and 500-year floods. Most recently, studies aimed at reducing the 

uncertainty in flood hazard estimates at INL were undertaken by both USGS and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation because of the large difference in the earlier estimates. USGS, in cooperation with DOE, 

published a study in 2003 providing its new estimate of the 100-year peak flow for Big Lost River at INL. 

The estimate was based on analysis of recorded and estimated peak-flow data, long-term gauging station 

data, and documented conditions in the basin during historical high-flow periods. The analysis resulted in 

a 100-year peak-flow estimate of 118 cubic meters (4,170 cubic feet) per second near the city of Arco and 

a flow of about 106 cubic meters (3,750 cubic feet) per second for Big Lost River immediately upstream 

from the INL diversion dam (Hortness and Rousseau 2003:2, 21, 22). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

published the INL Big Lost River flood hazard study of record in 2005 (Adams 2006). This study used 

historic stream gauge measurements and reprocessed topographic data in combination with geologic and 

geomorphic maps and trenching data to constrain high-resolution two-dimensional hydraulic models of 

the Big Lost River on INL. These data and analyses were independently peer reviewed with respect to 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–74

meeting DOE flood hazard study and other requirements. The study yielded a series of inundation maps 

and stage discharge estimates for DOE Big Lost River flood hazard characterization purposes, including a 

100-year peak-flow estimate of 87 cubic meters (3,072 cubic feet) per second at the INL diversion dam 

(Ostenaa and O’Connell 2005:iii, iv). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

The RWMC is located approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) southeast of the Big Lost River channel 

and about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) east of the diversion spreading areas. The RWMC is separated from the 

Big Lost River by a lava ridge that serves as a hydraulic barrier; therefore, the Big Lost River is not a 

surface-water flowpath for contaminant transport. Analysis of the probable maximum flood due to the 

failure of Mackay Dam showed that the RWMC would not be inundated from flow from the Big Lost 

River. Nevertheless, three historical flood events (in 1962, 1969, and 1982) have occurred at the RWMC 

as a consequence of rapid snowmelt combined with heavy rains and warm winds, resulting in runoff 

water from the surrounding areas entering the facility. Upgrades to the perimeter drainage system have 

greatly reduced the likelihood of local basin flooding affecting the RWMC. The current peripheral 

drainage ditch and the main discharge channel are designed for a maximum 10,000-year combined rainon-snow storm event. Also, soil was added to the surface of the SDA to create sufficient slopes to direct 

water away from pits and trenches and into surrounding drainage systems. Although several instances of 

standing water have occurred due to rapid spring thaws in combination with frozen ground since 1982, 

there has not been flooding at the RWMC from offsite flow due to improvements in the dikes and 

drainage diversion systems (DOE 1999c:4.8-1–4.8-3). The proposed existing facilities for mercury 

storage are located in the Transuranic Storage Area portion of the RWMC. The portion of the RWMC 

has never flooded and is on higher ground than the SDA. 

Surface-water monitoring is performed at the RWMC SDA to determine if radionuclide concentrations 

exceed administrative control levels or if concentrations have increased significantly compared with 

historical data. Surface water runs off the SDA only during periods of rapid snowmelt or heavy 

precipitation. At these times, water may be pumped out of the SDA retention basin into a drainage canal, 

which directs the flow outside the RWMC. The canal also carries runoff from outside the RWMC that 

has been diverted around the SDA. During 2007, no precipitation occurred to cause a surface-water 

runoff event at the RWMC SDA. Therefore, no surface-water runoff was available for sampling at the 

RWMC SDA (DOE 2008b:5.23, 5.25). 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

INTEC is situated on an alluvial plain with its northwestern corner located approximately 61 meters 

(200 feet) from the Big Lost River channel near the channel’s intersection with Lincoln Boulevard. 

INTEC is surrounded by a stormwater drainage ditch system. Stormwater runoff from most INTEC areas 

flows through the ditches to an abandoned gravel pit on the northeast side of INTEC, where it infiltrates 

into the subsurface. Stormwater runoff volumes are usually small and spread over a wide area 

(DOE 2002d:4-40). The only other surface-water features at the site are the INTEC New Percolation 

Ponds. The two ponds comprise a rapid infiltration system and are excavated into the surficial alluvium 

and surrounded by bermed alluvial material. Each pond measures 93 meters by 93 meters (305 by 

305 feet) and is 3 meters (10 feet) deep. The ponds receive wastewater from the INTEC Sewage 

Treatment Plant located east of INTEC and outside the INTEC security fence. The plant treats sanitary 

and other related waste at INTEC and uses four sewage lagoons for physical and biological treatment of 

sanitary waste before discharge to the percolation ponds. In 2007, the INTEC New Percolation Ponds 

received an average flow of 6.2 million liters (1.64 million gallons) per day, and flow and effluent 

concentrations were within specified WRP limits (DOE 2008b:5.3, 5.6–5.8). 

INTEC and other facilities have been evaluated for susceptibility to the probable maximum flood, as 

discussed above. Other than natural topography, the primary choke points for probable maximum flood 
Affected Environment 

3–75

flows are the diversion dam on the INL site and the culverts near INTEC that allow Big Lost River to 

flow beneath Lincoln Boulevard between INTEC and the ATRC. The probable maximum flood would 

quickly overtop the diversion dam. The Lincoln Boulevard culverts are capable of passing about 42 cubic 

meters (1,500 cubic feet) of floodwater per second (DOE 2002d:4-42). 

3.5.3.2 Groundwater 

The Snake River Plain Aquifer lies below the INL site. It covers an area of approximately 24,900 square 

kilometers (9,600 square miles) in southeastern Idaho. Aquifer boundaries are formed by contact with 

less-permeable rocks at the margins of the Eastern Snake River Plain. These boundaries correspond to 

the mountains on the west and north and the Snake River on the east. This aquifer is the major source of 

drinking water for southeastern Idaho and has been designated a sole-source aquifer by EPA. Water 

storage in the aquifer is estimated at some 2,500 billion cubic meters (660,400 billion gallons), and 

irrigation wells can yield 26,000 liters (7,000 gallons) per minute. The aquifer is composed of numerous 

thin basalt flows, with interbedded sediments extending to depths in excess of 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) 

below the land surface (INL 2009a:1-23, 1-24, 1-26). In some instances, the process of sediment 

accumulation resulted in discontinuous distributions of fairly impermeable sedimentary interbeds, which 

led to a localized perching of groundwater. These perched water tables tend to slow the migration of 

pollutants to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Other perched water tables detected beneath INTEC and 

ATRC are attributable mainly to disposal ponds (DOE 2005b:3-20). Estimates of the thickness of the 

active portion of the Snake River Plain Aquifer at INL range from 102 to 368 meters (334 to 1,207 feet). 

Depth to the water table ranges from about 61 meters (200 feet) below land surface in the northern part of 

the site to more than 274 meters (900 feet) in the southern part (INL 2009a:1-23). 

Water movement regionally in the aquifer is mainly horizontal through basalt interflow zones, i.e., highly 

permeable rubble zones between basalt flows. Groundwater flow is primarily toward the southwest. 

Locally, the flow direction can be affected by recharge from rivers, surface-water spreading areas, and 

heterogeneities in the aquifer. Flow rates in the aquifer have been reported to range from about 1.5 to 

6.1 meters (5 to 20 feet) per day (DOE 2005b:3-20). The Big Lost River, the Little Lost River, and Birch 

Creek terminate at sinks on or near INL and recharge the aquifer. Recharge occurs through the surface of 

the Eastern Snake River Plain from flow in the channel of the Big Lost River and its diversion area. 

Additionally, recharge may occur from melting of local snowpacks during years in which snowfall 

accumulates on the Eastern Snake River Plain and from local agricultural irrigation activities. Valley 

underflow from the mountains to the north and northeast of the Eastern Snake River Plain has also been 

cited as a source of recharge. Aquifer discharge is via large spring flows to the Snake River and pumping 

for irrigation. The aquifer discharges approximately 8,800 billion cubic meters (2,320 million gallons) of 

water annually to springs and rivers (DOE 2005b:3-20; INL 2009a:1-24–1-26). 

From 1982 to 1985, INL used about 7.9 billion liters (2.1 billion gallons) per year from the Snake River 

Plain Aquifer, the only source of water at INL. This represents less than 0.3 percent of the groundwater 

withdrawn from that aquifer. Since 1950, DOE has held a Federal Reserved Water Right for INL that 

permits a pumping capacity of approximately 2.3 cubic meters (80 cubic feet) per second, with a 

maximum water consumption of 43 billion liters (11.4 billion gallons) per year (DOE 2005b:3-22). Total 

groundwater withdrawal at INL has averaged about 10 percent of that permitted amount in recent years. 

Most of the groundwater withdrawn for use by INL facilities is returned to the subsurface via percolation 

ponds. Water use is further discussed in Section 3.5.7.4. 

INL has an extensive groundwater quality monitoring network maintained by USGS. This network 

includes 171 observation or production wells in the Snake River Plain Aquifer and auger holes from 

which samples are collected and analyzed for selected organic, inorganic, and radioactive substances 

(DOE 2008b:3.8). Historical waste disposal practices have produced localized plumes of radiochemical 

and chemical constituents in the Snake River Plain Aquifer at INL. Of principal concern over the years 

have been the movements of the tritium and strontium-90 plumes. Nevertheless, no contaminant 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–76

exceeded an EPA MCL in a well along the southern boundary of INL or downgradient of the site in the 

fiscal year 2007 groundwater monitoring. Within the areal extent of the plume, tritium was detected in 

two wells (USGS-104 and -106), which are guard wells located just south of the Central Facilities Area 

and east of the RWMC in the southern portion of INL. Over the past 20 years, both wells have exhibited 

a downward trend in tritium concentration. The tritium concentrations in these wells currently are less 

than 600 picocuries per liter and considerably less than the EPA MCL of 20,000 picocuries per liter. The 

INTEC facility used direct injection as a disposal method until 1984. This wastewater contained high 

concentrations of both tritium and strontium-90. Once direct injection ceased, wastewater from INTEC 

was directed to a pair of shallow percolation ponds, from which the water infiltrated into the subsurface. 

Disposal of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste solutions into the percolation ponds ceased in 

1993 with the installation of the Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal Facility. New INTEC 

percolation ponds went into operation in August 2002 (DOE 2008b:6.7, 6.31). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

Depth to groundwater near the RWMC is approximately 180 meters (590 feet). Water-level monitoring 

by the USGS may indicate that groundwater may respond to Big Lost River water infiltrating into the 

spreading areas. In addition, perched aquifer zones are present in the vicinity of the RWMC. Vertically, 

the perched zones consist of two regions, referred to as “shallow” and “deep.” The shallow perched water 

refers to ephemeral saturated zones that form at the contact between the shallow surficial sediments and 

underlying basalt. Deep perched water occurs at greater depths that are above, but in association with, the 

33-meter (110-foot) and 73-meter (240-foot) interbeds (DOE 1999c:4.8-3–4.8.6). Groundwater quality 

beneath the RWMC has been affected by contamination emanating from the SDA, a 39-hectare (97-acre) 

disposal area containing buried hazardous and radioactive waste. Organic solvents contained in this 

waste are a source of groundwater contamination and are being removed by ongoing cleanup activities 

(DOE 2008b:1.5, 3.19). 

A single RWMC production well supplies all of the drinking water for more than 500 people. Water 

samples collected for monitoring purposes are collected from the wellhead and throughout the distribution 

system. In the past, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and nitrate have been detected in the drinking 

water system at RWMC. All other regulatory parameters were well below drinking water limits in 2007. 

Concentrations of carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and nitrate, along with other monitored 

parameters, remained below their respective MCLs within the distribution system in 2007. However, 

concentrations of carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) in the well exceeded its MCL of 

0.005 milligrams per liter for all 12 months in 2007, and the RWMC production well contained detectable 

concentrations of eight purgeable organic compounds in all. In July 2007, installation was completed at 

RWMC of a packed tower air-stripping treatment system for organics in groundwater 

(DOE 2008b:5.21–5.23. 6.12, 6.13). 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

Groundwater directly beneath INTEC generally flows to the southwest and southeast, with some flow to 

the south. The local groundwater flow is complex and variable and is influenced by recharge from the 

Big Lost River (when flow is present), percolation ponds, areas of lower-aquifer transmission, and 

possibly by pumping from the production wells. Groundwater beyond the influence of INTEC recharge 

sources flows to the south-southwest. The groundwater velocity beneath INTEC has been estimated at 

3 to 8 meters (10 to 25 feet) per day. Depth to the water table in the Snake River Plain Aquifer ranges 

from approximately 140 to 146 meters (460 to 480 feet) below the ground surface. Also, several zones of 

perched water lie beneath INTEC, which are primarily located beneath, and extend outward from, the 

percolation ponds and the sewage treatment plant lagoons when the Big Lost River is dry. Additional 

perched water bodies and interactions occur in the northern part of INTEC during periods of flow in the 

Big Lost River and subsequent infiltration (DOE 2002d:4-47). 
Affected Environment 

3–77

As previously described, groundwater beneath INTEC has been contaminated by past facility effluent 

discharges. During fiscal year 2007, strontium-90, technetium-99, and nitrate exceeded their respective 

drinking water MCLs (40 CFR 141) in one or more of the Snake River Plain Aquifer monitoring wells at 

or near INTEC, with strontium-90 exceeding the standard by the greatest margin 

(DOE 2008b:6.18–6.20). 

Water is supplied to INTEC by two deep wells (CPP–01 and CPP–02) in the northwest corner of the area. 

The wells are about 180 meters (590 feet) deep. These wells can each supply up to approximately 

11,400 liters of water per minute (3,000 gallons per minute) for use in the INTEC fire water, potable 

water, treated water, and demineralized water systems. The production wells at INTEC have historically 

contained measurable quantities of strontium-90 (DOE 2000:3-58). During 2007, routine drinking water 

compliance sampling found that all INTEC monitored parameters were below their respective drinking 

water limits (DOE 2008b:5.21). 

3.5.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.5.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate at INL and the surrounding region is characterized as that of a semiarid steppe. The average 

annual temperature at INL (at the Central Facilities Area) is 5.6 °C (42 °F); average monthly temperatures 

range from a minimum of 8.8 °C (16.1 °F) in January to a maximum of 20 °C (68 °F) in July. The 

average annual precipitation is 22 centimeters (8.7 inches) (Clawson, Start, and Ricks 1989:55, 77). 

Prevailing winds at INL are southwest or northeast (DOE 1999c:4.7-1). The annual average windspeed is 

3.4 meters per second (7.5 miles per hour) (DOE 1996a:3-112). The maximum windspeed at Pocatello, 

Idaho (minimum time for 1.6 kilometers [1 mile] of wind to pass) is 32 meters per second (72 miles per 

hour) (NOAA 2009b:65). 

Damaging hailstorms rarely occur in Butte County (NCDC 2009c). The average annual snowfall is 

70.1 centimeters (27.6 inches) (Clawson, Start, and Ricks 1989:84). Seven tornados were reported in 

Butte County between January 1950 and March 2009. Several occurrences of high winds typically occur 

every year in Butte County (NCDC 2009c). 

The primary source of air pollutants at INL is fuel oil combustion for heating. Other emission sources 

include waste burning, industrial processes, stationary diesel engines, vehicles, and fugitive dust from 

waste burial and construction activities (DOE 2002d). Modeled air pollutant concentrations from 

INL sources and applicable NAAQS and Idaho State ambient air quality standards are presented in 

Table 3–10. Emissions for 2006 are presented in Table 3–11. 

Routine offsite monitoring of nonradiological air pollutants is generally performed only for PM and 

nitrogen oxide. Monitoring for PM10 is performed at the site boundary and at communities beyond the 

boundary. All concentrations at these monitors were below the ambient standard. Monitoring for 

nitrogen dioxide has not been performed at onsite locations since 2003 (DOE 2006b:3.5,4.24). The mean 

concentrations were well below the ambient standard (DOE 2004a:4.22). 

INL is located in the Eastern Idaho Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. Most of this region is 

designated attainment (or unclassified) for all criteria pollutants. A small part of Power and Bannock 

Counties, the Fort Hall nonattainment area, has been designated moderate nonattainment for PM10 

(40 CFR 81.313). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–78

Table 3–10. Modeled Nonradiological Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations from 

Idaho National Laboratory Sources and Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Most Stringent Standarda Maximum INL Concentrationb

Pollutant Averaging Period (micrograms per cubic meter) 

Carbon monoxide 8 hours 

1 hour 

10,000c

40,000c

71 

350 

Lead Quarterly 1.5c 0.0081 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100c 2.3 

Ozone 8 hours 

1 hour 

147d

235f

(e) 

(e) 

PM10 Annual 

24 hours 

50f, g

150c

1.3 

20 

PM2.5 Annual 

24 hours 

15d

35d

1.3 

20h

Sulfur dioxide Annual 

24 hours 

3 hours 

80c

365c

1,300c

4.5 

32 

140 

a The more stringent of the Federal and state standards is presented if both exist for the averaging period. National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50), other than those for ozone, particulate matter, lead, and those standards based on annual 

averages, are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The annual arithmetic mean PM standard is attained when the 

expected annual arithmetic mean concentration (3-year average) is less than or equal to the standard. The 24-hour PM

standard is met when the 98th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to the standard 

value. The 24-hour PM standard is met when the 99th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour concentrations is less than or 

equal to the standard value. 

2.5

2.5

10

b Includes contributions from existing INL facilities with actual 1997 emissions, plus reasonably foreseeable sources such as 

the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project and CPP-606 steam production boilers. 

c Federal and state standard. 

d Federal standard. 

e Not directly emitted or monitored by the site. 

f State standard. 

g The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM standard. 10

h Assumed to be the same as the concentration of PM10 because there are no specific data for PM2.5. 

Note: The State of Idaho also has ambient standards for fluorides. To convert cubic meters to cubic feet, multiply by 35.315. 

Key: INL=Idaho National Laboratory; PMn=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 

n micrometers. 

Source: 40 CFR 50; 71 FR 61144; DOE 2002d:C.2-43; IDAPA 58.01.01.577. 

Table 3–11. Air Pollutant Emissions at Idaho National Laboratory, 2006 

Sources Other Than 

Materials and 

Fuels Complex 

Materials and 

Fuels Complex 

Pollutant (metric tons per year) 

Nitrogen dioxide 67 5.3 

PM10 2.5 0.27 

Sulfur dioxide 7.1 1.9 

Volatile organic compounds 1.8 0.05 

Note: To convert metric tons to tons, multiply by 1.1023. 

Key: PM10=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

Source: Depperschmidt 2007. 
Affected Environment 

3–79

Some monitoring data have also been collected by the National Park Service at the Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness Area. The monitoring program has shown no exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard, 

although there was some degradation in concentrations between 1993 and 2002 (NPS 2003:5). 

Concentrations in 2006 were about 50 percent of the ambient standard for 1-hour values and less than 

60 percent of the 8-hour standard (EPA 2007). 

The existing ambient air concentrations attributable to sources at INL are presented in Table 3–11. These 

concentrations are based on dispersion modeling at the INL site boundary and public roads. The modeled 

pollutant concentrations presented in the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for assessing cumulative impacts were adapted as a baseline. Sources 

considered included existing INL facilities with actual 1997 emissions, plus reasonably foreseeable 

sources such as the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project and the CPP-606 steam production boilers. 

To account for the contribution of the CPP 606 boilers, the cumulative concentrations for the Continued 

Operation Alternative evaluated in the aforementioned EIS were used as the baseline 

(DOE 2002d:C.2-43). Concentrations shown in Table 3–11 represent a small percentage of those 

established as ambient air quality standards. Given these limited contributions from INL sources and low 

background concentrations of criteria pollutants, it may be concluded that INL emissions should not result 

in air pollutant concentrations that violate the ambient air quality standards. 

EPA has established PSD increments for certain pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and 

PM. The increments specify a maximum allowable increase above a certain baseline concentration for a 

given averaging period and apply only to sources constructed or modified after a specified baseline date. 

These sources are known as increment-consuming sources, and the baseline date is the date of submittal 

of the first application for a PSD permit in a given area. Increment consumption for the CPP-606 boilers, 

for example, was analyzed in connection with its PSD permit application for INL (DOE 2002d). 

EPA has also established PSD area classifications distinguished in terms of allowable increases in 

pollution. The PSD Class I area nearest to INL is the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area in Idaho, 

53 kilometers (33 miles) west-southwest of the center of the site. There are no other Class I areas within 

100 kilometers (62 miles) of INL. INL and its vicinity are classified as a Class II area (DOE 2002d). 

3.5.4.2 Noise 

Major noise sources within INL include various industrial machines and equipment (e.g., cooling 

systems, transformers, engines, pumps, boilers, steam vents, paging systems, construction and 

material-handling equipment, and vehicles). Most INL industrial facilities are far enough from the site 

boundary that noise from these sources is either unmeasurable or barely distinguishable from background 

levels at the site boundary (DOE 2002d:4-69). 

Existing INL-related noises of public significance result from the transportation of people and materials to 

and from the site and in town facilities via buses, trucks, private vehicles, and freight trains. Noise 

measurements along U.S. Route 20, about 15 meters (50 feet) from the roadway, indicate that traffic 

sound levels range from 64 to 86 dBA and that the primary source is buses (71 to 80 dBA). While few 

people reside within 15 meters (50 feet) of the roadway, INL traffic noise might be objectionable to 

members of the public residing near principal highways or busy bus routes. Noise levels along these 

routes may have decreased somewhat with reductions in employment and bus service at INL over the last 

few years. The acoustic environment along the INL site boundary is typical of a rural location removed 

from traffic noise; the average day-night sound level is in the range of 35 to 50 dBA. Playas and remote 

lava flows at INL are exposed to low ambient sound levels in the range of 35 to 40 dBA 

(Leonard 1993:3-18–3-21). Except for the prohibition of nuisance noise, neither the State of Idaho nor 

local governments have established regulations that specify acceptable community noise levels applicable 

to INL. It is expected that, for most residences near INL, day-night average sound levels are compatible 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–80

with residential land use, although noise levels may be higher than 65 dBA for some residences along 

major roadways. 

3.5.5 Ecological Resources 

3.5.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

INL lies in a cool desert ecosystem dominated by some of the best-condition shrub-steppe communities in 

the United States. Most land within the site is relatively undisturbed and provides important habitat for 

species native to the region. Facilities and operating areas occupy 2 percent of INL; approximately 

60 percent of the area on the periphery of the site is grazed by sheep and cattle. Although sagebrush 

communities occupy about 90 percent of INL, a total of 11 plant communities have been identified. 

Vegetation and habitat on INL may be grouped into six types: shrub-steppe; juniper woodlands; 

grasslands; modified ephemeral playas, bare ground, and disturbed areas; lava; and wetland-like areas. 

More than 90 percent of INL falls into the shrub-steppe vegetation type (DOE 2002d:4-58). 

INL supports numerous animal species, including 46 mammals, 204 birds, 10 reptiles, 2 amphibians, and 

740 insects (DOE 2002d:4-62). Common animals on the site include the short-horned lizard, Great Basin 

gopher snake, sage sparrow, Townsend’s ground squirrel, and black-tailed jackrabbit. Important game 

animals include the greater sage grouse, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. During some winters, 4,500 to 

6,000 pronghorn, or about 30 percent of Idaho’s total pronghorn population, may be found at INL. 

Although pronghorn may be found across INL at any time of the year, their important wintering areas are 

in the northeastern portion of the site, the area of the Big Lost River sinks, the west-central portion of the 

site along the Big Lost River, and the south-central portion of the site. Numerous raptors, such as the 

golden eagle and prairie falcon, as well as carnivores, such as the coyote and bobcat, are also found at 

INL. A variety of migratory birds have been found at INL (DOE 2002c:4-136, 4-138). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

Land near the proposed mercury storage facility at RWMC is disturbed. Species occurring in this area 

would be restricted to those capable of existing with human disturbances. Likely mammals include the 

coyote, yellow-bellied marmot, and badger, while likely birds include the horned lark, western 

meadowlark, and sage thrasher. 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

Similar to RWMC, the land surrounding the proposed mercury storage facility at INTEC is also disturbed 

and developed. Species occurring at INTEC are also expected to be similar to those found at RWMC. 

3.5.5.2 Wetlands 

National wetland inventory maps have been completed by USFWS for most of INL. These maps indicate 

that there are 55 hectares (135 acres) of wetland areas within INL. The primary wetland areas are 

associated with the Big Lost River and the river’s spreading areas and sinks, although smaller (less than 

about 0.4 hectares [1 acre]), isolated wetlands also occur. Wetlands associated with Big Lost River are 

classified as riverine/intermittent, indicating a defined stream channel with flowing water during only part 

of the year. The only areas of jurisdictional wetlands are the Big Lost River sinks (DOE 2002c:4-138; 

O’Rourke 2006:21). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex and Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

No wetlands are found within either the RWMC or INTEC areas. The nearest wetlands are associated 

with the riparian zones of the Big Lost River, located about 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) to the northwest of 

RWMC and less then 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) to the northwest of INTEC. 
Affected Environment 

3–81

3.5.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic habitat at INL is limited to the Big Lost River, the Little Lost River, Birch Creek, and a number 

of liquid waste disposal ponds. All three streams are intermittent and drain into four sinks in the 

north-central part of the site. Six species of fish have been observed within water bodies on site. Species 

observed in the Big Lost River include brook trout, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, speckled dace, 

shorthead sculpin, and kokanee salmon. The Little Lost River and Birch Creek enter the site only during 

periods of high flow. The liquid waste disposal ponds at INL, while considered aquatic habitat, do not 

support fish (DOE 2002c:4-138). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex

Aquatic resources found within the boundary of RWMC are limited to drainage basins, evaporation 

ponds, and other manmade structures. Although usually dry, the Big Lost River, located about 

2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) to the northwest of the facility, is the closest aquatic resource. 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

Aquatic resources found within the boundaries of INTEC are also limited to drainage basins, evaporation 

ponds, and other manmade structures. During wet years, the Big Lost River flows along the northwestern 

corner of INTEC but is located outside of the facility boundary. 

3.5.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

With the delisting of the gray wolf as an experimental, nonessential population in Idaho, no listed, 

proposed, or candidate species and no proposed or designated critical habitat are currently known to occur 

in the INL area (Foss 2009). However, the bald eagle is listed as threatened by the state (IFG 2009). 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex and Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

Due to the developed nature of the land at RWMC and INTEC, no special status species are expected to 

be in the vicinity of the proposed mercury storage facilities. 

3.5.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

INL has a well-documented record of cultural and paleontological resources due in part to a longstanding 

Cultural Resource Management Program outlined in the Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource 

Management Plan (DOE 2009f) and adopted by a programmatic agreement between DOE’s Idaho 

Operations Office, the Idaho SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Past surveys 

have encompassed 8 to 10 percent of INL. These surveys have identified more than 2,200 prehistoric and 

historic archaeological resources and yielded an inventory of more than 200 DOE-administered buildings 

potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. In addition, consultations with local Shoshone-Bannock 

tribal members have served to identify traditional cultural properties. 

Cultural sites were often occupied continuously or intermittently over substantial timespans. For this 

reason, a single location may have been used during both prehistoric and historic periods. In the 

discussions that follow, the numbers of prehistoric and historic resources are presented. The sum of these 

resources, however, may be greater than the total number of sites identified due to the dual-use history of 

various sites. 

3.5.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

Approximately 1,980 prehistoric archaeological resources have been identified at INL (DOE 2005c). 

Most of the prehistoric sites are lithic scatters or locations. Resources appear to be concentrated along 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–82

Big Lost River and Birch Creek, atop buttes, and within craters or caves. These include residential bases; 

campsites; caves; hunting blinds; rock alignments; and limited-activity locations, such as lithic and 

ceramic scatters, hearths, and concentrations of fire-affected rock. Most sites at INL have not been 

formally evaluated for nomination to the NRHP, but are considered to be potentially eligible. Given the 

rather high density of prehistoric sites at INL, additional sites are likely to be identified as surveys 

continue (DOE 2002c:4-140). 

There have been no prehistoric sites identified within the RWMC or INTEC areas. 

3.5.6.2 Historic Resources 

Approximately 200 historic archaeological sites are known to exist at INL, and at least 200 historic 

architectural properties have been identified during surveys of nearly 500 buildings administered by the 

Idaho Operations Office (DOE 2005c). These resources represent European-American activities such as 

fur trapping and trading, immigration, transportation, mining, agriculture, and homesteading, as well as 

more-recent military, scientific, and engineering research and development activities. Examples of 

historic resources include Goodale’s Cutoff (a spur of the Oregon Trail), remnants of homesteads and 

ranches, irrigation canals, and a variety of structures from the World War II era. 

The Experimental Breeder Reactor I, the first reactor to achieve a self-sustaining chain reaction using 

plutonium instead of uranium as the principal fuel component, is listed in the NRHP and is designated as 

a National Historic Landmark. Many other INL structures built between 1949 and 1974 are considered 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of their exceptional scientific and engineering significance and 

their major role in the development of nuclear science and engineering since World War II. Additional 

historic sites are likely to exist in unsurveyed portions of INL (DOE 2002c:4-141). 

In 2007, 40 known resources, five projects, and three ground disturbing activities were reviewed at INL 

for compliance with its Cultural Resource Management Plan. There were no adverse effects on historic 

properties during the 2007 timeframe. Several U.S. Navy–built brick buildings from the World War II 

period were monitored to update their documented condition. No new negotiations with the SHPO were 

required for 2007 as no new properties not previously identified and negotiated have been impacted 

(DOE 2008b:2.11). 

There have been no historic resources identified within the RWMC or INTEC areas. 

3.5.6.3 American Indian Resources 

American Indian resources at INL are associated with the two groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers that 

used the region at the time of European-American contact: the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes. Both of 

these used the area that now encompasses INL as they harvested plant and animal resources and obsidian 

from Big Southern Butte and Howe Point. Because the INL site is considered part of the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ ancestral homeland, it contains many localities that are important for 

traditional, cultural, educational, and religious reasons. These include not only prehistoric archaeological 

sites that are important in the context of a religious or cultural heritage, but also features of the natural 

landscape and air, plant, water, and animal resources that have special significance (DOE 2002c:4-141). 

DOE entered into an Agreement in Principle with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in 2002. In addition to 

defining a broad range of interests and working relationships and reaffirming the tribes’ rights under the 

Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868, the agreement devotes particular attention to the management of INL 

cultural resources. Its overall intent is to foster confidence on the part of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

that INL cultural resources are managed in a spirit of protection and stewardship. To achieve this, the 

agreement provides for routine tribal participation in new and ongoing INL projects, with an open 
Affected Environment 

3–83

invitation to comment on, visit, observe, and assist in cultural resource management work (DOE 2009f; 

Ringe Pace et al. 2005). 

DOE allows pre-approved access to certain areas of INL to Shoshone-Bannock tribal members for 

activities related to maintenance of tribal heritage, education of tribal members, and exercise of traditional 

cultural activities (IMNH 1991:5.7-28). 

In 2007, several sites of tribal sensitivity were monitored with tribal participation. Sites included caves, 

buttes, craters, and locations of known remains. No evidence of unauthorized human activity was 

observed; details of sites are kept to a minimum to ensure protection of ancestral properties and resources 

(DOE 2007c:2.12). 

There have been no American Indian resources identified within the RWMC or INTEC areas. 

3.5.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

The region encompassing INL also has abundant and varied paleontological resources, including plant, 

vertebrate, and invertebrate remains in soils and lake and river sediments and organic materials found in 

caves and archaeological sites. Fossils of several time periods, from ancient marine invertebrates in 

limestone to middens and trees, have been found near and within INL boundaries. Fossils of interest from 

the Pleistocene and Holocene have been recovered from lake, marsh, and river deposits of the Snake and 

Lost River systems (DOE 2009f:15). 

Vertebrate fossils recovered from the Big Lost River floodplain consist of isolated bones and teeth from 

large mammals of the Pleistocene epoch, or Ice Age. These fossils were discovered during excavations 

and well-drilling operations. Fossils have been recorded in the vicinity of the Naval Reactors Facility. 

Occasional skeletal elements of fossil mammoth, horse, and camel have been retrieved from the Big Lost 

River diversion dam and the RWMC on the southwestern side of the INL site and from river and alluvial 

fan gravels and Lake Terreton sediments near Test Area North. A mammoth tooth dating from the 

Pleistocene epoch was recovered from the ATRC. In total, 24 paleontological localities have been 

identified at INL (DOE 2002d:4-10). 

There have been no paleontological resources identified within the RWMC or INTEC areas. 

3.5.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of INL’s sitewide infrastructure characteristics 

is presented in Table 3–12. 

3.5.7.1 Ground Transportation 

INL is located in eastern Idaho between the city of Arco and the city of Idaho Falls. U.S. Routes 20 

and 26 are the main access routes to the southern portion of the site. U.S. Route 26 intersects with 

U.S. Route 20 within the south-central part of INL. Idaho State Routes 22, 28, and 33 pass through the 

northern portion of INL. Rail service is provided by the Union Pacific Railroad, whose tracks enter the 

INL site from the south. A DOE rail spur runs south to north through INTEC, the Central Facilities Area, 

and the Naval Reactors Facility portions of INL. There are 23 kilometers (14 miles) of railroad track at 

INL (DOE 2005b). 

RWMC and INTEC can be accessed from U.S. Routes 20 and 26. As stated, a DOE rail spur runs south 

to north through INTEC (DOE 2005b). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–84

Table 3–12. Idaho National Laboratory Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers)

Roads 769a 769a

Railroads 23 23 

Electricity

Energy consumption (megawatt-hours per year) 197,000 481,800b

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) (c) (c) 

Fuel oil (liters per year) 8,404,000 (e) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) 3,262,000d (e) 

Gasoline (liters per year) 115,000d (e) 

Propane (liters per year) 1,087,000 (e) 

Water (liters per year) 1,061,000,000f 43,000,000,000g

a Includes 441 kilometers of internal paved roads and 327 kilometers of Federal and state highways. 

b Assumes power demand up to 1.320 megawatts per year. 

c Fuel resource not used on site. 

d Includes fleet and nonfleet vehicles. 

e Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

f Total water pumped to and used at Idaho National Laboratory regardless of treatment or credit for water returned to the 

aquifer. 

g Water right allocation. 

Note: All values based on reported use in fiscal year 2008. To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to 

cubic feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, by 0.26417. 

Source: Fossum and Ischay 2009; INL 2009c. 

3.5.7.2 Electricity 

Electricity is supplied to INL by the Idaho Power Company at the site and Idaho Falls Power in town. 

The Idaho Power Company allows for power demand of up to 45 megawatts, which can be increased to 

55 megawatts by notifying the company in advance. Power demand above 55 megawatts is possible but 

would have to be negotiated with Idaho Power. Idaho Power transmits electricity to INL via a 

230-kilovolt line to the Antelope Substation, which is owned by PacifiCorp (Utah Power Company). 

PacifiCorp also has transmission lines to this substation, which provide backup in case of problems with 

the Idaho Power system. At the Antelope Substation, the voltage is dropped to 138 kilovolts, and then 

transmitted to the DOE-owned Scoville Substation via two redundant feeders. The INL transmission 

system is a 138-kilovolt, 105-kilometer (65-mile) loop configuration that encompasses seven substations, 

where the power is reduced to distribution voltages for use at the various INL facilities. The loop allows 

for a redundant power feed to all substations and facilities (DOE 2005b:3-9). A separate 10-kilometer 

(6.2-mile) 138-kilovolt line feeds the RWMC area with a capacity in excess of 20 megawatts 

(O’Rourke 2006:15). 

Annual electricity consumption at the site as a whole was 197,000 megawatt-hours per year in fiscal 

year 2008. INL electrical capacity was 481,800 megawatt-hours per year based on the contract load limit 

of 55 megawatts per 8,760 hours. Annual electrical consumption at INTEC was 46,270 megawatt-hours, 

while that at RWMC was 3,000 megawatt-hours (INL 2009c). 

3.5.7.3 Fuel 

Fuel consumed at INL includes fuel oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and propane. All fuels are transported to the 

site for use. Fuel storage is provided for each facility, and the inventories are restocked as necessary 

(DOE 2005b). There are no gas or oil lines on the INL site (O’Rourke 2006:15). 
Affected Environment 

3–85

In fiscal year 2008, the annual consumption of fuel oil at INL was about 8 million liters 

(2 million gallons); diesel fuel consumption was about 3.3 million liters (872,000 gallons); gasoline 

consumption was 115,000 liters (30,000 gallons); and propane consumption was about 1.1 million liters 

(291,000 gallons) (INL 2009c). 

Fuel consumption at INTEC includes fuel oil, diesel fuel, and propane. The annual consumption of fuel 

oil at INTEC in fiscal year 2008 was about 3.5 million liters (925,000 gallons); diesel fuel consumption 

was about 33,000 liters (8,700 gallons); and propane consumption was about 151,000 liters 

(40,000 gallons). Fuel consumption at RWMC was not reported (INL 2009c). 

3.5.7.4 Water 

The Snake River Plain Aquifer is the source of all water used at INL. The water is provided by a 

DOE-administered system of about 30 wells, together with pumps and storage tanks. DOE holds the 

Federal Reserved Water Right of 43 billion liters (11.4 billion gallons) per year for the site 

(DOE 2002d:4-79). While all water pumped from the aquifer can be treated and used as potable water, 

only a portion is actually so treated and used. All remaining water is considered raw water and is used for 

a variety of industrial and process purposes. Most of this raw water usage is returned to the aquifer 

through the use of rapid infiltration ponds and settling ponds (Fossum and Ischay 2009). 

INL reported a total of 3.8 billion liters (1 billion gallons) of water use during fiscal year 2007 (Fossum 

and Ischay 2009). INL site capacity is 43 billion liters (11.4 billion gallons), which includes a water right 

allocation (DOE 2002d). 

Water use at INTEC was reported as 500 million liters (132 million gallons), in fiscal year 2007, while 

that at RWMC was 40 million liters (10.6 million gallons) (Fossum and Ischay 2009). 

3.5.8 Waste Management 

As a function of routine site activity and ongoing remediation efforts, INL manages the following types of 

waste: HLW, TRU waste, LLW, MLLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. The waste is 

managed using appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal technologies, in compliance with all 

applicable Federal and state statutes and DOE orders (DOE 2005c:3-45). 

Waste generation rates and the inventory of stored waste from routine activities at INL are provided in 

Table 3–13. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–86

Table 3–13. Waste Generation Rates and Inventories at Idaho National Laboratory, 

Fiscal Year 2009 

Waste Type 

Generation Rate 

(cubic meters)a

Inventory 

(cubic meters)b

Transuranic 21c 36,066c, d, e

Low-Level Radioactive 2,098e 2,898e

Mixed Low-Level Radioactive 238e 3,373e

Hazardous 72e 1,027e

Nonhazardous 

Liquid 2,642,966f Not applicableg

Solid 30,208e, h Not applicableg

a As of fiscal year 2009. 

b As of September 30, 2009. 

c Transuranic waste includes alpha low-level radioactive waste. 

d Transuranic waste inventory based on 65,000 cubic meters, which was reduced by 28,934 cubic meters that was shipped to the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico to date. Volume does not include the buried transuranic waste, which is estimated 

at 62,000 cubic meters. 

e Excludes Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act waste generation, which is nonrecurring. 

f Includes both industrial and sanitary waste volumes. 

g Generally, nonhazardous wastes are not held in long-term storage. 

h Calendar year 2008 data. 

Note: To convert cubic meters to cubic yards, multiply by 1.308. 

Source: Perry 2009. 

3.5.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

High-Level Radioactive Waste 

INL no longer generates liquid HLW. Liquid HLW from past site operations has been blended and 

treated, through a fluidized bed technology called calcination, to produce granular calcine. 

Approximately 4,400 cubic meters (5,750 cubic yards) of HLW calcine are stored in stainless steel bins 

that are housed in concrete vaults at INTEC. The remaining 3,406,000 liters (900,000 gallons) of 

sodium-bearing liquid waste have been consolidated into three underground tanks in the tank farm for 

interim storage (DOE 2002d:2-16). 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

INL currently operates a Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility at the Materials and Fuels 

Complex that can receive low-level radioactive liquids from other complex facilities. Routine generators 

such as the Fuel Conditioning Facility and the Hot Fuel Examination Facility are pumped directly to the 

Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, but other facilities can ship liquids to the facility. There is 

currently an offsite contract for liquid LLW treatment (DOE 2005c:3-47). 

Solid LLW is stored temporarily at generator facilities. In 2009, approximately 2,098 cubic meters 

(2,744 cubic yards) of solid LLW was generated at INL (see Table 3–13). 

Transuranic Waste 

Approximately 21 cubic meters (27.5 cubic yards) of solid TRU waste is generated at INL each year. 

This newly generated waste is currently being stored at the RWMC for processing at the Advanced Mixed 

Waste Treatment Project and eventual shipment to WIPP for disposal (DOE 2005c:3-47). 
Affected Environment 

3–87

Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

About 3,373 cubic meters (4,412 cubic yards) of MLLW is inventoried at INL. In addition to the waste in 

the site inventory, approximately 238 cubic meters (311 cubic yards) of MLLW is generated annually 

(Perry 2009), but this does not include any waste from operations at the Advanced Mixed Waste 

Treatment Project. The Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project could add another 378 cubic meters 

(494 cubic yards) of MLLW to the annual generation rate, primarily from the generation of blowdown 

salts and from high-efficiency particulate air filters (DOE 1999c). MLLW, including PCB–contaminated 

LLW, is stored at several onsite areas awaiting the development of treatment methods. 

Hazardous Waste 

Approximately 1 percent of the total waste generated at INL (not including liquid nonhazardous waste) is 

hazardous waste. The hazardous waste stream consists of a variety of materials, including mercury, 

chromate, lead, paint solvents, and lab equipment (DOE 2005c:109). The site waste generator normally 

holds hazardous waste in a temporary accumulation area until it is shipped directly to the offsite 

commercial treatment facility. 

Nonhazardous Waste 

Approximately 90 percent of the solid waste generated at INL is classified as industrial waste and is 

disposed of on site in a landfill complex in the Central Facilities Area or off site at the Bonneville County 

Landfill. The onsite landfill is 4.9 hectares (12 acres), but it is being expanded by 91 hectares (225 acres) 

to provide capacity for at least 30 years. The average annual volume of waste disposed of from 

2000 through 2004 was approximately 40,000 cubic meters (52,000 cubic yards) (DOE 2005c:109). 

Sewage is disposed of in surface impoundments in accordance with terms of the October 7, 1992, consent 

order (DOE 2005d). Wastewater in the impoundments is allowed to evaporate, and the resulting sludge is 

placed in the landfill. 

3.5.8.2 Waste Minimization 

INL has an active Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program to reduce the total amount of 

waste generated and disposed of. This is accomplished by eliminating waste through source reduction or 

material substitution; by recycling potential waste materials that cannot be minimized or eliminated; and 

by treating all waste that is generated to reduce its volume, toxicity, or mobility prior to storage or 

disposal. In 2002, INL reported 38 pollution prevention projects, which resulted in a waste reduction of 

13,906 metric tons (15,329 tons) (DOE 2005c:3-48). 

3.5.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.5.9.1 Normal Operations 

Activities at INL have the potential to release small quantities of hazardous chemicals and radionuclides 

to the environment. These releases could result in exposures of members of the public to concentrations 

of chemicals or radionuclides. Types and quantities of radionuclides released from INL operations in 

2007 are listed in the Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2007

(DOE 2008b:4-4–4-10). The doses to the public resulting from these releases are also discussed. These 

doses from INL fall within the radiological limits given in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of 

the Public and the Environment, and are much lower than those from background radiation 

(DOE 2008b:8.3). 

Adverse health impacts on the public are minimized through administrative and design controls to 

decrease hazardous chemical releases to the environment and to achieve compliance with permit 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–88

requirements. The effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use of monitoring information 

and inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts on the public may occur during normal operations 

at INL via inhalation of air containing hazardous chemicals released to the atmosphere by INL operations. 

Risks to public health from ingestion of contaminated drinking water or direct exposure are potential 

pathways; the water pathway is considered an unlikely source of exposure at INL because no surface 

water flows off the site and radioactive contaminants have not been found in drinking water 

(DOE 2008b:8.2, 8.3). 

Chemical exposure pathways to INL workers during normal operations may include inhalation, drinking 

INL potable water, and physical contact with hazardous materials associated with work assignments. 

Workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through appropriate training, personal 

protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. INL workers are also protected by 

adherence to Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA occupational standards that limit 

atmospheric and drinking water concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Monitoring that 

reflects the frequency and amount of chemicals used in the operational processes ensures that these 

standards are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements ensure that conditions in the workplace are 

as free as possible from recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause illness or physical harm. 

Epidemiological studies for INL are summarized in the Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (DOE 2009c:3-159–3-160). 

In 1997, DOE began providing free medical screening for former and current workers at certain DOE 

sites, including INL. The goal of this program, which is ongoing, is to detect work-related illnesses at an 

early stage, when medical intervention may be helpful. It also helps workers determine if a current health 

condition is the result of work-related exposure (WHPP 2008). 

The infrastructure currently available in the proposed mercury storage warehouses at RWMC consists of 

concrete floors and sheet metal roofing. The buildings are vented and there is a dry pipe fire suppression 

system and chemical fire extinguishers (INL 2009d:1). 

3.5.9.2 Facility Accidents 

Since the early 1950s there have been eight criticality accidents at INL (DOE 2002d:4-150). These 

accidents occurred during processing, control rod maintenance, critical experiment setups, and intentional 

destructive power excursions. Accidents connected with experiments typically involved power 

excursions that were significantly larger than expected. The accidents at the site resulted in various levels 

of radiation exposure to the involved workers and in impacts on equipment ranging from little or no 

damage to total loss. Exposure of the public from these accidents was minimal. 

As described in the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1996a), DOE conducted a historical dose evaluation study to 

estimate the offsite radiation doses for the entire operating history of INL (Wenzel, Peterson, and 

Dickson 1993). Radiological releases resulted from a variety of tests and experiments, as well as a few 

accidents. The study concluded that the offsite radiation doses from operations and accidents were small 

compared with doses from background radiation. Releases have declined in frequency and size since the 

time of the study; in fact, for more than a decade of INL operation, there have been no serious unplanned 

releases of radioactivity or other hazardous substances. 

Incidents with worker health implications over the period from 2000 through 2006, as identified through 

Occurrence Reporting and Processing System records (DOE 2007a), include exposures to asbestos, 

crystalline silica, high noise levels, iron oxide, manganese, plutonium, and unknown vapors/fumes. 
Affected Environment 

3–89

Each DOE site, including INL, has established an Emergency Management Program that would be 

activated in the event of an accident. This program was developed and is maintained to ensure adequate 

response to most accident conditions and to provide response efforts for accidents not specifically 

considered. The Emergency Management Program includes emergency planning, training, preparedness, 

and response. 

Government agencies whose plans are interrelated with the INL Emergency Plan for Action include the 

State of Idaho; Bingham, Bonneville, Butte, Clark, and Jefferson Counties; the U.S. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; and the Fort Hall Reservation. INL contractors are responsible for responding to emergencies at 

their facilities. Specifically, the Emergency Action Director is responsible for recognition, classification, 

notification, and protective action recommendations. At INL, emergency preparedness resources include 

fire protection from onsite and offsite locations and radiological and hazardous chemical material 

response. Emergency response facilities include an emergency control center at each facility, at the INL 

Warning Communication Center, and at the INL Site Emergency Operations Center. Seven INL medical 

facilities are available to provide routine and emergency service. In addition, DOE has specified actions 

to be taken at all DOE sites to implement lessons learned from the emergency response to an accidental 

explosion at Hanford in May 1997 (DOE 2005b:3-43). 

3.5.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and radioactive 

materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incident-free) 

transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive or 

radioactive materials. Collision rates for transportation in Idaho and risks related to normal radioactive 

transportation to INL are discussed in the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition 

Environmental Impact Statement. Collective doses for offsite incident-free radioactive materials 

transportation were estimated to correspond to 0.70 latent cancer fatalities for the general population 

(DOE 2002d:4-66–4-68). 

3.5.10 Socioeconomics 

INL is located in southeastern Idaho, approximately 39 kilometers (24 miles) west of Idaho Falls. Over 

90 percent of people employed at INL reside in four counties: Bannock, Bingham, Bonneville, and 

Jefferson. Therefore, these four counties are identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis. In 

2008, INL employed 8,485 persons (Wiser 2008). 

3.5.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the ROI increased by approximately 14 percent to 123,680. By 

July 2009 the unemployment rate of the ROI was 6.5 percent, which was lower than the unemployment 

rate for Idaho (8.3 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.5.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the four-county ROI was 247,710. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 13 percent, compared with 18 percent growth throughout the state of Idaho 

(DOC 2009b). The percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 was 30 percent; women ages 

18 to 39 composed 15 percent (DOC 2009c). Young children and pregnant women are considered to be 

among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. There were 92,302 housing units in the 

ROI in 2007 (DOC 2008), 69 percent of which were owner occupied, 24.3 percent were renter occupied, 

and 6.9 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–90

3.5.10.3 Local Transportation 

There are two interstate highways in the INL region. The primary north-south route is Interstate 15, 

which is located approximately 39 kilometers (24 miles) east of the site near Idaho Falls. Interstate 15 

intersects Interstate 86, the primary route to points west, approximately 64 kilometers (40 miles) south in 

Pocatello. Access routes to the southern portion of the site are provided by U.S. Routes 20 and 26. State 

Route 33 provides access to the northern portion of INL. In 2007, the average annual daily traffic along 

the segment of U.S. Route 20 most accessible to the RWMC was 2,200 vehicles per day. The average 

annual daily traffic for the segment of State Route 33 most accessible to the INTEC was 620 vehicles per 

day (ITD 2008). Rail access is provided to the southern portion of INL by the Mackay Branch of the 

Union Pacific Railroad. The Scoville Spur connects the Mackay Branch to the Union Pacific main line, 

the railroad’s primary artery to the northwest (INL 2009a:1-18). There are two regional airports near INL 

with passenger and cargo service. The closest is the Idaho Falls Regional Airport, approximately 

39 kilometers (24 miles) to the east, followed by the Pocatello Regional Airport, approximately 

64 kilometers (40 miles) to the southeast. 

3.5.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage locations at INL encompasses parts of two 

counties in Idaho: Bingham and Butte. Figure 3–10 shows populations residing in the two-county area, as 

reported in the 1990 and 2000 censuses (DOC 2009d, 2009e). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show 

populations in 1990, while the darker bars show those in 2000. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the 

total population of Bingham and Butte Counties increased by approximately 10 percent to 44,634; the 

minority population increased by approximately 45 percent to 9,104; and the low-income population 

decreased by 9 percent to 5,659. Demographic data from the 2000 census show that the population selfidentified as “some other race” (meaning those who provided write-in entries such as Mexican, Puerto 

Rican, or Cuban) residing in the two-county area composed approximately 37 percent of the county’s 

total minority population, while those identified as American Indian and Alaska Native composed 

31 percent of the total minority population. Persons who declared that they are of Hispanic or Latino 

origin are included in the “total Hispanic” population, regardless of race. They composed approximately 

62 percent of the total minority population residing in Bingham and Butte Counties in 2000. 
Affected Environment 

3–91

Figure 3–10. Populations Residing in the Two-County Area Surrounding 

Idaho National Laboratory in 1990 and 2000 

Data for Butte and Bingham Counties from the 2007 ACS 1-Year Estimates are unavailable due to a 

population threshold of 65,000 people. Data for Butte County from the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates

are unavailable due to a population threshold of 20,000 people. The Census Bureau does include 

Bingham County in the 2005–2007ACS 3-Year Estimates; however, detailed demographic data of race 

and Hispanic origin for Bingham County are unavailable due to an insufficient number of sample cases. 

According to the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates, the total population of Bingham County increased by 

3 percent since 2000 to 43,148. During this time, the number of low-income individuals in the county 

increased by 10 percent to 5,628.

Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

Approximately 255 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the RWMC in 2000 (DOC 2009d). 

This area included an estimated 12 percent minority and 25 percent low-income population. By 

comparison, Bingham and Butte Counties included a 20 percent minority and 13 percent low-income 

population, and Idaho included a 12 percent minority and 12 percent low-income population. There are 

four census block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the RWMC, none 

of which contained a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. 

Figure 3–11 shows the cumulative populations living at a given distance from the RWMC. The total 

population living within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the RWMC is primarily concentrated to the south 

and east along the outskirts of Idaho Falls and Blackfoot. The low-income population is concentrated 

more to the southwest, toward Atomic City. No one resides within approximately 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the RWMC (DOC 2009d). The Fort Hall Reservation is located approximately 71 kilometers 

(44 miles) southeast of the RWMC. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–92

Figure 3–11. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of the 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex in 2000 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 

Approximately 201 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of INTEC in 2000 (DOC 2009d). This 

area included an estimated 13 percent minority and 19 percent low-income population. By comparison, 

Bingham and Butte Counties included a 20 percent minority and 13 percent low-income population, and 

Idaho included a 12 percent minority and 12 percent low-income population. There are four census block 

groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding INTEC, none of which contained a 

disproportionately high amount of minority or low-income individuals. Figure 3–12 shows the 

cumulative populations living at a given distance from INTEC at INL. The total population living within 

16 kilometers (10 miles) of INTEC is primarily concentrated to the south and east along the outskirts of 

Idaho Falls and Blackfoot. The low-income population is concentrated more to the southwest, toward 

Atomic City. No one resides within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the INTEC (DOC 2009d). 

The Fort Hall Reservation is located approximately 69 kilometers (43 miles) southeast of INTEC. 
Affected Environment 

3–93

Figure 3–12. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of the 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center in 2000 

3.6 KANSAS CITY PLANT 

3.6.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.6.1.1 Land Use 

KCP occupies approximately 55 hectares (136 acres) of the 125-hectare (310-acre) Bannister Federal 

Complex, which is located within the corporate city limits of Kansas City, Missouri, approximately 

13 kilometers (8 miles) south of the city center (GSA and NNSA 2008:21). The complex is bordered on 

the east by the Blue River and Blue River Road, on the south by Bannister Road and Indian Creek, on the 

west by Troost Avenue, and on the north by a wooded bluff and parkland. KCP is located on a very 

compact, highly developed site that it shares with other Federal agencies, including the U.S. General 

Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Marine Corps. The Federal complex is zoned for heavy 

industry. KCP currently manufactures mechanical, plastic, and other nonnuclear components of nuclear 

weapons and provides short term (less than 90 days) storage for various hazardous materials and wastes, 

including toxic metals (DOE 2006c:1, 2; NNSA 2008a:55). 

The Bannister Federal Complex has 53 buildings, 38 of which are used by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) and 15 by GSA. Many buildings are contiguous. There are no residences within 

and no agricultural activities or farmlands at the Bannister Federal Complex (GSA and NNSA 2008:21). 

The KCP portion of the Bannister Federal Complex consists of the large Main Manufacturing Building, 

an associated support building, warehouse space, and an office building (NNSA 2008a:55). In 2008, 

GSA and NNSA evaluated the proposed relocation of NNSA operations from the Bannister Federal 

Complex to a new facility approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) south of the existing plant that would 

better accommodate the continued consolidation of NNSA’s nonnuclear component production and 

procurement activities. Following this proposed relocation, the existing facilities at the Bannister Federal 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–94

Complex could be used for other industrial purposes, sold, and/or undergo redevelopment (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:5, 12, 103). 

The adjoining property is zoned for residential use and for some commercial tracts. There are also 

public-use recreation areas along the eastern and northern sides of the complex (DOE 2006c:1, 2). The 

surrounding area is further characterized by single- and multiple-family dwellings, commercial 

establishments, industrial districts, and public-use lands (NNSA 2008a:55). 

3.6.1.2 Visual Resources 

KCP and the Bannister Federal Complex are compactly developed with limited open space, consistent 

with BLM’s VRM Class IV. Class IV includes areas in which major modifications to the character of the 

landscape have occurred and are the dominant features of the view and the major focus of viewer 

attention (DOI 1986:App. 2). 

The viewshed around KCP is urban in nature, consisting mainly of residential units, public recreational 

space, and commercial, industrial, or vacant properties (DOE 1996c:4-131). This viewshed is generally 

consistent with VRM Class III (where visible changes to the character of the landscape are moderate and 

could attract the attention of the casual observer) and Class IV. 

3.6.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.6.2.1 Geology 

KCP is located in the Glaciated Plains section of the Central Lowland physiographic province, which is 

part of the Central Stable Region (DOE 1996c:4-142). The site is fairly level, averaging around 

244 meters (800 feet) above mean sea level. Blue River alluvium comprises the surficial strata 

underlying KCP. The alluvium is approximately 12 to 14 meters (40 to 45 feet) thick. Bedrock 

immediately underlying the alluvium consists of shales and sandstones of the Pleasanton Group of 

Pennsylvanian age. The overlying Kansas City Group has been eroded away beneath the site, and the 

erosional surface of the Pleasanton Group is in direct contact with the alluvium and slopes gently to the 

east towards the Blue River (GSA and NNSA 2008:23). 

The Knobtown Sandstone member of the Pleasanton Group underlies the alluvium across the central 

portion of the Bannister Federal Complex. This sandstone is a well-sorted, very fine-grained, wellcemented unit of marine origin. Knobtown Sandstone ranges in thickness from approximately 1.5 to 

3 meters (5 to 10 feet) and is present in the upper 9 meters (30 feet) of the Pleasanton Group, except 

where it has been removed by Quaternary erosion. The surrounding unnamed shales of the Pleasanton 

Group show transitional features due to their formation in nearshore sands to offshore muds. 

Approximately 6 meters (20 feet) of shale are present over the underlying Hepler Sandstone member, 

with at least 6 meters (20 feet) of shales present below the Hepler, based on logs of historical bedrock 

wells at the facility (GSA and NNSA 2008:23, 24). 

Geologic resources are limited in the immediate vicinity of the site as the area is developed. Construction 

sand and gravel is produced from sites across Jackson County, and the site is located within Missouri’s 

western heavy-oil-producing region (MDNR 2001). 

3.6.2.2 Soils 

Due to the extensive amount of construction on the Bannister Federal Complex, native soils are rare or 

nonexistent across the site. In many parts of KCP, fill material has been added over the years and 

comprises the near-surface material (GSA and NNSA 2008:24). Soil unit mapping by the NRCS denotes 

the site as largely within the Urban Land, Bottomland, 0 to 3 Percent Slopes Unit. This unit denotes areas 

comprising nearly 100 percent urban land on alluvium parent material (NRCS 2009c). 
Affected Environment 

3–95

Three SWMUs, addressed by DOE as a part of environmental restoration activities performed under 

RCRA, are located within potential reuse areas at the site. In addition, Building 50, currently being 

investigated by GSA for contaminant releases, is also located in areas that could be subject to GSA reuse. 

SWMU 18 (North Lot) is an area of the north parking lot north of Building 1 that was used to store drums 

and equipment. However, environmental investigations of SWMU 18 revealed no evidence of 

contamination. As a result, EPA granted a “No Further Action” determination for this SWMU. 

SWMU 16 is associated with the Former Sales Building that was razed in 1981 and the area paved with 

asphalt. Degreasing solvents may have been used inside the building while it was used as a storage 

building and may have contributed to groundwater contamination in the area. SWMU 40 is associated 

with the Former Aluminum Chip Handling Building. Metal chips soaked in oil and solvents were stored 

at this site. The building was razed in 1974 and the area paved with asphalt (GSA and NNSA 2008:24). 

Subsurface contamination was identified at SWMUs 16 and 40 during environmental investigations. 

Specifically, groundwater contamination by chlorinated solvents was found during cleanup activities that 

started in 1998. Cleanup activities include the collection of groundwater, treatment in an onsite system, 

and discharge of the treated groundwater to the sanitary sewer. Groundwater in the vicinity of SWMUs 

16 and 40 is captured by building footing tile drains located in the basement of the Main Manufacturing 

Building. This captured groundwater is discharged to sanitary sewer ejector pits that pump to the sanitary 

sewer. Data collected in 1991 indicate that soil contamination at SWMUs 16 and 40 had not been 

detected at levels above site cleanup standards at depths less than approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) 

below land surface. However, the presence of shallow soil contamination cannot be precluded based on 

the limited data collected in 1991. Therefore, excavation in the area of the Former Sales Building and the 

former Aluminum Chip Handling Building may expose workers to pockets of soil contamination. 

Excavations in contaminated soil at KCP are managed through institutional controls implemented as a 

part of the facility’s Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility Part I Permit (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:24, 25). 

Building 50 was constructed in the early- to mid-1950s and was used as a fuel components laboratory for 

jet engine development work and also housed laboratory facilities. There were two aboveground storage 

tanks on the northeast side of the building. Environmental releases from this building are being addressed 

pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between GSA, NNSA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

A number of voluntary environmental investigations have been conducted at Building 50 over the past 

10 years. Releases to soil and groundwater primarily consisting of chlorinated solvents, PCBs, and 

petroleum hydrocarbons, have been documented by these investigations. Based on GSA investigations 

conducted to date, the GSA has concluded that the primary source of VOC contamination at Building 50 

is located near the northeast corner of the building, either just outside or beneath it. This contamination 

has impacted groundwater in the vicinity of the building. Groundwater flows west and south from the 

building. This contaminated groundwater is believed to be captured by building footing tile drains near 

the West Boilerhouse and the Main Manufacturing Building (Building 1). Additional investigatory work 

continues at the site primarily relating to an evaluation of potential indoor air impacts from chlorinated 

solvents and PCBs in the soil. GSA also has concluded that petroleum hydrocarbon contamination exists 

in soils at the site, derived from a former underground tank farm that occupied the area. The tanks have 

been removed and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has stated that no further work with 

regard to petroleum derived from the former tank farm is required. Upon completion of all investigations, 

it is anticipated that regulatory concurrence will be required to formalize the adequacy of work performed 

to date at Building 50. It is expected that institutional controls similar to those already in place for 

NNSA-controlled areas would be implemented for releases at Building 50 (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:25, 26). 

3.6.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

Most of Missouri’s earthquake activity has been concentrated in the southeast corner of the state, which 

lies within the New Madrid seismic zone. In contrast, the northwestern portion of the state and the 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–96

Kansas City area is seismically stable (DOE 1996c:4-143). The written record of earthquakes in Missouri 

prior to the nineteenth century is virtually nonexistent; however, there is geologic evidence that the New 

Madrid seismic zone has had a long history of activity. The New Madrid earthquake sequence of 

1811–1812 ranks as one of the largest in the United States since European settlement. Based on event 

reconstruction, four to perhaps five earthquakes occurred in the period from December 16, 1811, through 

February 7, 1812, with epicenters in northeast Arkansas and near New Madrid, Missouri. The three 

largest shocks produced shaking as high as MMI XI to XI at their epicenters, with estimated magnitudes 

ranging from 7.2 to 8.1. Severe topographic and hydrologic changes were noted near the epicenters. The 

first event was felt distinctly in Washington, D.C., and frightened many people, and was also felt as far 

away as Boston, nearly 1,800 kilometers (1,100 miles) away. Shaking from the events across 

northwestern Missouri and encompassing KCP is estimated to have been in the MMI VI to VII range. 

The New Madrid seismic zone has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811–1812 series, and at 

least 35 earthquakes of MMI V or greater have been recorded in Missouri since 1811. Numerous 

earthquakes originating outside of the state’s boundaries have also affected Missouri (USGS 2009i). 

Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited in this Mercury Storage EIS to 

describe earthquakes and their effects. 

Since 1973, only three earthquakes have been recorded within a radius of 100 kilometers (62 miles) of 

KCP. The closest of these was determined to be non-tectonic in origin. Of the remaining two, the closest 

was a magnitude 3.3 earthquake on May 18, 2005, that was located about 76 kilometers (47 miles) 

southeast of the site. It had an MMI of IV (USGS 2009j). 

Earthquake-produced ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force of acceleration relative to 

that of Earth’s gravity). As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from 

the USGS are used in this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate 

sites. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This 

corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For KCP, the calculated 

PGA is approximately 0.05 g (USGS 2009d). 

3.6.3 Water Resources 

3.6.3.1 Surface Water 

KCP is located on the drainage divide between the Blue River immediately to the east and a major 

tributary stream, Indian Creek, which runs along the southern border of the site complex 

(see Figure 2–19). From the south of Kansas City, the Blue River flows north past the site for some 

24 kilometers (15 miles) to the Missouri River (GSA and NNSA 2008:9, 10, 28). USGS has operated a 

stream gauging station on the Blue River since 1939, which is located on the Bannister Road Bridge just 

to the east of the site. During the period of record, the annual flow of the Blue River has averaged 

4.9 cubic meters (172 cubic feet) per second. In 2007, the average flow was approximately 7.3 cubic 

meters (257 cubic feet) per second (USGS 2009k). 

The site complex is drained by a combination of four NPDES-permitted storm sewer systems, six nonpermitted (i.e., non-industrial) storm sewers, and surface drainage ditches. Selected fire protection system 

test flows, HVAC condensate, and rainwater from building roofs and paved areas drain into a network of 

underground laterals, which connect to storm sewer system mains and then to the outfall areas that empty 

into the Blue River and Indian Creek. Some parking and undeveloped areas within the facility are drained 

through a ditch system along the western, southeastern, and a portion of the northern site boundaries. In 

addition to the two bordering streams, surface waters around the site complex consist of intermittent 

stormwater runoff in the drainage ditches. Sampling by DOE is periodically performed at locations along 

the streams and at the four permitted storm sewer outfalls, in compliance with the NPDES permit (GSA 

and NNSA 2008:28). 
Affected Environment 

3–97

While DOE does not routinely monitor ambient surface-water quality in the Blue River and Indian Creek, 

extensive monitoring data are available. Studies by the USGS have documented water quality 

impairment in the Blue River Basin resulting from intensive urbanization, flood control, and the 

combined effects of nonpoint source pollution on water quality, stream habitat, and aquatic biota. 

Generally, more than one-half of the base flow in the Blue River downstream from the junction with 

Indian Creek originates as wastewater effluent (Wilkison et al. 2005:1, 2). In accordance with state and 

Federal law, the State of Missouri classifies surface waters of the state and designates beneficial uses of 

waters and criteria to protect those uses. The reach of the Blue River from East Bannister Road, 

bordering the site to the north, is designated Class P (i.e., a stream that maintains permanent flow during 

drought conditions). However, the reach from East Bannister Road south and west from the site to the 

Kansas state line is Class “C” (i.e., a stream that may cease flow in dry periods but maintains permanent 

pools, which support aquatic life). The entire length of Indian Creek is also designated Class C. In the 

vicinity of KCP, both the Blue River and Indian Creek are further designated as Metropolitan 

No-Discharge Streams (i.e., meaning no water contaminant except uncontaminated cooling water or 

permitted storm water discharge) (10 CSR 20-7.031; MDNR 2009a). 

The Blue River and Indian Creek are subject to frequent flooding due to intense urban development, 

especially in the lower basin of the river. This has caused even moderate flood flows to become a serious 

problem. The Blue River and Indian Creek leave their banks several times a year; however, the water 

generally flows onto undeveloped land, including currently vacant portions of the Bannister Federal 

Complex (i.e., primarily the northeast portion of the property). A flood protection system completed in 

1994 is designed to prevent 500-year floods from reaching any of the structures located within the site 

complex (GSA and NNSA 2008:28). Effective operation of the flood protection system requires manual 

closing of floodgates and placement of stop logs and sandbags. It has been estimated that it would take 

32 workers approximately 4 hours to close the floodgates. 

Facilities at KCP do not withdraw surface water for use. The existing KCP uses potable water supplies 

from the Kansas City municipal system. Water use is further discussed in Section 3.6.7.4. 

Operating under an industrial wastewater discharge permit issued by Kansas City, the existing plant 

discharges approximately 893,000 liters (236,000 gallons) per day of wastewater to the Blue River 

Wastewater Treatment Facility, Kansas City’s largest publicly owned treatment works. Wastewater 

generated from onsite groundwater treatment, as well as water from regulated process and industrial 

discharges, is treated at the onsite industrial wastewater pretreatment facility prior to discharge. The 

remainder of the regulated industrial wastewater is treated prior to reuse as cooling tower makeup water 

or discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The relocation of DOE manufacturing and support facilities 

would result in significant reductions in industrial wastewater discharges. This would result in reductions 

to both the total discharge to the Blue River Wastewater Treatment Facility and the volume of industrial 

wastewater treated at the onsite pretreatment facility (GSA and NNSA 2008:28). 

3.6.3.2 Groundwater 

The Western Interior Plains aquifer system underlies most of Kansas, the eastern and southern parts of 

Nebraska, and a small area in west-central Missouri. The aquifer system consists of lower units in rocks 

of the Ordovician and Cambrian age, a shale confining unit of Mississippian and Devonian age, and an 

upper aquifer unit composed of Mississippian limestone. The thickness of the aquifer (including the 

confining unit) ranges from less than 150 meters (500 feet) to more than 914 meters (3,000 feet). The 

aquifer system is thin or absent on structural uplifts and is thickest in downwarps (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:27). 

Regional groundwater in the aquifer system flows towards the southeast and east. Much of the water 

discharges from the aquifer system in the transition zone between the Western Interior Plains and the 

Ozark Plateaus aquifer systems. The aquifer system is considered to have a low permeability. Total 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–98

dissolved-solids concentrations of water in the Western Interior Plains aquifer system are typically greater 

than 1,000 milligrams per liter. In thick, deeply buried parts of the aquifer system, dissolved-solids 

concentrations of more than 200,000 milligrams per liter have been reported. The elevated concentrations 

are due in part to the slow movement of groundwater in the aquifer system. Consequently, the Western 

Interior Plains aquifer system is not generally developed for potable use because it is deeply buried and 

contains highly mineralized water. Locally, deeply buried parts of the aquifer system contain oil and gas 

and brine introduced from disposal wells as a byproduct of hydrocarbon production (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:27). 

Background groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer is considered poor due to high iron, naturally 

occurring arsenic, and manganese concentrations. However, there are no users of the alluvial aquifer near 

KCP. Three separate groundwater contaminant plumes have been identified within the boundaries of 

KCP. These contaminant plumes are the result of past activities at the site. Potentially contaminated 

groundwater sites include SWMUs 16 and 40, where the depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 

2.4 to 4.6 meters (8 to 15 feet) below ground surface, but may be shallower during times of high 

precipitation. Residual groundwater contamination also is present at these SWMUs. A number of 

voluntary environmental investigations have been conducted at Building 50 over the past 10 years. These 

have detected the presence of groundwater contamination consisting of VOCs in the vicinity of 

Building 50. This contamination is being addressed by GSA pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement 

among GSA, NNSA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (GSA and NNSA 2008:27). 

3.6.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.6.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate of the KCP area is humid continental, with warm summers, moderately cold winters, and 

moderate annual precipitation. The average annual rainfall is 96.5 centimeters (37.98 inches). Maximum 

rainfall occurs in May at the Kansas City National Weather Service Station which is about 40 kilometers 

(25 miles) north of KCP (NOAA 2009d). Damaging hailstorms rarely occur in Jackson County 

(NCDC 2009d). The average annual snowfall is 51.1 centimeters (20.1 inches) (NOAA 2009d). 

Thirty-one tornadoes were reported in Jackson County between January 1950 and May 2009. Several 

occurrences of high winds typically occur every year (NCDC 2009d). The average annual windspeed is 

4.7 meters per second (10.5 miles per hour). The prevailing wind direction is south-southwest 

(NOAA 2009d). The maximum windspeed, based on the highest 1-minute average value, is 26 meters 

per second (58 miles per hour) (NOAA 2009b:66). The mean number of days per year with thunderstorm 

activity is 51.3 (NOAA 2009d). 

The average annual temperature is 15.3 °C (59.5 °F). Temperatures range from a monthly average 

minimum temperature of –7.4 °C (18.7 °F) in January to a monthly average maximum of 31.6 °C 

(88.9 °F) in July. The maximum recorded temperature is 43 °C (109 °F) (NOAA 2009d). 

KCP is in an area that is designated better than national standards for sulfur dioxide and better than 

national standards or unclassifiable for nitrogen dioxide. The area is unclassifiable/attainment regarding 

attainment of the standard for carbon monoxide and is attainment for ozone. EPA has not assigned an 

attainment status designation for lead. For PM2.5, the area is unclassifiable/attainment (40 CFR 81.326). 

The nearest PSD Class I area is Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, about 282 kilometers (175 miles) to 

the southeast (NPS 2009). KCP and its vicinity are classified as a Class II area. No PSD permits are 

required for any emission source at KCP (KCP 2009). 

The primary sources of criteria pollutants at KCP are nitrogen oxide from boilers, process heaters and 

manufacturing operations. The plant is designated as a major source under the National Emission 
Affected Environment 

3–99

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations. KCP is operated under an operating permit 

application that covers these sources, as required under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

and companion State of Missouri regulations (GSA and NNSA 2008). 

There are nearby monitors in Jackson County for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and PM pollutants. 

Monitored concentrations in the region are well below ambient standards. The nearest monitor reported 

by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources is at Richard-Gebaur Airport in Cass County 

(MDNR 2009b) for ozone. There are no nearby monitors for lead (EPA 2009e). The nearest monitor for 

mercury reported by EPA is in Clay County. For 2008, the mean mercury concentration was 

0.0012 micrograms per cubic meter, and the fourth highest 24-hour concentration was 0.002 micrograms 

per cubic meter (EPA 2009f). 

3.6.4.2 Noise 

Major noise emission sources within KCP include various equipment and machines—HVAC equipment, 

material-handling equipment, and vehicles. Most industrial operations occur far enough from the site 

boundary that noise at the boundary from these sources is barely distinguishable from background levels. 

However, it is assumed that some noise from operations can be heard by residents living south of the 

complex (GSA and NNSA 2008:22). The closest residence is approximately 150 meters (500 feet) west 

of KCP. Traffic is the primary source of noise at the site boundaries. 

Kansas City has established community noise standards, which specify acceptable noise levels applicable 

at site boundaries (KCC Ch. 46, Art. IV). Sound level measurements have not been recorded recently at 

KCP, but it is expected that noise levels are typical of an urban or industrial setting. The traffic generated 

by activities at the site includes employee vehicles and trucks used for shipping. This contributes to 

traffic on nearby roads and the associated traffic noise. Roads that provide access to the site include East 

Bannister Road, Blue River Road, and Troost Avenue; annual average daily traffic is discussed in 

Section 3.6.10.3. 

3.6.5 Ecological Resources 

3.6.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

KCP is located within the highly developed Bannister Federal Complex and is within the city limits of 

Kansas City, Missouri. The Bannister Federal Complex is a highly developed area and includes parking 

lots, buildings, and other manmade structures. Due to the developed nature of the landscape, little natural 

habitat or native vegetation remains. The majority of the site’s vegetation consists of nonnative species 

capable of growing in disturbed soils. Although several small patches of native vegetation are scattered 

throughout, a larger, more-intact patch exists in the northwest corner of the complex near the border 

(GSA and NNSA 2008:29). 

Wildlife occurring within the Bannister Federal Complex is limited to those species tolerant of human 

activity. Mammals observed include whitetail deer, fox, raccoon, opossum, and gray squirrel. Bird 

species observed includes the turkey, American robin, house sparrow, and European starling. Raptors 

have been observed flying over the complex, but none are expected to nest or forage within the 

boundaries. Common reptiles include the garter snake, black rat snake, and five-lined skink (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:29). 

3.6.5.2 Wetlands 

Although a small amount of wetlands exist nearby within the riparian zones of the Big Blue River, no 

wetlands occur within the boundaries of the Bannister Federal Complex or in the area of the proposed 

mercury storage facility (GSA and NNSA 2008:29). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–100

3.6.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

Although not located within the boundary of the Bannister Federal Complex, the Blue River and Indian 

Creek border the complex and constitute the most substantial aquatic resources in the vicinity. Common 

fish species found within theses two streams include channel catfish, carp, and gar. Within the complex, 

aquatic features are limited to manmade structures such as retention ponds and drainage basins. Although 

aquatic organisms may be found in nearby streams and rivers, none are expected to occur within the 

complex (GSA and NNSA 2008:29). 

3.6.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Due to the disturbed nature of Bannister Federal Complex, no sensitive species are known to occur. As 

such, no species with a Federal or state listing status is expected to occur, breed, or forage within the 

Bannister Federal Complex or its vicinity (GSA and NNSA 2008:29). 

3.6.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

3.6.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

The prehistoric chronology of the KCP area consists of five time periods: Paleo-Indian (12,000 to 

8000 B.C.), Dalton (8000 to 7000 B.C.), Archaic (7000 to 1000 B.C.), Woodland (1000 B.C. to 

A.D. 900), and Mississippian (A.D. 900 to 1700). Site types that may exist in the area include villages, 

campsites, limited-activity sites, and burial mounds (DOE 1996c:4-144). A cultural resource assessment 

of the entire Bannister Federal Complex was performed in 2007. Due to the fact that the property has 

been previously disturbed by construction of the existing complex, there is a low probability for finding 

any American Indian or European-American archaeological sites within the site (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:4-29). One cultural resource survey was conducted in areas adjacent to KCP, and no 

prehistoric resources were identified; however, two prehistoric sites and a multicomponent site have been 

previously recorded along the terraces of the Blue River (DOE 1996c:4-144). 

3.6.6.2 Historic Resources 

Some of the facilities at KCP lack architectural integrity, are not representative of a particular style, and 

are not considered contributing features to the broad themes of World War II defense production. 

Consequently, these facilities are not likely to be considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

However, some facilities at KCP may be eligible based on their association with the Cold War 

(DOE 1996c:4-144). 

Although individual facilities at KCP may not be eligible for NRHP listing, the site as a whole may be 

eligible under Criteria A (Events) because plant facilities were used to build Pratt & Whitney’s engines 

during World War II and KCP played a role in the development of the nuclear program and under 

Criteria C (Architecture) for facility design. Agency consultation with the Missouri SHPO will determine 

the level of protection necessary (GSA and NNSA 2008:4-30). 

3.6.6.3 American Indian Resources 

Three American Indian groups occupied or traversed the KCP area: the Osage, the Missouri, and the 

Kansa. American Indian resources in the area may include remains of villages, trails, springs, vision 

quest sites, and burial sites. Most of the historic American Indian villages were not located in the KCP 

area, but south on the Osage River or north and east along the Mississippi River (DOE 1996c:4-144). 

A previous cultural resource assessment (see Section 3.6.6.1) indicated a low probability for finding any 

American Indian archaeological sites within the KCP area. 
Affected Environment 

3–101

3.6.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

KCP is located on alluvium from the Blue River floodplain, which is bordered by outcrops of 

Pennsylvania limestone and shale. Some fossils may exist in the limestone and shale 

(DOE 1996c:4-144). 

3.6.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of KCP’s sitewide infrastructure characteristics 

is presented in Table 3–14. 

Table 3–14. Kansas City Plant Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers)

Roads 25 25 

Railroads 1.6 1.6 

Electricity

Energy consumption (megawatt-hours per year) 116,600a Not available 

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) 17,000,000 (b) 

Fuel oil (liters per year) 20,000 (b) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) 7,570 (b) 

Gasoline (liters per year) 2,000 (b) 

Propane (liters per year) (c) (c) 

Water (liters per year) 572,000,000d 638,000,000 

a Assumes 1 kilovolt-ampere equals 1 kilowatt (power factor of 1.0).

b Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

c Fuel resource not used on site. 

d The amount of potable water from the City of Kansas City. 

Note: To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to cubic feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, 

by 0.26417. 

Source: DOE 1996c; GSA and NNSA 2008; Honeywell 2008:56-59. 

3.6.7.1 Ground Transportation 

KCP is located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) south of Interstate 70 and 2.4 kilometers 

(1.5 miles) north of Interstate 435. The site is accessed from adjacent local roadways (i.e., Troost Avenue 

to the west and Blue River Road to the east) with onsite roads leading to numerous parking lots and site 

facilities. Currently, there are 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of railroad tracks at KCP. A Union Pacific rail line 

runs through the Bannister Federal Complex, and Kansas City Southern rail intersects the Union Pacific 

rail line north of the site (GSA and NNSA 2008:21, 23). 

3.6.7.2 Electricity 

Utility services for the Bannister Federal Complex are operated and managed by DOE. The site has two 

primary energy needs: electricity and boiler fuel (see Section 3.6.7.3). DOE purchases electricity from 

the Kansas City Power and Light Company to power production machinery, water chillers, pumps, 

compressors, fans, lights, and general office equipment. Power is supplied to the Bannister Federal 

Complex by two 161-kilovolt overhead transmission lines from the Kansas City Power and Light 

Company Southtown and Tomahawk Substations. Two Kansas City Power and Light Company–owned 

onsite transformers step the voltage down to 13.8 kilovolts, which is delivered to two main busses for 

distribution at the main switchgear. The main switchgear distributes this power to multiple substations 

serving the GSA buildings and the NNSA-controlled areas. System reliability is maintained through 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–102

system upgrades, maintenance, and redundancy and installation of reserve capacity 

(Honeywell 2008:56-57). 

The annual energy consumption at the site as a whole is approximately 117,000 megawatt-hours per year. 

The site electrical capacity is not available (DOE 1996c:4:135). 

3.6.7.3 Fuel 

Natural gas is the primary fuel and is purchased through a U.S. Department of Defense nationwide 

contract. It is then delivered to KCP through local pipelines. Natural gas is the primary combustion fuel 

for the steam boilers that provide heat to the Bannister Federal Complex (except the GSA building at 

2306 Bannister Road). Pipeline capacities are sufficient to meet KCP demand during extreme weather 

conditions and periods of high usage (Honeywell 2008:56, 59). 

There are two powerhouses on site. The West Powerhouse produces steam, compressed air, and chilled 

water for environmental and process control in support of KCP’s mission; the East Powerhouse produces 

chilled water (Honeywell 2008:56). 

Fuel oil, drawn from onsite storage tanks, is used as a backup boiler fuel for periods when natural gas is 

not available. Fuel oil is purchased from commercial suppliers by competitive bid and is stored in two 

946,000-liter (250,000-gallon) storage tanks adjacent to the West Powerhouse (Honeywell 2008:56, 59). 

The annual consumption of natural gas at KCP is 17 million cubic meters (600 million cubic feet); the 

annual consumption of fuel oil is 20,000 liters (about 5,280 gallons). Additionally, diesel fuel usage is 

7,570 liters (about 2,000 gallons) and gasoline usage is 2,000 liters (about 530 gallons). 

3.6.7.4 Water 

Water and sanitary sewer service are supplied by Kansas City. Three independent mains feed KCP on the 

south, northwest, and northeast sides of the Banister Federal Complex, providing redundancy. Each feed 

is capable of meeting KCP demand individually. Domestic water is used as makeup for the steam, chilled 

water, condenser water, and fire protection systems and for sanitary applications (toilets, sinks, 

eyewashes, showers, drinking fountains, and cafeteria). Potable uses are protected from industrial uses by 

an isolation cross-connection control program. The internal distribution system is in generally good 

condition and is adequate to serve the plant loads (Honeywell 2008:58). 

Approximately 91,000 liters (24,000 gallons) of water from the onsite groundwater treatment facility is 

discharged to the publicly owned treatment works daily. KCP discharges 893,000 liters (236,000 gallons) 

per day of wastewater to the Blue River Wastewater Treatment Facility (GSA and NNSA 2008:29). 

KCP uses approximately 572 million liters (151 million gallons) of potable water per year from the City 

of Kansas City Water Services Department. Site capacity is 638 million liters (169 million gallons) (GSA 

and NNSA 2008:29).

3.6.8 Waste Management 

Hazardous waste, nonhazardous waste, and LLW are generated and managed at KCP as a result of routine 

industrial operations, environmental stewardship activities, and construction activities (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:30). All KCP site wastes are managed using appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal 

technologies, in compliance with applicable Federal and state statutes. 
Affected Environment 

3–103

3.6.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

In total, KCP generates and manages 1,055 metric tons (1,163 tons) of hazardous and nonhazardous waste 

per year. Routine site operations (nonnuclear electrical/mechanical assembly, machining, plastic 

fabrication plating) generate 15 metric tons (16.5 tons) of RCRA-regulated waste and 730 metric tons 

(804 tons) of nonhazardous waste each year. Non-routine site operations (site construction, 

environmental stewardship activities) generate 7 metric tons (7.5 tons) of RCRA-regulated waste and 

303 metric tons (334 tons) of nonhazardous waste each year (NNSA 2008b). To manage hazardous waste 

generation, KCP operates an RCRA 90-day storage facility prior to offsite disposal at properly licensed 

commercial disposal facilities. KCP currently manages mercury alloy for use in plant operations 

(Holecek 2009). Other hazardous wastes generated during routine site operations include various acidic 

and alkaline liquids, solvents, oils, and coolants (DOE 1996c:App. H). 

Nonhazardous wastes generated at KCP include industrial scrap and waste, office waste, lunchroom 

waste, and janitorial waste. Nonhazardous wastes are collected by commercial waste–hauling contractors 

and disposed of at the municipal Johnson County Mixed Solid Waste Landfill. Site sanitary wastewater is 

discharged into the Kansas City, Missouri, municipal sanitary sewer in compliance with sewer permit 

discharge limits (DOE 1996c:App. H). 

Approximately 1 cubic meter (35.3 cubic feet) of LLW is generated each year at KCP as a result of 

routine laboratory and industrial processes. The LLW is shipped to the Nevada Test Site or a commercial 

facility for disposal (GSA and NNSA 2008:30). 

3.6.8.2 Waste Minimization 

KCP implements a Health, Safety and Environment Management System to define the overall scope of 

operations, risk, and systems to maintain worker safety and protection of the public and the environment. 

The environmental portion of the Health, Safety and Environment Management System is based upon the 

International Organization for Standardization 14001-2004, Environmental Management System 

Standard. The International Organization for Standardization 14001-2004 standard establishes a 

framework for requiring compliance with Federal and state waste management requirements, including 

waste minimization. Federal Manufacturing and Technologies provides an annual site environmental 

summary to NNSA containing relevant environmental monitoring data, including waste minimization 

data. In fiscal year 2007, KCP recycled 886 metric tons (977 tons) of hazardous and nonhazardous waste 

(Honeywell 2007). 

3.6.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.6.9.1 Normal Operations 

KCP contains various nonnuclear manufacturing operations and solid waste management units, which 

have been addressed under RCRA corrective action and require continuing maintenance (GSA and 

NNSA 2008:4-6). Soil and groundwater conditions are described in Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.3.2. 

The infrastructure currently available in the proposed mercury storage warehouses consists of a concrete 

floor with epoxy sealant and concrete and gravel composite roofing. The building has a sprinkler system 

for fire protection (KCP 2009:2.1). 

3.6.9.2 Facility Accidents 

The candidate facilities at KCP have not had any spills, fires, explosions, leaks, or other such incidents 

(KCP 2009:2.8.3). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–104

KCP has an established spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan and integrated contingency 

plan to maintain adequate response preparedness for fire and hazardous materials releases. Fire and 

emergency services are provided by local agencies in Kansas City (KCP 2009:2.8.2). However, after 

NNSA moves operations from this location (planned for 2013), emergency planning/response support 

would no longer be provided by NNSA, but fire and emergency service would continue to be provided by 

local agencies. 

3.6.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive materials, 

effects of air pollutant emissions emitted during normal (incident-free) transportation, and accidents 

resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive materials. Risks related to ongoing 

nonradioactive transportation to and from KCP have not been estimated. 

3.6.10 Socioeconomics 

KCP is located in Kansas City, Missouri, approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) south of the city center. 

KCP employs approximately 2,400 persons. Over 90 percent of the people employed at KCP reside in 

four counties: Cass, Clay, and Jackson in Missouri and Johnson in Kansas. Therefore, these four counties 

are identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis (GSA and NNSA 2008:22). 

3.6.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the four-county ROI increased by approximately 5.0 percent to 

801,414. By July 2009, the unemployment rate of the ROI was 8.9 percent, which was nearly identical to 

the unemployment rate across the two-state area of Missouri and Kansas (8.8 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.6.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the four-county ROI was 1,516,646. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 11 percent, compared with 5.2 percent growth throughout the two-state region of 

Missouri and Kansas (DOC 2009b). The percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 was 

26 percent; women ages 18 to 39 composed 15 percent of the population (DOC 2009c). Young children 

and pregnant women are considered to be among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. 

There were 654,718 housing units in the ROI in 2007 (DOC 2008), 63 percent of which were owner 

occupied, 28 percent were renter occupied, and 9.4 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 

3.6.10.3 Local Transportation 

Primary access to KCP is located to the south on East Bannister Road. The average daily traffic on the 

segment of East Bannister Road approaching the site was 21,135 vehicles per day in 2008. There are 

several interstate highways in the Kansas City area, the closest of which is Interstate 435, which forms a 

beltway around the downtown area. The southern tier of Interstate 435 is located about 1.6 kilometers 

(1 mile) south of the site. The 2008 average annual daily traffic on this segment of Interstate 435 was 

122,090 vehicles per day (MODOT 2008). The beltway intersects several interstate highways heading in 

all directions, including Interstates 470, 70, 35, and 29. There are two commercial airports located in the 

Kansas City metropolitan area. The closest to the site is the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; 

however, the majority of operations at this facility now include corporate, charter, and recreational uses. 

The main commercial airport in the area is the Kansas City International Airport (located just beyond the 

ROI in nearby Platte County), which is accessible off the northeastern tier of the beltway. There are 

10 additional public use general aviation airports located in the ROI (FAA 2009). 
Affected Environment 

3–105

3.6.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage location at KCP encompasses parts of four 

counties: Cass and Jackson in Missouri and Johnson and Wyandotte in Kansas. Figure 3–13 shows 

populations residing in the four-county area, as reported in the 1990 census, the 2000 census, and the 

2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates (DOC 2009c, 2009d, 2009e). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show 

populations in 1990, white bars show those 2000, and darker bars show those in 2005 through 2007. In 

the decade between 1990 and 2000, the total population of Cass, Jackson, Johnson, and Wyandotte 

Counties increased by approximately 11 percent to 1,345,940; the minority population increased by 

approximately 40 percent to 342,267; and the low-income population decreased by 3 percent to 122,568. 

Between 2000 and 2007, the total population increased by 7 percent to 1,444,298, and the total 

low-income population increased by 30 percent. Detailed demographic data of race and Hispanic origin 

for Cass County, Missouri, and Wyandotte County, Kansas, from the 2007 ACS 1-Year Estimates are 

unavailable due to an insufficient number of sample cases. However, the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year 

Estimates do include detailed demographic data of race and Hispanic origin for all counties included in 

the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the proposed storage location. The 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year 

Estimates show that the Black or African American population residing in the four-county area accounted 

for approximately 55 percent of the county’s total minority population. Persons who declared that they 

are of Hispanic or Latino origin are included in the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–13, 

regardless of race. They composed approximately 29 percent of the total minority population residing in 

Cass, Jackson, Johnson, and Wyandotte Counties during the 2005 through 2007 timeframe. 

Figure 3–13. Populations Residing in the Four-County Area Surrounding the Kansas City Plant 

in 1990, 2000, and 2005 Through 2007 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–106

Approximately 700,041 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of KCP in 2000 (DOC 2009d). This 

area included an estimated 31 percent minority and 10 percent low-income population. By comparison, 

the four-county area included a 25 percent minority and 9 percent low-income population, and the 

two-state area included a 16 percent minority and 11 percent low-income population. There are 

671 census block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding KCP; of this total, 

172 contained a disproportionately high number of minority individuals, 2 contained a disproportionately 

high number of low-income individuals, and 74 contained a disproportionately high number of both 

minority and low-income individuals. Four hundred twenty-three block groups did not contain a 

disproportionately high number of low-income of minority individuals. Figure 3–14 displays the 

proximity of minority and low-income communities to KCP. Figure 3–15 shows the cumulative 

populations living at a given distance from the disposal site. The population living within 16 kilometers 

(10 miles) of KCP is mostly concentrated in the Kansas City, Missouri, Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Figure 3–14. Block Groups Containing Minority and Low-Income Populations 

Within a 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Radius of the Kansas City Plant 
Affected Environment 

3–107

Figure 3–15. Cumulative Populations Living Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) 

of the Kansas City Plant 

Approximately 28,184 people lived within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of KCP in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). This area included an estimated 42 percent minority and 11 percent low-income 

population. There are 41 census block groups located within this ROI; of this total, 16 contained a 

disproportionately high number of minority individuals and 1 contained both a disproportionately high 

number of minority and low-income individuals. Twenty-four block groups did not contain a 

disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. 

POTENTIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS

Environmental justice concerns were considered in greater detail in areas that have been identified as 

containing a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. This section 

presents information regarding factors that may contribute to disproportional impacts, such as age and 

access to health care. 

Figure 3–16 displays a breakdown of potentially susceptible demographics for the 16-kilometer (10-mile) 

ROI, the 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI, the two-state region, and the four-county region surrounding KCP. 

For purposes of this analysis, the demographics of primary concern are children under the age of 18, 

women ages 18 to 39, and individuals ages 65 and up. As the figure shows, there is not a 

disproportionately high number of individuals under 18 within either the 16-kilometer (10-mile) or 

3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI. The populations of women ages 18 to 39 and individuals ages 65 and up are 

noticeably larger in the 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI than in the surrounding areas. In all cases, the 

differences do not appear to be appreciable. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–108

Figure 3–16. Percentage of Age Groups Within the 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) and 

3.2-Kilometer (2-Mile) Regions of Influence and the Two-State and 

Four-County Areas Surrounding the Kansas City Plant 

Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) are designated by the Health Resources and Services 

Administration. An HPSA is defined as an area “having a shortage of primary medical care, dental or 

mental health providers. They may be defined as urban or rural areas, population groups or medical or 

other public facilities” (HRSA 2009a). These data are presented at the greatest level of spatial resolution 

available for each county within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI. HPSA designations have been 

identified for population groups in census tracts and comprehensive health centers in Jackson County. Of 

the 158 census tracts in Jackson County that are located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI, 125 are 

designated as primary medical care HPSAs for low-income populations. There are 18 census tracts 

within the approximate 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI, 14 of which are designated as primary medical care 

HPSAs for low-income populations. Figure 3–17 identifies the census tracts within the 16-kilometer 

(10-mile) ROI designated as low-income population primary medical care HPSAs. Two medical facilities 

in Jackson County have been identified as primary medical care, dental, and mental health HPSAs 

(HRSA 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

3–109

Figure 3–17. Jackson County Census Tracts Within the 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Region of 

Influence Designated As Primary Medical Care Health Professional Shortage Areas For 

Low-Income Populations 

In Cass County, four medical facilities are designated as primary medical care HPSAs, and the entire 

county is designated as a mental health HPSA. There are no dental HPSAs in Cass County. All of 

Wyandotte County is designated as a primary medical care HPSA for the Medicaid-eligible population 

and as a dental HPSA for the low-income population. There are no mental health HPSA designations in 

Wyandotte County. No primary medical, dental, or mental health HPSAs are designated in Johnson 

County (HRSA 2009b). 

3.7 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

3.7.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.7.1.1 Land Use 

SRS is located in south-central South Carolina and occupies an area of approximately 80,290 hectares 

(198,400 acres) in Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties. The site, bordered by the Savannah River to 

the southwest, is approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 

19 kilometers (12 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina (DOE 2008c:4-341). SRS is a controlled area, 

with public access being limited to through traffic on South Carolina Highway 125 (SRS Road A), 

U.S. Route 278 (SRS Road 1), and the CSX railway line (DOE 1999b:3-161). Approximately 10 percent 

of the land at SRS has been developed to support production, infrastructure, research and development, 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–110

and waste management facilities. The balance of the site consists mainly of planted pine forest, managed 

for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service under an interagency agreement with DOE 

(DOE 2008c:4-341). DOE has prepared a number of documents addressing the future of the site, 

including the Savannah River Site End State Vision report (DOE 2005e). 

In 1972, DOE designated all of SRS as a National Environmental Research Park to be used by the 

national scientific community to study the impacts of human activities on the cypress swamp and 

hardwood forest ecosystems. DOE has also set aside approximately 5,670 hectares (14,000 acres) of SRS 

exclusively for nondestructive environmental research (SREL 2008). 

Land use at SRS can be classified into three major categories: forest/undeveloped, water/wetlands, and 

developed facilities. The site has been divided into six land management areas based upon existing 

biological and physical conditions, operations capability, and suitability for mission objectives 

(see Figure 3–18). The 15,558-hectare (38,444-acre) Industrial Core Management Area contains major 

SRS facilities and includes E Area. The primary objective of the Industrial Core Management Area is to 

support facilities and site missions, although additional objectives are to promote conservation and 

restoration, provide research and educational opportunities, and generate revenue from the sale of forest 

products. Protection of the red-cockaded woodpecker dominates natural resource decisions in the 

35,290-hectare (87,200-acre) Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area and the 19,060-hectare 

(47,100-acre) Supplemental Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area. The Crackerneck Wildlife 

Management Area and Ecological Preserve are 4,530 hectares (11,200 acres) in size, and it is managed by 

the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The primary objective of this management area is 

to enhance wildlife habitat through forestry and wildlife management practices. The management 

objective of the 4,050-hectare (10,000-acre) Savannah River Swamp and 1,780-hectare (4,400-acre) 

Lower Three Runs Corridor Management Area is to improve the physical and biological quality of the 

wetland environment (DOE 2005f:4-6). 

Predominant regional land uses in the vicinity of SRS include urban, residential, industrial, agricultural, 

and recreational. Forest and agricultural land predominantly border SRS, with only limited urban and 

residential development. Open water and nonforested wetlands occur along the Savannah River Valley. 

Major recreational areas nearby include Sumter National Forest (40 kilometers [25 miles] northwest), 

Congaree National Park (64 kilometers [40 miles] northeast, Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

(89 kilometers [55 miles] east-northeast), and Clark’s Hill/Strom Thurmond Reservoir (56 kilometers 

[35 miles] northwest). The Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area, which includes a portion of SRS 

along the Savannah River, is open to the public for hunting and fishing (Caudell 2000:30).
Affected Environment 

3–111

Figure 3–18. Generalized Land Use at the Savannah River Site 

E AREA

E Area is located in the Industrial Core Management Area between the F and H Area Separations Areas. 

It consists of approximately 134 hectares (330 acres). E Area includes the Old Burial Ground, Mixed 

Waste Management Facility, TRU waste pads, and E Area Vaults, and receives solid LLW, TRU waste, 

and mixed waste from across SRS. E Area facilities are maintained to manage previously received waste 

and to prepare for the receipt of waste from new site operations. The current land use for E Area is 

industrial (DOE 2005e:53). 

3.7.1.2 Visual Resources 

The dominant viewshed in the vicinity of SRS consists mainly of agricultural land and forest, with limited 

industrial and residential areas. The industrial areas, including the reactors and large facilities, are 

primarily located in the interior of the site away from public access. Excluding the Savannah River 

National Laboratory, SRS facilities are not generally visible off site or from public access roads due to the 

distance to the boundary from the industrialized areas, the gently rolling terrain, and heavy vegetation. 

Typically, the reactors and principal processing facilities are large concrete structures as much as 

30 meters (100 feet) tall adjacent to shorter administrative and support buildings and parking lots. The 

limited public areas that have views of some SRS structures (other than the administrative areas) are 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–112

approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) or more away from viewable structures. These views have low 

visual sensitivity levels because most of these structures were built as many as 40 years ago and are well 

established in the viewer’s expectations (DOE 1999b:3-164, 2008c:4-343). 

The developed areas and utility corridors (transmission lines and aboveground steam pipelines) of SRS 

are consistent with a VRM Class IV designation. The remainder of SRS is consistent with a VRM 

Class II or III. Management activities within Class II and III areas may be seen, but should not dominate 

the view; management activities in Class IV areas dominate the view and are the focus of viewer attention 

(DOI 1986:6, 7). 

E AREA

E Area is located within the Industrial Core Management Area at SRS, where developed portions are 

consistent with a VRM Class IV designation. Due to its distance from public access roads, E Area is not 

visible to the general public. 

3.7.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.7.2.1 Geology 

SRS is situated on the Aiken Plateau of the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region, about 

40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of the Fall Line that separates the Atlantic Coastal Plain from the 

Piedmont physiographic province. The Aiken Plateau is highly dissected and characterized by broad, flat 

areas between streams and narrow, steep-sided valleys. It slopes from an elevation of approximately 

198 meters (650 feet) at the Fall Line to an elevation of about 76 meters (250 feet) on the southeast edge 

of the plateau. Elevations across SRS range from approximately 27 meters to 128 feet (89 to 420 feet) 

above mean sea level (DOE 2008c:4-352, 4-353). 

There are no active geologic faults on SRS, but several fault systems occur off site, northwest of the Fall 

Line. Faults identified on site include the Pen Branch, Steel Creek, Advanced Tactical Training Area, 

Crackerneck, Ellenton, and Upper Three Runs. The Upper Three Runs Fault, which passes approximately 

1.6 kilometers (1 mile) northwest of F Area, is a Paleozoic fault that does not cut through or displace 

Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments. None of the faults discussed are considered potentially active or 

capable faults (10 CFR 100; DOE 2002e:3-5, 3-6, 2008c:4-353, 4-354). 

Surficial geologic strata at the site consist of Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments, which dip gently seaward 

from the Fall Line and thicken from essentially 0 at the Fall Line to more than 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) at 

the coast. These sediments occupy the Dunbarton Basin, which is the controlling structural feature of the 

region. The uppermost sedimentary unit (known as the Tinker/Santee Formation) consists of 18 meters 

(60 feet) of Paleocene-age clayey and silty quartz sand, and silt. Within this layer, there are occasional 

beds of clean sand, gravel, clay, or carbonate. This layer is noteworthy because it contains small, 

discontinuous, thin calcareous sand zones (i.e., sand containing calcium carbonate) that are potentially 

subject to dissolution by water. These “soft-zone” areas have the potential to subside, causing settling of 

the ground surface. Deposits of pebbly, clayey sand, conglomerate, and Miocene- and Oligocene-age 

clay occur at higher elevations. The Tinker/Santee Formation is underlain by about 210 meters (700 feet) 

of Upper Cretaceous-age quartz sand, pebbly sand, and kaolinitic clay. The underlying bedrock consists 

of sandstones of Triassic age and older metamorphic and igneous rocks that form the basement complex 

of the Dunbarton Basin (DOE 1999b:3-147, 2008c:4-352–4-353). 

Geologic resources across SRS are generally limited to sandy, silty, and clayey soils and sediments 

extracted from onsite borrow areas to support onsite construction backfill and environmental restoration 

project needs (DOE 2004b:1, 3). 
Affected Environment 

3–113

3.7.2.2 Soils 

The surface soils at SRS have developed from Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments. Soils across SRS are 

primarily sands and sandy loams with sporadic clay layers overlying a subsoil containing a mixture of 

sand, silt, and clay. These soils are gently sloping to moderately steep (0 to 10 percent grade) and have a 

slight erosion hazard. Some soils on uplands are nearly level, and those on bottomlands along the major 

streams are level. Soils in small, narrow drainage valleys are steep. Most of the upland soils are well 

drained to excessively drained. The well-drained soils have a thick, sandy surface layer that extends to a 

depth of 2.1 meters (7 feet) or more in some areas. The soils on bottomlands range from well drained to 

very poorly drained. Some soils on the abrupt slope breaks have dense, brittle subsoil 

(DOE 2008c:4-353). No soils are subject to designation as prime farmland or other important farmland 

soils. 

3.7.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

The Atlantic Coastal Plain tectonic province in which SRS is located is characterized by generally 

low seismic activity that is expected to remain subdued. The most active seismic zones in the 

southeastern United States are all located over 160 kilometers (100 miles) away from the site 

(DOE 2008c:4-353, 4-354). Two major earthquakes have occurred within 299 kilometers (186 miles) of 

SRS. The Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886 had an estimated magnitude of 6.9 to 7.3 and 

produced shaking of MMI VII to VIII; it occurred approximately 145 kilometers (90 miles) from the SRS 

area. The Union County, South Carolina, earthquake of 1913 had an estimated magnitude of 6.0 and 

occurred about 159 kilometers (99 miles) from the site (DOE 2008c:4-354; SCEEPP 2009). Other minor 

earthquakes that occurred off site all had magnitudes of less than 4.0. In recent years, three minor 

earthquakes occurred within the SRS boundary. In 1985, an earthquake occurred with a local 

magnitude of 2.7 and produced shaking of MMI III. Another occurred in 1988 with a magnitude of 2.5. 

The most recent earthquake within the SRS boundary was in 2001 with a magnitude of 2.0 

(DOE 2008c:4-353, 4-354; USGS 2009l). In total, since 1973, 16 earthquakes (most ranging in 

magnitude from 2.5 to 3.7) have been recorded within a radius of 100 kilometers (62 miles) of SRS 

(USGS 2009l). Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited in this 

Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and their effects. 

Earthquake-produced ground motion is expressed in units of percent g (force of acceleration relative to 

that of Earth’s gravity). As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from 

the USGS are used in this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate 

sites. The PGA values cited are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This 

corresponds to an annual probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For SRS, the calculated 

PGA is approximately 0.17 g (USGS 2009d). By comparison, the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake 

of 1886 produced an estimate horizontal PGA of 0.1 g across the area (DOE 2008c:4-354). 

Subsidence (lowering of the ground surface) and soil liquefaction (liquefying of wet, unconsolidated 

sediments that can occur during an earthquake) are two geologic processes that are potentially 

problematic in selected areas at SRS. Sedimentary strata under some areas of SRS include layers of 

calcareous sand (i.e., sand containing calcium carbonate) that are subject to dissolution, which would 

cause subsidence. Sites underlain by these “soft zones” are considered unsuitable for structural formations 

unless extensive soil stabilization is done. Because the topography is generally flat to gently rolling 

across SRS, landslides are unlikely occurrences except along the banks of drainage valleys that are widely 

spaced across SRS (DOE 2008c:4-353). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–114

E AREA

Sediments comprising clayey and silty quartz sand and silt up to 18 meters (60 feet) thick immediately 

underlie E Area. Soil unit mapping by the NRCS identifies the majority of the area as Udorthents, friable 

substratum soils. The area also comprises urban land. Across SRS, Udorthents represent well-drained, 

heterogeneous soil materials that are the spoil or refuse from excavations and major construction activities 

and are often heavily compacted (DOE 2007d:129). Some Udorthents have slight limitations for site 

development due to shrink-swell when the soils are dried out or wetted, respectively. Further, soils that 

are very limited for development due to either flooding or slope are mapped along the northern boundary 

of the site; these soils are associated with Upper Three Runs (NRCS 2009d). 

3.7.3 Water Resources 

3.7.3.1 Surface Water 

Regional surface-water drainage is dominated by the north- to south-running Savannah River. This major 

river drains a watershed of approximately 27,400 square kilometers (10,577 square miles) in the 

mountains of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. From the headwaters of the Savannah River 

to the Atlantic Ocean near Savannah, Georgia, the river traverses more than 480 kilometers (300 miles) 

from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the lower Coastal Plain (DOE 2008c:4-347).

There are five main streams that originate on or pass through SRS before discharging into the Savannah 

River Swamp. These are Upper Three Runs, Steel Creek, Pen Branch, Fourmile Branch, and Lower 

Three Runs (see Figure 3–19). Most notably, Upper Three Runs is a 39-kilometer-long (24-mile-long) 

backwater that drains an area of approximately 526 square kilometers (203 square miles). The mean 

monthly discharge for Upper Three Runs ranges from a low of about 5.7 cubic meters (201 cubic feet) per 

second in July to a high of 8.3 cubic meters (293 cubic feet) per second in March. Fourmile Branch 

follows a southwesterly route for approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) and drains an area of 57 square 

kilometers (22 square miles). The mean monthly discharge at the USGS station at Road A212.2 ranges 

from a low of 3.3 cubic meters (116 cubic feet) per second in October to a high of 4.5 cubic meters 

(160 cubic feet) per second in January. Finally, Lower Three Runs drains about 741 square kilometers 

(286 square miles) and flows about 39 kilometers (24 miles) before entering the Savannah River. The 

mean monthly discharge for Lower Three Runs ranges from a low of about 0.71 cubic meters (25 cubic 

feet) per second in October to a high of about 1.4 cubic meters (48 cubic feet) per second in March. In 

the 1950s, DOE built the Par Pond Dam on Lower Three Runs to form a cooling reservoir for cooling 

water discharges from P- and R-Reactors (DOE 2008c:4-348, 4-349). 

There are two major artificial bodies of water on site, Par Pond and L-Lake. Par Pond covers 

1,068 hectares (2,640 acres) and has an average depth of 6 meters (20 feet); L-Lake covers 405 hectares 

(1,000 acres) (DOE 2008c:4-347). 

The Savannah River is classified by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(SCDHEC) as freshwater (Class FW) that is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, 

drinking after appropriate treatment, balanced native aquatic species development, and industrial and 

agricultural purposes. Primary contact is direct contact with the water, such as that experienced while 

swimming. Secondary contact is having some direct contact with the water in a capacity where 

swallowing is unlikely to occur, such as that experienced while fishing (DOE 2008c:4-349). As such, 

under SCDHEC regulations, the same use classification and standards apply to SRS tributaries as apply to 

the Savannah River (SCR 61-69). 
Affected Environment 

3–115

Figure 3–19. Surface-Water Features and Floodplains at Savannah River Site 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–116

SRS is covered by five NPDES permits. Two permits address industrial wastewater discharges 

(SC0047431, which covers the D Area Powerhouse, and SC0000175, which covers the remainder of the 

site). The site is also covered under three general permits, one for industrial stormwater discharges 

(SCR000000), one for construction stormwater discharges (SCR100000), and another for utility water 

discharges. In 2005, SCDHEC issued a stormwater general permit (SCR000000) that required SRS 

stormwater discharges to meet more-stringent guidelines. Nineteen of SRS’s stormwater outfalls 

exceeded EPA benchmarks for iron, copper, zinc, and other trace metals. Nine of these outfalls had 

sufficient problems that prompted the state to request that SRS submit an individual permit application for 

them. The remaining ten outfalls have been brought into compliance with applicable EPA benchmarks 

through the use of best management practices. Based on an October 2005 agreement with SCDHEC, 

SRS remains in compliance with the industrial stormwater general permit (Mamatey 2008:3-8). 

SRS conducts an extensive Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program that encompasses 

surface water and groundwater. Releases of radioactive materials to surface water were highest during 

the early- and mid-1960s. Tritium, cesium-137, and strontium-90 were the main radioactive materials of 

concern for releases to selected surface streams at SRS. Other contaminants of concern that have been 

detected in the waters at SRS are trichloroethylene, cadmium, hydrogen sulfide, lead, mercury, nickel, 

and nitrate. Tritium is the predominant radionuclide detected above background levels in the Savannah 

River (DOE 2008c:4-350). Continuous surveillance monitoring occurs downstream of several process 

areas to detect and quantify levels of radioactivity in effluents transported to the Savannah River. No 

significant trends or differences in results were observed between 2007 and previous years 

(Mamatey 2008:5-3). 

3.7.3.2 Groundwater 

SRS is underlain by unconsolidated sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain that range from Late 

Cretaceous to Miocene in age and comprise layers of sand, muddy sand, and clay with subordinate 

calcareous sediments. The hydrostratigraphic units of primary interest beneath SRS are part of the 

Southeastern Coastal Plain Hydrogeologic Province. Within this sequence of aquifers and confining units 

are two principal subcategories, the overlying Floridan Aquifer System and the underlying 

Dublin-Midville Aquifer System. These systems are separated from one another by the Meyers Branch 

Confining System. In turn, each of the systems is subdivided into two aquifers, which are separated by a 

confining unit (DOE 2008c:4-351). 

In the central to southern portion of SRS, the Floridan Aquifer System is divided into the overlying Upper 

Three Runs Aquifer and the underlying Gordon Aquifer, which are separated by the Gordon Confining 

Unit. The water table surface can be as deep as 49 meters (160 feet) below ground surface, but intersects 

the ground surface in seeps along site streams. The top of the Gordon Aquifer typically is encountered at 

depths of 46 to 76 meters (150 to 250 feet) below ground surface. North of Upper Three Runs, these units 

are collectively referred to as the “Steed Pond Aquifer,” in which the Upper Three Runs Aquifer is 

referred to as the “M Area Aquifer Zone,” and the Gordon Aquifer is referred to as the “Lost Lake 

Aquifer Zone.” There is an aquitard that separates them, referred to as the “Green Clay Confining Zone” 

unit, above which the water table usually occurs at SRS; hence, it is referred to informally as the “Water 

Table” aquifer (DOE 2008c:4-352). 

The Dublin-Midville Aquifer System is divided into the overlying Crouch Branch Aquifer and the 

underlying McQueen Branch Aquifer, which are separated by the McQueen Branch Confining Unit. The 

top of the Crouch Branch Aquifer typically is encountered at depths of about 107 to 150 meters (350 to 

500 feet) below ground surface. The top of the McQueen’s Branch Aquifer typically is encountered at 

depths of 198 to 229 meters (650 to 750 feet) below ground surface. In aquitards, groundwater flow 

velocities range from several centimeters (inches) to a couple of meters (several feet) per year and in 

aquifers, from a few meters (tens of feet) to tens of meters (hundreds of feet) per year 

(DOE 2008c:4-352). 
Affected Environment 

3–117

SRS derives its own drinking and process water supply from groundwater. SRS domestic and process 

water systems are supplied from a network of approximately 40 wells in widely scattered locations across 

the site, 8 of which supply the primary drinking water system for the site. Virtually all site process and 

drinking water is pumped from the Crouch Branch and McQueen’s Branch Aquifers. The amount of 

groundwater pumped at SRS has had only localized effects on water levels in these aquifers, and it is 

unlikely that water usage at the site will ever cause drawdown problems that could impact surrounding 

communities. Since 1997, water supply production and treatment has been consolidated into three 

systems located in A Area, D Area, and K Area. Treated well water is supplied to the larger site facilities 

by the A Area, D Area, and K Area domestic water systems. Each system has wells, a treatment plant, 

elevated storage tanks, and distribution piping. The wells range in capacity from about 760 to 5,680 liters 

(200 to 1,500 gallons) per minute. The A Area, D Area, and K Area systems supply an average of about 

3.8 million liters (1 million gallons) per day of domestic water to customers in these areas. The site 

Groundwater Protection Program integrates information learned about the properties of SRS aquifers with 

site demand for drinking and process water. SRS ensures a high level of drinking water supply protection 

by monitoring above and beyond SCDHEC requirements and by periodically evaluating production wells 

(Mamatey 2008:7-5, 7-6). Water is further discussed in Section 3.7.7.4. 

In selected areas the shallower groundwater aquifers underneath SRS are contaminated with a variety of 

elements that range from organic compounds to metals and radionuclides. The sources of the detected 

groundwater contamination include burial grounds, waste management facilities, canyon buildings, 

seepage basins (now closed), and saltstone disposal facilities. The shallower Upper Three Runs Aquifer 

is contaminated with solvents, metals, and low levels of radionuclides near several SRS areas and 

facilities, including the F Area. Tritium has been reported in the Gordon Aquifer under the Separations 

Areas (F and H Areas). The deep Crouch Branch Aquifer is generally unaffected by site operations, 

except for a location near A Area, where trichloroethylene contamination has been found. One of the 

most contaminated areas at SRS is near the F Area seepage basins and inactive process sewer line. Near 

the F Area tank farm, tritium, mercury, nitrate-nitrite (as nitrogen), cadmium, gross alpha, and lead were 

detected in concentrations that exceeded drinking water standards in one or more wells. A contaminant 

plume comprised of tritium, lead, and copper values exceeding drinking water standards in one or more 

wells originates inside F Area and extends beneath the MOX [mixed oxide] Fuel Fabrication Facility site. 

DOE uses more than 200 wells in this area’s Groundwater Monitoring program and some of the 

contaminated wells lie within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of the site boundary. While DOE believes that 

the major component of groundwater flow is not directly toward the site boundary, flow in the area is 

complex and difficult to predict. This area has been the subject of extensive groundwater cleanup efforts 

(DOE 2008c:4-351, 4-352). 

E AREA

E Area is positioned on a topographic and hydrologic divide between Upper Three Runs and its 100-year 

floodplain immediately to the north and the headwaters to Fourmile Branch located just to the south. 

However, E Area facilities are located outside the 100-year floodplain (DOE 1999b:3-151). Depth to the 

water table aquifer beneath the area ranges from 17 to 20 meters (55 to 65 feet) (WSRC 2008:1-54). 

Based on 2007 monitoring, groundwater contaminants exceeding MCLs (40 CFR 141) in the vicinity of 

E Area include trichloroethylene, tritium, gross alpha, and beta emitters (Mamatey 2008:7-9). 

3.7.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.7.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

SRS has a temperate climate with short, mild winters and long, humid summers. The climate is 

frequently affected by warm, moist maritime air masses. The average annual temperature at SRS is 18 °C 

(64.4 °F); temperatures vary from an average daily minimum of 0 °C (32 °F) in January to an average 

daily maximum of 33.2 °C (91.7 °F) in July. The average annual precipitation is about 124 centimeters 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–118

(49 inches). Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year, with the highest in summer and 

the lowest in autumn. There is no predominant wind direction at SRS. The average annual windspeed at 

Augusta National Weather Service Station is 2.5 meters per second (5.7 miles per hour) 

(DOE 1999b:3-128; NOAA 2009e; WSRC 2007a:13). The maximum windspeed in Augusta, Georgia 

(highest 1-minute average), is 23 meters per second (52 miles per hour) (NOAA 2009b:65). The Augusta 

station is about 19 kilometers (12 miles) west of SRS. 

Damaging hailstorms rarely occur in Aiken County (NCDC 2009e). The average annual snowfall is 

3.6 centimeters (1.4 inches) (NOAA 2009e). 

Thirty-two tornadoes were reported in Aiken County between January 1950 and March 2009. There are 

typically several occurrences of high winds every year (NCDC 2009e). Hurricanes struck South Carolina 

36 times during the period from 1700 to 1992, which equates to an average recurrence frequency of one 

hurricane every 8 years. A hurricane-force wind of 34 meters per second (75 miles per hour) has been 

observed at SRS only once, during Hurricane Gracie in 1959 (DOE 2002e:3-20, 3-22). 

SRS is near the center of the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region No. 53. None of the 

areas within SRS or its surrounding counties are designated as nonattainment areas with respect to the 

NAAQS for criteria air pollutants (40 CFR 81.311, 81.341). 

There are no PSD Class I areas within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of SRS (DOE 1996a:3-233). SRS has 

two Title V operating permits. A PSD construction permit for a new biomass-fired cogeneration plant at 

A Area of SRS was obtained from SCDHEC. The facility was subject to the PSD permit process as a 

result of carbon monoxide emissions (Bulgarino 2008) and started operation in 2008 (SRNS 2008). 

The primary sources of air pollutants at SRS are the biomass boilers in A Area, the coal-burning boilers in 

D Area, the two fuel-oil burning package boilers in K Area that produce steam and electricity, 

diesel-powered equipment, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, soil vapor extractors, groundwater air 

strippers, and various other processing facilities. Other emissions and sources include fugitive 

particulates from coal piles and coal processing facilities, vehicles, controlled burning of forestry areas, 

and temporary emissions from various construction-related activities (DOE 1996a:F-17, F-18; NRC 2005; 

SRS 2009; WSRC 2006a:25, 2007b). 

Table 3–15 presents the applicable ambient standards and ambient air pollutant concentrations attributable 

to sources at SRS. These concentrations are based on emissions for the year 2006 (SRNL 2007; 

WSRC 2007b). Other toxic air pollutants are discussed in the modeling report (SRNL 2007). 

Concentrations shown in Table 3–15 attributable to SRS are in compliance with applicable guidelines and 

regulations. Estimated mercury emissions at SRS in 2006 were 0.0514 metric tons per year (0.0567 tons 

per year) (SRS 2008). Data for 2007 and 2008 from nearby ambient air monitors in Aiken and Barnwell 

Counties in South Carolina and Richmond County in Georgia are presented in Table 3–16. The data 

indicate that the NAAQS for PM, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide are not exceeded in the area around 

SRS. The 3-year average 8-hour ozone value exceeds the standard in the city of Augusta, Georgia. The 

highest monitored concentration at Augusta for mercury in 2008 was 0.015 micrograms per cubic meter 

(SCDHEC 2009a, 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

3–119

Table 3–15. Modeled Nonradiological Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations from 

Savannah River Site Sources and Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Most Stringent Standard 

or Guidelinea

Maximum Savannah 

River Site 

Concentrationb

Pollutant Averaging Period micrograms per cubic meter 

Criteria Pollutants 

Carbon monoxide 8 hours 10,000c 40 

1 hour 40,000c 215 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100c 10.1 

Ozone 8 hours 147d (f) 

Annual 50 PM e, g 4.6 10

24 hours 150c 74 

Annual 15 PM c 4.3 2.5

24 hours 35c 34 

Annual 80c 7.7 

24 hours 365c 125 

Sulfur dioxide 

3 hours 1,300c 884 

Lead Calendar quarter 1.5c 0.001 

Other Regulated Pollutants 

Total suspended particulates Annual 75e 56 

Hazardous and Other Toxic Compounds 

Mercury 24 hours 0.25e 0.002 

a The more stringent of the Federal and state standards is presented if both exist for the averaging period. The National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50), other than those for ozone, particulate matter, lead, and those standards based on 

annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The annual arithmetic mean PM standard is attained when 

the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration (3-year average) is less than or equal to the standard. The 24-hour PM

standard is met when the 98th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to the standard 

value. The 24-hour PM standard is met when the 99th percentile over 3 years of 24-hour concentrations is less than or equal 

to the standard value. 

2.5

2.5

10

b Site contributions based on a 2006 emissions inventory. 

c Federal and state standard. 

d Federal standard. 

e State standard. 

f

 No concentration reported. 

g The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM10 standard. 

Note: South Carolina has additional standards for gaseous fluorides that are not shown because they are not emitted by the 

facilities evaluated in this environmental impact statement. Emissions of other air pollutants not listed here have been identified 

at SRS, but are not associated with any of the alternatives evaluated. These other air pollutants are quantified in the Storage and 

Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1996a). Values 

may differ from those of the source document due to rounding. Concentrations were based on the permit allowable emissions 

and meteorological data for 2003 through 2005 as discussed in the air dispersion modeling report (SRNL 2007). To convert 

cubic meters to cubic feet, multiply by 35.315. 

Key: PMn=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to n micrometers. 

Source: 40 CFR 50; SCDHEC 2006, 2008; SRNL 2007.
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–120

Table 3–16. Ambient Air Quality Standards and 2007 and 2008 Monitored Levels in the 

Vicinity of the Savannah River Site

Pollutant Averaging Period 

Ambient 

Standard 

(micrograms 

per cubic meter) 

Concentration 

(micrograms 

per cubic 

meter) Location 

Carbon 8 hours 10,000 (a) (a) 

monoxide 1 hour 40,000 (a) (a) 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100 6.5b

4.5b

Aiken, South Carolina 

Barnwell, South Carolina 

Ozone 8 hours 147 147 

143b

149 

Aiken, South Carolina 

Barnwell, South Carolinab 

(Augusta) Richmond, 

Georgia 

PM10 Annual 50 21b

22b

23 

Barnwell, South Carolina 

Aiken, South Carolina 

(Augusta) Richmond, 

Georgia 

24 hours 150 47b

61b

33 

Barnwell, South Carolina 

Aiken, South Carolina 

(Augusta) Richmond, 

Georgia 

PM2.5 Annual 15 (a) 

(a) 

Aiken, South Carolina 

(Augusta) Richmond, 

Georgia 

24 hours 35 (a) 

(a) 

Aiken, South Carolina 

(Augusta) Richmond, 

Georgia 

Annual 80 3.9b Barnwell, South Carolina 

24 hours 365 13.1b Barnwell, South Carolina 

Sulfur dioxide 

3 hours 1,300 34.1b Barnwell, South Carolina 

a No data are available in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site. 

b 2007 data. 

Key: PMn=particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to n micrometers. 

Source: 40 CFR 50; EPA 2009g, 2009h; SCDHEC 2006, 2008, 2009a, 2009b.

E AREA

The meteorological conditions described previously for SRS are considered representative of E Area. 

Information on air pollutant emissions from this area is included in the overall site emissions discussed 

previously. There are no nonradiological air pollutant sources in E Area that require permits 

(SCDHEC 2003). 

3.7.4.2 Noise 

Major noise sources at SRS occur primarily in developed or active areas and include various industrial 

facilities, equipment, and machines (e.g., cooling systems, transformers, engines, pumps, boilers, steam 

vents, paging systems, construction and material-handling equipment, and vehicles). Major noise 

emission sources outside of these active areas consist primarily of vehicles and rail operations. Existing 

SRS-related noise sources of importance to the public are those related to transportation of people and 

materials to and from the site, including trucks, private vehicles, helicopters, and trains 
Affected Environment 

3–121

(DOE 1996a:3-233–3-235). Primary access routes are highways through the nearby towns of New 

Ellenton, Jackson, and Aiken, South Carolina. 

Most industrial facilities at SRS are far enough from the site boundary that noise at the boundary from 

these sources is either unmeasurable or barely distinguishable from background levels. 

The States of Georgia and South Carolina and counties in which SRS is located have not established any 

noise regulations that specify acceptable community noise levels, with the exception of a provision in the 

Aiken County Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance that limits daytime and nighttime noise by 

frequency band (DOE 1996a:3-235). 

E AREA

No distinguishing noise characteristics in E Area have been identified. Facilities in E Area are far enough 

from the site boundary that noise at the boundary from these sources would either be unmeasurable or 

barely distinguishable from background levels. 

3.7.5 Ecological Resources 

3.7.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

Terrestrial cover types at SRS can be classified as both forested and nonforested. Forested cover types 

include bottomland hardwood, pine forest, mixed forest, and forested wetland. Nonforested cover types 

include scrub-shrub, emergent wetlands, industrial, grassland, clear cut, bare soil/borrow pit, and open 

water. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of the land cover at SRS is composed of pine forest, mixed 

pine/hardwood forest, and bottomland hardwood forest; 1,322 plant species have been documented on 

SRS. Common wetland species include bald cypress, water tupelo, and button bush, while upland species 

included red oak, hackberry, and greenbriar (WSRC 2006b:5-12, 6-11). 

The biodiversity within SRS is extensive due to the variety of plant communities and the mild climate. 

Animal species known to inhabit SRS include 54 species of mammals, 255 species of birds, 59 species of 

reptiles, and 44 species of amphibians. Common species include the eastern box turtle, Carolina 

chickadee, common crow, eastern cottontail, and gray fox. Game animals include a number of species, 

three of which, the eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, and feral hogs, are hunted on the site. Raptors, 

such as the Cooper’s hawk and the black vulture, and carnivores, such as the gray fox, are ecologically 

important groups at SRS (DOE 1999b:3-157). 

E AREA

Due to the highly developed nature of E Area, native vegetation is limited, and wildlife includes those 

species adapted to such an environment. Mammal species include the raccoon, striped skunk, and coyote. 

Bird species include the house sparrow, European starling, and killdeer. 

3.7.5.2 Wetlands 

SRS wetlands, most of which are associated with floodplains, streams, and impoundments, include 

bottomland hardwood, cypress-tupelo, scrub-shrub, emergent vegetation, Carolina bays, and open water. 

Swamp forest is the most extensive wetland vegetation type along the Savannah River 

(DOE 1999b:3-159). 

E AREA

Most of the land within E Area has been developed for industrial use. As a result, no wetlands currently 

exist within this location; however, wetlands are located adjacent to E Area. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–122

3.7.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic habitat includes manmade ponds, Carolina bays, reservoirs, and the Savannah River and its 

tributaries. There are more than 50 manmade impoundments throughout the site that support populations 

of bass and sunfish. Carolina bays, a type of wetland unique to the southeastern United States, are natural 

shallow depressions that occur in interstream areas. These bays can range from lakes to shallow marshes, 

herbaceous bogs, shrub bogs, or swamp forests. Among the 299 Carolina bays found throughout SRS, 

fewer than 20 have permanent fish populations. Redfin pickerel, mud sunfish, lake chubsucker, and 

mosquito fish are present in these bays. Although sport and commercial fishing is not permitted at SRS, 

the Savannah River is used extensively for both. Important commercial species are the American shad, 

hickory shad, and striped bass, all of which are anadromous, meaning they live in the sea and breed in 

freshwater. The most important warm-water game fish are bass, pickerel, crappie, bream, and catfish 

(DOE 1999b:3-157). 

E AREA

Most of the land within E Area has been developed for industrial use. As a result, no aquatic resources 

currently exist within this location. 

3.7.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Eight federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species may be found in the vicinity of SRS. No 

critical habitat, as defined by the USFWS, exists on the site (DOE 1999b:3-159; WSRC 2006b:3-43). 

Table 3–17 lists the federally and state-listed endangered and threatened species that are known to occur 

at SRS. 

Table 3–17. Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring 

at the Savannah River Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Plants 

Smooth purple 

coneflower 

Echinacea 

laevigata 

Endangered Endangered 

Pondberry Lindera 

melissifolia 

Endangered Endangered 

Animals 

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered 

Wood stork Mycteria 

americana 

Endangered Endangered 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser 

brevirostrum 

Endangered Endangered 

American swallowtailed kite Elanoides 

forficatus 

Not listed Endangered 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus 

polyphemus 

Not listed Endangered 

Southeastern 

big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii 

Not listed Endangered 

Source: SCDNR 2006; WSRC 2006b:3-45. 
Affected Environment 

3–123

E AREA

Due to the highly developed nature of E Area, threatened and endangered species are not expected to 

occur. 

3.7.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

3.7.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

An extensive Archaeological Survey Program that began at SRS in 1974 involved numerous field studies 

consisting of reconnaissance surveys, shovel test transects, and intensive site tests and excavations. More 

than 60 percent of the site has received some level of cultural resources evaluation involving both 

prehistoric and historic resources. More than 800 prehistoric sites or sites with prehistoric components 

have been identified. Although most of these sites have not been formally evaluated for eligibility for 

listing in the NRHP, 67 sites have been identified as potentially eligible. Prehistoric sites at SRS consist 

of village sites, base camps, limited-activity sites, quarries, and workshops (DOE 2008c:4-357). 

E AREA

There have been no prehistoric sites identified in E Area. 

3.7.6.2 Historic Resources 

Approximately 400 historic sites or sites with historic components have been identified within SRS. 

Historic sites include farmsteads, tenant dwellings, mills, plantations and slave quarters, rice farm dikes, 

dams, cattle pens, ferry locations, towns, churches, schools, cemeteries, commercial building locations, 

and roads. Of these sites, approximately 10 percent have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

Systematic historic building surveys have not yet been conducted at SRS. Many of the pre-SRS historic 

structures were demolished during the initial establishment of the site in 1950. No nuclear production 

facilities have been nominated for inclusion in the NRHP and there are no plans for nomination. Existing 

SRS facilities lack architectural integrity and do not contribute to the broad historic theme of the 

Manhattan Project or World War II era nuclear materials (DOE 2008c:4-357). 

SRS has been involved in tritium operations and other nuclear material production for more than 40 years. 

Some existing facilities and engineering records may become significant as they attain the 50-year age 

criterion. DOE’s Savannah River Operations Office and the NNSA’s SRS Office recognized that site 

operations may impact Cold War NRHP-eligible properties and that a plan was needed to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on these properties. As a result, the Cold War Built Environment 

Cultural Resources Management Plan was developed. This plan contains a process for reaching 

decisions concerning the future treatment of SRS Cold War NRHP-eligible historic properties 

(DOE 2008c:4-358). 

E AREA

Previous construction within the developed, fenced portion of E Area was determined to have no effect on 

archaeological resources because this area has been previously disturbed and no important sites were 

discovered (DOE 1995:4-98). 

3.7.6.3 American Indian Resources 

American Indian groups with traditional ties to the SRS area include the Apalachee, Cherokee, Chicksaw, 

Creek, Shawnee, Westo, and Yuchi. At various times, each of these groups settled in the area. During 

the 1800s, most of the remaining American Indians residing in the area were relocated to the Oklahoma 

Territory (DOE 2008c:4-358). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–124

American Indian resources in the region include the remains of villages or townsites, ceremonial lodges, 

burials, cemeteries, and areas containing plants used for religious ceremonies. No specific sites have been 

identified at SRS (DOE 2008c:4-358). 

In 1991, DOE conducted a survey of American Indian concerns regarding religious rights in the central 

Savannah River Valley. During the study, six American Indian groups, the Yuchi Tribal Organization, 

the National Council of Muskogee Creek, the Indian People’s Muskogee Tribal Town Confederacy, the 

Pee Dee Indian Nation, the Ma Chis Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe, and the United Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee, expressed continuing interest in the sites and items of religious significance within 

SRS, including plant species used for ceremonies. DOE has continued to consult with the interested tribal 

organizations by notifying them about major planned actions at SRS and providing for review and 

comment environmental reports that address proposed actions at the site (DOE 2008c:4-358). 

E AREA

Due to the fact that E Area has been previously disturbed, there is a low probability of the area being of 

interest to American Indian groups. 

3.7.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological materials from the SRS area date largely from the Eocene Age (39 to 54 million years 

ago) and include fossil plants; invertebrate fossils; and deposits of giant oysters, other mollusks, and 

bryozoa. All paleontological materials at SRS are marine invertebrate deposits and, with the exception of 

the giant oysters, are relatively common fossils and therefore have low research potential 

(DOE 2008c:4-357). 

E AREA

No paleontological resources have been identified in E Area. 

3.7.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of SRS’s sitewide infrastructure characteristics 

is presented in Table 3–18. 

Table 3–18. Savannah River Site Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers)

Paved roads 2,161a 2,161a

Railroads 103 103 

Electricity

Energy consumption (megawatt-hours per year ) 370,000 4,400,000 

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) (b) (b) 

Fuel oil (liters per year) 1,895,000 (c) 

Diesel fuel (liters per year) 501,000 (c) 

Gasoline (liters per year) 525,000 (c) 

Coal (metric tons per year) 771,000 (c)

Propane (liters per year) 3,790 (c) 

Water (liters per year) 1,780,000,000 3,870,000,000

a Includes both paved and unpaved roads on the site. 

b Fuel resource not used on site. 

c Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

Note: To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to cubic feet by 35.312; liters to gallons by 0.26417; and 

metric tons to tons, by 1.1023. 

Source: DOE 1999b:3-165, 2008c:4-343–4-344. 
Affected Environment 

3–125

3.7.7.1 Ground Transportation 

SRS is located in south-central South Carolina approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) southeast of 

Augusta, Georgia, and 19 kilometers (12 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina. There are three principal 

access roads to the north of the site (i.e., South Carolina Highways 19, 57, and 125) and three to the east 

and south of the site (i.e., South Carolina Highways 39, 64, and 125). Within SRS, there are 

approximately 231 kilometers (143 miles) of primary and 1,944 kilometers (1,200 miles) of secondary 

roads (DOE 2008c:4-344,4-375). Rail access is provided by the CSX Transportation line. Within SRS, 

there are approximately 103 kilometers (64 miles) of track (DOE 1999b:3-165, 2005e:3). Ground 

transportation information specific to E Area is not available. 

3.7.7.2 Electricity 

SRS uses a 115-kilovolt power line system in a ring arrangement to supply electricity to the operations 

areas, administrative areas, and independent and support function areas. That system includes about 

160 kilometers (100 miles) of transmission lines. Power is supplied by three transmission lines from the 

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. SRS is situated in, and draws power from, the 

Virginia-Carolina Sub Region, an electric power pool area that is part of the Southeastern Electrical 

Reliability Council (DOE 1999b:3-165, 2008c:4-343). 

The total SRS usage of electrical power was 370,000 megawatt-hours per year with a site capacity of 

4.4 million megawatt-hours per year (DOE 2008c:4-343). Electricity consumption information specific to 

E Area is not available. 

3.7.7.3 Fuel 

Wood, coal, and oil are used at SRS to power steam plants located in A, D, H, and K Areas. The 

produced steam is distributed across the site in an aboveground pipeline distribution system. Coal is 

delivered by rail and is stored at coal piles in D and H Areas. Fuel oil is delivered by truck and is used in 

K Area. Natural gas is not used at SRS (DOE 2008c:4-343). Additionally, biomass fuel is used in the 

A Area steam plant and is proposed as a fuel source for the Biomass Cogeneration Facility currently 

under construction (DOE 2008d:4, 7, 17). 

The annual consumption of fuel oil was approximately 1.9 million liters (500,000 gallons); diesel fuel 

consumption, 500,000 liters (130,000 gallons); gasoline consumption, 525,000 liters (139,000 gallons); 

coal consumption, 771,000 metric tons (850,000 tons); and propane consumption, 3,790 liters 

(1,000 gallons) (DOE 2008c:4-344). Fuel use information specific to E Area is not available. 

3.7.7.4 Water 

Domestic water supplies at SRS come from a system composed of several wells and water treatment 

plants. The system includes three wells and a water treatment plant in A Area and two wells and a 

backup water treatment plant in B Area. A 43-kilometer (27-mile) pipe loop provides domestic water 

from A and B Areas to other SRS operations areas (DOE 2008c:4-344). 

Annual water consumption (predominately groundwater) at SRS was approximately 1.8 billion 

liters (470 million gallons). Site capacity is approximately 3.9 billion liters (1.0 billion gallons) 

(DOE 1999b:3-165). Water consumption and capacity information is not available for E Area. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–126

3.7.8 Waste Management 

As a function of onsite routine activity and ongoing remediation efforts, SRS manages HLW, TRU waste, 

LLW, MLLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. All site wastes are managed in accordance 

with appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal technologies, in compliance with applicable Federal and 

state law (DOE 2008c:4-378). 

3.7.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

Table 3–19 lists routine waste generation volumes at SRS. SRS waste treatment, storage, and disposal is 

performed at over 30 facilities across the site. 

Table 3–19. Solid Waste Generation Rates at the Savannah River Site, 2003–2007a

Generation Rate (cubic meters) 

Waste Type 5-Year Average Fiscal Year 2007 

Transuranicb 140 130 

Low-level radioactive 20,000 13,000 

Mixed low-level radioactive 270 55 

Hazardous 180 34 

Sanitaryc 76,000 42,000 

Construction and demolition debrisd 45,000 52,000 

a Fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

b Includes mixed transuranic waste. 

c Includes sanitary waste and debris sent to the Three Rivers Landfill and assumes 0.1186 metric tons per cubic meter on an 

as-generated basis. 

d Includes construction and demolition debris sent to the SRS Construction and Demolition Landfill and assumes 1 metric ton 

per cubic meter. 

Note: To convert cubic meters to cubic feet, multiply by 35.315; metric tons to tons, by 1.1023. 

Source: SRS 2009. 

High-Level Radioactive Waste 

Currently, SRS manages nearly 136 million liters (36 million gallons) of HLW in 49 underground storage 

tanks. The HLW is managed in two waste forms: (1) sludge that contains most of the radioactivity 

settled at the bottom of each tank and (2) a liquid supernate that resides above the sludge within each 

tank. Evaporators are used to reduce the volume of supernate and ultimately aid in the formation of a 

solid salt cake (DOE 2008c:4-379). 

Sludge material from underground storage tanks is transferred to the onsite Extended Sludge Processing 

Facility, where it is washed to reduce the concentration of sodium salts. The Defense Waste Processing 

Facility further processes the washed sludge and vitrifies it with glass frit. The immobilized HLW glass 

is sealed in steel canisters. Canisters are stored in Glass Waste Storage Buildings (underground 

reinforced-concrete vaults with a capacity of storing up to 4,400 canisters) (DOE 2008c:4-379). As of 

May 2007, the Defense Waste Processing Facility had poured more than 2,200 canisters and removed 

over 5.3 million liters (1.4 million gallons) of radioactive waste from 11 tanks (WSRC 2007b:6). The 

Salt Waste Processing Facility is projected to come on line in 2013 to process cesium-bearing salt cake 

and supernate for vitrification in the Defense Waste Processing Facility from the underground storage 

tanks (DOE 2008c:4-379). 
Affected Environment 

3–127

Transuranic Waste 

SRS is currently characterizing and certifying TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. SRS made its first TRU 

waste shipment to WIPP in May 2001, and nearly 800 shipments were made through 2007. Over 

24,000 containers, or 5,000 cubic meters (6,540 cubic yards), of the original TRU waste inventory have 

been shipped as of the end of 2007 (WSRC 2007c). TRU waste at SRS is contractor managed using three 

mobile systems: a real-time radiography trailer, nondestructive assay trailer, and drum headspace gas 

sampling system (DOE 2008c:4-379). 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Both liquid and solid LLW is treated at SRS. Most aqueous LLW streams are sent to the F and H Area 

Effluent Treatment Project (formerly called the Effluent Treatment Facility) and treated by pH 

adjustment, submicron filtration, organic removal, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange to remove the 

chemical and radioactive contaminants other than tritium. This facility is designed to process 380,000 to 

950,000 liters (100,000 to 250,000 gallons) of LLW daily. The maximum permitted facility capacity is 

1.6 million liters (430,000 gallons) per day. Actual processing is approximately 208,000 liters 

(55,000 gallons) per day (WSRC 2006c, 2007d). After treatment, the effluent is discharged to Upper 

Three Runs through an NPDES-permitted outfall. The treatment residuals are concentrated by 

evaporation and stored in the H Area tank farm for eventual treatment in the Z Area Saltstone Facility, 

where wastes are immobilized with grout for onsite disposal (WSRC 2007e). 

Mixed-Low Level Radioactive Waste 

Storage facilities for MLLW are located in several different SRS areas. These facilities are regulated 

under RCRA or as Clean Water Act–permitted tank systems (DOE 2002e:3-43). In 2005, 262 cubic 

meters (343 cubic yards) of MLLW was shipped off site for disposal at Nevada Test Site, which is under 

RCRA permit. Mixed waste not suitable for existing treatment and disposal facilities remained stored at 

SRS (DOE 2008c:4-378). 

Hazardous Waste 

SRS operations accumulate hazardous waste at the generating location, as permitted by appropriate 

regulations, or store it U.S. Department of Transportation–approved containers in four RCRA-permitted 

hazardous waste storage buildings and on three storage pads in N Area. The hazardous waste streams 

consists of a variety of materials, including mercury, chromate, lead, paint solvents, and lab equipment. 

Most of the waste is shipped off site to commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facilities 

(DOE 2008c:4-379). 

Nonhazardous Waste 

Sanitary wastewater is collected and treated prior to discharge to NPDES-permitted outfalls. Solid 

sanitary waste is sent to the Three Rivers Regional Landfill, which is located within SRS and serves as a 

regional municipal landfill for Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Calhoun, Edgefield, McCormick, Orangeburg, 

and Saluda Counties (DOE 2008c:4-379). Construction and demolition debris is disposed of near N Area 

(SRS 2009). 

3.7.8.2 Waste Minimization 

SRS supports a variety of programs focused on minimizing waste and preventing pollution. SRS’s 

Pollution Prevention Program supports source reduction and recycling over treatment, storage, and 

disposal. In 2004, SRS implemented 51 pollution prevention projects, resulting in an annualized 

avoidance of 7,093 cubic meters (9,277 cubic yards) of waste (DOE 2008c:4-378). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–128

3.7.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.7.9.1 Normal Operations 

SRS operations in 2007 resulted in minimal impact on the offsite public and the surrounding 

environment. The site’s chemical and radioactive discharges to air and water were well below regulatory 

maximums for environmental and public health protection; its air and water quality met appropriate 

requirements; and radiation doses from its discharges were well below dose standards. The largest 

radiation dose that an offsite, hypothetical, maximally exposed individual could have received from SRS 

operations during 2007 was estimated to be 0.10 millirem. These doses fall within the limits established 

in DOE Order 5400.5. Health effects of SRS operations are described in detail in Chapter 6 of the 

Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2007 (Mamatey 2008:xv, 6-1–6-12). 

Effective administrative and design controls that decrease hazardous chemical releases to the environment 

and help achieve compliance with permit requirements (e.g., air emissions and NPDES permit 

requirements) contribute to minimizing health impacts on the public. The effectiveness of these controls 

is verified through the use of monitoring information and inspection of mitigation measures. Health 

impacts on the public may occur through inhalation of air containing hazardous chemicals released to the 

atmosphere during normal SRS operations. Risks to public health from other pathways, such as ingestion 

of contaminated drinking water or food, are also potential modes of exposure; risk from direct exposure is 

lower than that from inhalation or ingestion. 

In 2007, elevated concentrations of mercury were found in samples of fish tissue collected in the 

Savannah River near SRS compared with concentrations in reference samples. The highest concentration 

was above the EPA recommended consumption limit (1.9 parts per million for methylmercury) 

(EPA 2009i:4-5; Mamatey 2008:5-12). 

During normal operations, SRS workers may be exposed to hazardous materials by inhaling contaminants 

in the workplace atmosphere or through direct contact with contaminants. The potential for health 

impacts varies among facilities and workers. Workers are protected from workplace hazards through 

appropriate training, protective equipment, monitoring, substitution, and engineering and management 

controls. They are also protected by adherence to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Process Safety Management and workplace limits and EPA standards that limit workplace atmospheric 

and drinking water concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Appropriate monitoring that 

reflects the frequency and amounts of chemicals used in the operational processes ensure that these 

standards are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requires that conditions in the workplace be as free as 

possible from recognized hazards that cause, or are likely to cause, illness or physical harm. 

3.7.9.2 Facility Accidents 

Accidents reported at SRS in recent years are briefly described in this section, although they do not 

represent accident scenarios that would be credible for the actions considered in this EIS. Between 1974 

and 1988, there were 13 inadvertent tritium releases from SRS tritium facilities. These releases were 

attributed to aging equipment in the Tritium-Processing Facility—now no longer operating—and were a 

major factor in the decision to replace it with the new Tritium Extraction Facility at SRS. A detailed 

description and study of these incidents and the corresponding consequences to the offsite population 

have been documented by SRS. The most significant were in 1981, 1984, and 1985, when, respectively, 

32,934; 43,800; and 19,403 curies of tritiated water vapor were released (DOE 1996a:3-259). From 1989 

through 1992, there were 20 inadvertent releases, all with little or no offsite dose consequences. The 

largest of the recent releases occurred in 1992, when 12,000 curies of tritium were released 

(WSRC 1993:260). 
Affected Environment 

3–129

In 1993, there was an inadvertent release of 0.18 microcuries of plutonium-238 and plutonium-239. 

Emergency response models estimated an exposure of 0.0019 millirem to a hypothetical person at the site 

boundary (WSRC 1994:178). 

3.7.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and radioactive 

materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incident-free) 

transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive or 

radioactive materials. Risks related to nonradioactive transportation to and from SRS and normal 

radioactive transportation to and from SRS have been estimated for specific activities such as surplus 

plutonium disposition. There is no current risk assessment available for overall transportation of material 

to and from SRS. 

Risks related to normal radioactive shipments to SRS discussed in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition 

Final Environmental Impact Statement were estimated, using the currently recommended dose conversion 

factor, to be about 0.029 latent cancer fatalities among transportation workers and about 0.041 latent 

cancer fatalities in the total affected population. DOE estimated that 0.019 nonradiological fatalities 

could occur as a result of vehicular emissions from those activities. DOE also estimated the impacts of 

accident scenarios—in all cases the risk of a fatality was less than one (DOE 1999b:4-66; 2008c:4-376). 

3.7.10 Socioeconomics 

SRS is located approximately 19 kilometers (12 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina, and 24 kilometers 

(15 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. Based on local employment statistics compiled by the Census 

Bureau, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the people employed at SRS reside in four 

counties: Aiken and Barnwell in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond in Georgia (DOC 2009a). 

Therefore, these four counties are identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis. As of 

April 2009, SRS employed approximately 11,000 persons (SRNS 2009). 

3.7.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the four-county ROI increased by 9.7 percent to 235,987. As of 

July 2009, the unemployment rate of the ROI was 10 percent, which was lower than the unemployment 

rate across the two-state area of South Carolina and Georgia (11 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.7.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008 the estimated population of the four-county ROI was 487,056. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 7.0 percent, compared with 16 percent growth throughout the two-state area of 

Georgia and South Carolina (DOC 2009b). The percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 

was 26 percent; women ages 18 to 39 composed 15 percent (DOC 2009c). Young children and pregnant 

women are considered to be among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. There were 

207,983 housing units in the ROI in 2007 (DOC 2008), 61 percent of which were owner occupied, 

27 percent were renter occupied, and 12 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 

3.7.10.3 Local Transportation 

There are two interstate highways near SRS. Interstate 20 is the major east-west route, connecting the 

Augusta region to Columbia in the east and Atlanta to the west. The other is Interstate 520, also known 

as the Bobby Jones Expressway, which connects Interstate 20 at the western end of Augusta and loops 

around the city, crossing U.S. Route 78 and U.S. Route 1 in Georgia and eventually connecting to 

U.S. Route 1 in South Carolina just north of the Savannah River. Vehicle access to SRS is provided by 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–130

South Carolina Highways 19, 57, 64, and 125. The segment of Highway 19 south of the city of Aiken 

had an average daily traffic volume of 13,000 vehicles per day in 2008. The segment of Highway 64 

most accessible to the site had an average daily traffic volume of 1,200 vehicles per day. Highway 125 

had an average annual daily traffic volume of 2,700 vehicles per day on the segment between 

Secondary Road 62 in the town of Jackson, in Aiken County, and Barnwell County. Average annual 

daily traffic data for South Carolina Highway 57 are unavailable (SCDOT 2009). There is no public 

transportation to SRS. 

Rail service is provided by the Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Transportation. SRS is provided 

rail access via Robbins Station on the CSX Transportation Line. Waterborne transportation is available 

via the Savannah River. Currently, the Savannah River is used primarily for recreation. SRS has no 

commercial docking facilities, but it has a boat ramp that has accepted large transport barge shipments 

(DOE 1999c:3-142). 

The Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field in the city of Augusta, Georgia, receives commercial air 

traffic from both national and local carriers. Numerous general aviation airports are also located in the 

area. The City of Aiken, South Carolina, owns and operates the Aiken Municipal Airport, Barnwell 

County, South Carolina, owns and operates the Barnwell Municipal Airport, and the City of Augusta, 

Georgia, owns and operates the Daniel Field Airport. 

3.7.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the proposed storage locations at SRS encompasses parts 

of four counties: Aiken and Barnwell in South Carolina and Burke and Richmond in Georgia. 

Figure 3–20 shows populations residing in the four-county area, as reported in the 1990 and 

2000 censuses (DOC 2009d, 2009e). In this figure, lightly shaded bars show populations in 1990, while 

darker bars show those in 2000. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the total population of Aiken, 

Barnwell, Burke, and Richmond Counties increased by approximately 10 percent to 388,048; the minority 

population increased by approximately 28 percent to 175,866; and the low-income population increased 

by approximately 14 percent to 67,950. Demographic data from the 2000 census show that the Black or 

African American population residing in the four-county area accounted for approximately 89 percent of 

the total minority population. Persons who declared that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin are 

included in the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–20, regardless of race. They composed 

approximately 5 percent of the total minority population residing in the four-county region. 

Data for Burke County, Georgia, and Barnwell County, South Carolina, from the 2007 ACS 1-Year 

Estimates are unavailable due to a population threshold of 65,000 people necessary for inclusion. 

However, the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates report data for all four counties included in the 

16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the proposed storage location. According to the 

2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates, since 2000, the total population of the four-county area increased by 

1.4 percent to 393,385, and the low-income population increased by 5.1 percent to 71,449. Detailed 

demographic data on race and Hispanic origin for Burke and Barnwell Counties from the 2005–2007 ACS 

3-Year Estimates are unavailable due to an insufficient number of sample cases. Data for Aiken and 

Richmond Counties show an increase in the total minority population of 4.7 percent since 2000 

(DOC 2009c, 2009d). 
Affected Environment 

3–131

Figure 3–20. Populations Residing in the Four-County Area Surrounding the 

Savannah River Site in 1990 and 2000 

E AREA

Approximately 8,178 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of E Area at SRS in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). This area included an estimated 36 percent minority and 17 percent low-income 

population. By comparison, the four-county area included a 45 percent minority and 18 percent 

low-income population, and the two-state region of South Carolina and Georgia included a 36 percent 

minority and 13 percent low-income population. There are 14 census block groups located within the 

16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding E Area, 4 of which contained a disproportionately high number 

of minority individuals; none contained a disproportionately high number of low-income individuals. 

Figure 3–21 shows the proximity of the identified minority communities to E Area. Figure 3–22 shows 

the cumulative populations living at a given distance from the site. The total population living within 

16 kilometers (10 miles) of E Area is primarily concentrated to the north and northwest toward the 

outskirts of the Augusta-Richmond Metropolitan Statistical Area. No one resides within approximately 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of E Area. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–132

Figure 3–21. Block Groups Containing Minority Populations Surrounding 

E Area at the Savannah River Site 
Affected Environment 

3–133

Figure 3–22. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of 

E Area at the Savannah River Site 

POTENTIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS 

Environmental justice concerns were considered in greater detail in areas that have been identified as 

containing a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. This section 

presents information regarding factors that may contribute to disproportional impacts, such as age and 

access to health care. 

Figure 3–23 displays a breakdown of potentially susceptible demographics for the 16-kilometer (10-mile) 

ROI, the two-state region, and the four-county region. For purposes of this analysis, the demographics of 

primary concern are children under the age of 18, women ages 18 to 39, and individuals ages 65 and up. 

The population of children under 18 and women ages 18 to 39 living within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) 

ROI appear to be consistent with the surrounding four-county and two-state regions. The population of 

individuals ages 65 and up living within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI is larger than that demographic 

living in surrounding areas; however, the differences do not appear to be appreciable. 

HPSAs are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration. These data are presented at 

the greatest level of spatial resolution available for each county within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI. 

All of Aiken County is designated as a primary medical care and dental HPSA for low-income 

populations, and one medical facility in the county is designated as a dental and mental health HPSA. All 

of Barnwell County is designated as a primary health care and dental HPSA. There are no mental health 

HPSA designations in Barnwell County. One medical facility is designated as a primary medical care 

HPSA in Burke County, and the entire county is designated as both a dental and mental health HPSA. 

Several census tracts in Richmond County are designated as primary medical care HPSAs; however, none 

of these tracts lie within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI. One medical facility in Richmond County is 

designated as both a dental and mental health HPSA (HRSA 2009b). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–134

Figure 3–23. Percentage of Age Groups Within the 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Region of Influence 

and the Two-State and Four-County Areas Surrounding the Savannah River Site 

3.8 WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, SITE 

3.8.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

3.8.1.1 Land Use 

The privately owned WCS facility complex occupies 541 hectares (1,338 acres) of rural property just east 

of the Texas–New Mexico state line. A 5,460-hectare (13,500-acre) tract of land also owned by WCS 

surrounds the developed portion of the site. The WCS property is located primarily in northwestern 

Andrews County, Texas, and extends to the west into Lea County, New Mexico. The nearest population 

center is the city of Eunice, New Mexico, located approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) west of the site. 

The city of Andrews, Texas, is located approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) east of the WCS site. 

WCS currently contains facilities used for the processing, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste, LLW, 

and MLLW (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-10; 2009a:3). 

Industries operating in the vicinity of WCS include gravel and caliche mining, oil and gas production, 

landfill operations, cattle grazing, and ranching. Louisiana Energy Services has filed an application with 

the NRC to operate a commercial uranium enrichment facility adjacent to the western boundary of the 

WCS property. This facility is currently under construction. The Lea County Landfill occupies 

approximately 16 hectares (40 acres) of adjacent land to the southwest. The majority of the remaining 

land within the vicinity of the site is used for ranching activities and seasonal livestock grazing. No 

parkland or other environmentally sensitive areas exist within a 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius of the site 

(WCS 2007a:2-9, 11-9, 11.1.1-10; 2009a:2). 
Affected Environment 

3–135

3.8.1.2 Visual Resources 

WCS is located in the High Plains region of the central Great Plains; this region is characterized by 

grassland, shrubs, and few, scattered trees (WCS 2007a:2-38). The topography of the facilities area 

generally slopes to the south-southwest (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:5-8). 

The developed areas of WCS are consistent with BLM’s VRM Class III or IV. Class III includes areas in 

which there have been moderate changes in the landscape that could attract attention, but do not dominate 

the view of the casual observer. Class IV includes areas in which major modifications to the character of 

the landscape have occurred. These changes may be dominant features of the view and the major focus of 

viewer attention (DOI 1986:App. 2). Major visual features at WCS include the buildings, excavated 

earthen mounds, and access roads. The viewshed in the vicinity of WCS consists mainly of open range 

interspersed with resource extraction facilities, the Lea County Landfill, and oil well pump jacks. 

Although it does not possess any dramatic, unique, or rare features, the overall area can be considered to 

have modest scenic quality that is pleasant to regard for its rural, undeveloped nature (Hicks & 

Company 2007:78). This viewshed is generally consistent with VRM Class II (where visible changes to 

the character of the landscape are low and do not attract the attention of the casual observer) and Class III. 

3.8.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.8.2.1 Geology 

WCS is located in west Texas and lies within the southern portion of the High Plains section of the North 

American Great Plains physiographic province. The site is situated on the southwestern edge of the 

Southern High Plains. The Southern High Plains is an elevated area of undulating plains with low relief 

encompassing a large area of west Texas and eastern New Mexico. Across WCS, elevations range from 

approximately 1,041 meters (3,415 feet) to 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) above mean sea level (Cook-Joyce 

and Intera 2007:1-1). 

Regional geologic structure is dominated by the north-central portion of a prominent Paleozoic structural 

feature known as the Central Basin Platform of the Permian Basin, which was uplifted during the 

Mississippian and Pennsylvanian ages. Significant faults are known to exist in the deep subsurface, as 

interpreted from petroleum exploration activities. The faults are expressed in Paleozoic rocks at depths of 

a few thousand meters (thousands of feet). The closest Quaternary faults are in the Guadalupe Mountains, 

about 160 kilometers (100 miles) southwest of WCS, associated with the Basin and Range physiographic 

province. Faulting of any significance in the vicinity of WCS or the Central Basin Platform is generally 

considered to be Permian in age or earlier (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:4-1–4-3, 4-8, 4-9, 4-17; 

WCS 2007a:11.1.1-24, 11.1.1-28, 11.1.1-29). Investigations of two reverse faults observed in a 

sandstone unit in the upper portion of the Triassic red beds of the original RCRA landfill excavation 

conducted in 2004 concluded that the movement on the faults was no later than early Cretaceous (about 

135 million years before present). 

WCS is located over a geologic feature referred to as the “red bed ridge,” which influences overall site 

geology. It is a prominent buried ridge developed on the upper surface of the Triassic Dockum Group. 

The Dockum Group red beds are present beneath the WCS facility site at depths ranging from about 2.4 

to 24 meters (8 to 80 feet) (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2). The Dockum Group consists of a series of 

fluvial and lacustrine mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and silty dolomite deposits, which reach up to 

approximately 430 meters (1,400 feet) thick in the area of the Central Basin Platform. The buried ridge 

persisted as a drainage divide throughout the late Cenozoic era and continues to generally divide surface 

topographic drainage between the Colorado and Pecos Rivers (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2, 2-2; 

WCS 2007a:11.1.1-26). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–136

The Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group is the uppermost bedrock unit present beneath the 

site and is composed of red bed claystones and sandstones/siltstones. There are several 

sandstone/siltstone layers identified below the top of the Cooper Canyon Formation, which extend for 

various distances laterally in the subsurface. There are three distinct formations immediately above the 

Cooper Canyon Formation. These are (1) the Ogallala Formation (northeast of the buried ridge), (2) the 

Cretaceous Antlers Formation (over the crest of the buried ridge), and (3) the Gatuna Formation 

(southwest of the buried ridge). These formations are laterally contiguous because the buried ridge was a 

surface drainage divide throughout the late Cenozoic era, with Tertiary to Quaternary fluvial material 

(fluvial sediments of the Ogallala and Gatuna) deposited on either side of the ridge, and the Cretaceous 

Antlers Formation likely acting as an erosion-resistant cap over the crest of the ridge. These three 

formations are informally called the OAG unit at the site (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-25–26, Figure 2.5.2). 

Another important component of the site-specific geology is the “caprock caliche,” a hard, 

erosion-resistant, pedogenic calcrete that formed on all pre-Quaternary deposits prior to deposition of the 

overlying Blackwater Draw Formation. This informal unit is present at the top of the underlying 

Ogallala, Antlers, and Gatuna Formations throughout the WCS area. It is frequently considered part of 

and is thus mapped as the Ogallala Formation. The caprock caliche in the vicinity of WCS is hard, 

laminated, and pisolitic, with chert pebbles. It is exposed at the surface in some areas; it is typically 1.5 to 

3 meters (5 to 10 feet) thick but it can be as thick as 6 meters (20 feet) or more. In thick areas, nodules 

and layers of opal have formed as replacement mineralization. Where exposed at the surface, the caprock 

caliche is weathered and broken into rubble. The caprock caliche is distinguished from caliches in 

overlying sediments by its hard, laminated form, compared with the lighter, softer, sandier and less dense 

younger caliches (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2-7; WCS 2007a:11.1.1-26). 

Beneath the south-southwestern part of WCS, the Gatuna Formation consists of 0.6 to 4.6 meters (2 to 

15 feet) of coarse, red, cross-bedded, and gravelly sand. The underlying Antlers Formation occurs as a 

buried erosional remnant along the crest of the red bed ridge underlying the WCS site. The Antlers 

ranges in thickness from 0 meters in the southwest corner to about 6 meters (20 feet) in the area of the 

proposed landfill disposal site to about 12.2 meters (40 feet) in the northwest corner of the facilities area 

(Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2-5, 2-7). 

Surface deposits across WCS generally consist of Holocene age sands overlying the sediments of the 

Quaternary Blackwater Draw Formation. The Blackwater Draw forms an extensive cover over virtually 

all of the Southern High Plains and consists of windblown sands, silts, and clays derived from the alluvial 

sediments in the Pecos River valley to the west. Thickness of the Blackwater Draw sediments and 

overlying sands ranges from 0 to 17 meters (0 to 55 feet) across the site. Several soil horizons have 

developed in the Blackwater Draw, with varying degrees of caliche (cemented calcium carbonate) 

development (see Section 3.8.2.2) (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2-9, 2-10, 2-12). 

Geologic resources in the immediate vicinity of WCS include coarse aggregate (gravel), sand, and 

possibly fine aggregate. Commercial mineral and fossil fuel operations beyond the site include gravel and 

caliche mining, oil and gas production. As mentioned earlier, a sand and gravel operation is located 

approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) west of the WCS property. The operation includes crushing of 

caliche, as well as screening and crushing of sands and gravels. Caliche is widely available over the 

entire Southern Plains Region, and there is no economic incentive for caliche mining in the immediate 

vicinity of WCS. Subsurface petroleum product exploration and production have been conducted in the 

area of the Central Basin Platform for over 75 years. Most of the oil wells in the vicinity of the site have 

been abandoned or are in the process of secondary or tertiary recovery. The absence of oil wells on the 

proposed disposal site supports the absence of favorable conditions for oil production. A single, 

minimally producing oil well exists several hundred meters (yards) southwest of the proposed landfill 

disposal site and is the nearest well to the existing facilities. The well stopped producing in April 2002. 

The well was restarted in December 2004, with a 2005 total production of 390 barrels through 

August 2005. Several exploration boreholes that did not produce were drilled on the Flying W Ranch in 
Affected Environment 

3–137

the vicinity of the proposed disposal site. These dry wells provide evidence that significant oil and gas 

reserves are unlikely beneath the site (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-10–11). 

3.8.2.2 Soils 

The surface soils at WCS consist primarily of highly moisture-deficient eolian sands, underlain by a 

well-developed caliche and sand and gravel (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-44). A general soil map of Andrews 

County prepared by the NRCS shows WCS mapped as the Blakeney-Conger association. The 

Blakeney-Conger soils are fine sandy loams, loams, and clay loams that range in thickness from 0 to 

46 centimeters (0 to 18 inches), underlain by strongly cemented rounded caliche or strongly cemented 

caliche plates. A representative profile of Blakeney-Conger soils comprises a surface layer of about 

15 centimeters (6 inches) of grayish-brown loam underlain by about a 30 centimeters (12 inches) of 

friable pale-brown clay loam. Underlying the clay loam is a layer of white, laminar caliche plates about 

56 centimeters (22 inches) thick. Below the caliche plates, to a depth of about 190 centimeters 

(75 inches), is weakly cemented caliche. Although the caliche below a depth of about 46 centimeters 

(18 inches) is described by the NRCS as part of the profile of soils of the Blakeney-Conger Series, it also 

represents the gradation into the underlying caprock caliche, which has developed on the OAG unit sands 

and gravels (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:2-10, 2-11). 

More-recent and -detailed soil unit mapping by the NRCS identifies natural soils across the southern 

portion of the WCS site as Ratliff soils, which are gently undulating. Ratliff soils are loams at the 

surface, grading to clay loams to a depth of about 200 centimeters (80 inches). Their parent material 

comprises calcareous, loamy eolian deposits from the Blackwater Draw Formation. The soils do not 

generally present any limitations for site development. A semi-circular area of approximately 16 hectares 

(40 acres) of the middle portion of the site, bordering the current facility complex, is mapped as Faskin 

and Douro soils, which are also gently undulating. These soils are a fine sandy loam at the surface and 

sandy clay loams to a depth of 200 centimeters (80 inches). Likewise, they have no identified site 

development limitations. Blakeney and Conger soils, which are, again, gently undulating, are mapped 

across the northern portion of the Central Facilities Area. In profile, they consist of fine sandy loam from 

0 to 46 centimeters (0 to 18 inches) belowground surface; cemented material from 46 to 81 centimeters 

(18 to 32 inches); and gravelly loam from 81 to 173 centimeters (32 to 68 inches). This unit has some 

limitations for development due to the depth to cemented material. This profile generally matches the 

description of the older association. None of the soils at WCS are prime or other important farmland 

soils, although some soil units mapped to the west of the site are considered farmland of statewide 

importance (NRCS 2009e). 

3.8.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

WCS lies in a region with crustal properties that indicate minimum risk due to faulting and seismicity. 

The Central Basin Platform is an area of moderate, low-intensity seismic activity based on historical 

seismicity. The largest earthquake in the vicinity of WCS, referred to as the “Rattlesnake Canyon 

earthquake,” had a magnitude of 5 and occurred in 1992. Estimates of the epicenter of this event range 

from 11 to 31 kilometers (7 to 19 miles) southwest of the site, indicating an epicenter in association with 

movement on the West Platform fault zone. The depth was estimated at 12 kilometers (7.4 miles), well 

below oil field production in that area (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:4-20, 4-21, 4-22). The event 

produced shaking of MMI V at its epicenter (USGS 2009m). Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and 

compares the parameters cited in this Mercury Storage EIS to describe earthquakes and their effects. 

Within a radius of 100 kilometers (62 miles) of WCS, a total of 9 earthquakes (larger than magnitude 2.5) 

have been recorded since 1973. This includes the Rattlesnake Canyon earthquake of January 1992, which 

remains the closest earthquake epicenter of record (USGS 2009g). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–138

As previously cited in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from the USGS are used in this 

EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate sites. The PGA values cited 

are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This corresponds to an annual probability 

(chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For the WCS site, the calculated PGA is approximately 

0.12 g (USGS 2009d). In addition, a site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis was conducted to support 

WCS’s application for near-surface LLW disposal at the site. The probabilistic analysis concluded that 

the largest contributor to the seismic hazard at WCS is the background seismicity of the Southern Great 

Plains seismic source zone. The results indicated a peak acceleration of approximately 0.05 g for the 

same probability of exceedance (i.e., 2,500-year return period) (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:4-23, 4-24; 

WCS 2007a:11.1.1-32). 

No subsidence features related to salt dissolution have been identified within the facilities area or the 

immediate vicinity of WCS. The nearest active subsidence features to WCS are the San Simon Swale, the 

San Simon Sink, the Wink Sinks, and a sink northwest of Jal, New Mexico. These sinks all lie above the 

Permian Capitan Reef. The closest features, the San Simon Swale and the San Simon Sink, are located 

approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) west-southwest of WCS in Lea County, New Mexico. These 

surface subsidence features are believed to be caused by the collapse of solution cavities formed above 

the Capitan Reef aquifer in the Permian Salado Formation that have migrated upward over time in 

response to successive roof failures. WCS is located near or within the interior dissolution zone. Based 

on apparent Permian salt removal on oil field geophysical logs, there are indications that Whalen and 

Shafter Lakes may be subsidence features. These lakes are located approximately 24 kilometers 

(15 miles) and 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast and east of WCS, respectively. There is also a 

depression located approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of the facilities area that contains perennial 

water. Oil field geophysical logs, including this depression, were reviewed in the WCS area, and no 

evidence of salt dissolution was apparent (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:4-29–4-32, Figure 4-27; 

WCS 2007a:11.1.1-32). 

3.8.3 Water Resources 

3.8.3.1 Surface Water 

There are no perennial streams on or in the immediate vicinity of WCS. The principal surface-water 

drainage feature on the site consists of a draw that crosses the southern portion of the site. This draw, 

referred to as the “ranch house drainage,” crosses the WCS property about 0.4 kilometers (0.25 miles) 

southeast of the WCS facility complex and flows from east to west (Haas 2006:Fig II.F.4). Most of the 

surface water caught by ranch house drainage is lost to infiltration in the sand dunes, which encroach on 

the drainage in the southwest part of the facilities area. The ranch house drainage crosses under the 

access road to the southwest of the proposed site through six 74- by 46-centimeter (29- by 18-inch) 

culverts. These culverts are installed below grade and a ditch excavated in the eolian cover sands 

upgradient and downgradient from the road. The ditch upgradient locally erodes on the ditch sides and 

washes into the culverts. The drainage crosses under Texas State Highway 176 through two 109- by 

69-centimenter (43- by 27-inch) culverts. After crossing the highway, the drainage continues 

southwest and ultimately drains into Monument Draw in New Mexico (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-24). 

Monument Draw is a southward-draining ephemeral draw about 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) west of the WCS 

site boundary. The draw does not have through-going surface-water drainage, and due to encroachment 

of alluvial and eolian deposits, loses surface expression after it enters Winkler County, Texas 

(Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:1-1). 

Small surface depressions and a few established playa basins are present within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) 

radius of WCS. The largest of the surface depressions within the area is a playa with a drainage area of 

approximately 1.6 square kilometers (1 square mile). The center of this playa is located approximately 

2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) north-northeast of the WCS facility complex. The WCS facility complex is not 

located within the drainage basin of this playa. However, drainage from a large area of the northern 
Affected Environment 

3–139

portion of the WCS site area does drain toward this playa. Remnant deposits of a filled and now partially 

sand-covered playa or salt lake basin are found about 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) east of WCS. Surface 

drainage from the area north and east of the WCS site flows eastward into this basin (Cook-Joyce and 

Intera 2007:1-1, 1-2, Figure 2; Haas 2006:Figure II.F.1; WCS 2007a:11.1.1-24). 

Other features outside the WCS site include Baker Spring to the west and small depressions (playas) or 

solution pans (localized dissolution of the caprock caliche at or near ground surface) between Baker 

Spring and the facility. Baker Spring is a historic spring that discharged from the Gatuna Formation in 

Lea County, New Mexico, about 610 meters (2,000 feet) west of the facility. Groundwater discharge has 

not been directly observed at Baker Spring, although ephemeral groundwater discharge likely occurs 

following significant precipitation. Baker Spring is also the site of a former gravel and caliche quarry. 

Two surface draws discharge to the Baker Spring area, and, following extended periods of precipitation 

(such as the year 2004, the second wettest year on record), surface-water and ephemeral groundwater 

discharge accumulate in a quarried depression in the red beds below the spring. The Baker Spring area 

retains surface water for sustained periods following significant rainfall events. Scratch Spring is located 

approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) east of WCS. This former spring is located on the northwestern 

edge of the partially covered playa or salt lake basin that drains the areas north and east of the site. The 

spring is believed to have been dry since at least 1923 (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:1-1, 1-2, Figure 2; 

WCS 2007a:11.1.1-24). 

The only other features are three manmade stock ponds located near the eastern boundary of WCS and a 

stock pond located southeast of the facility boundary. The stock ponds can retain surface water for 

several months following significant rainfall events (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-23–24). 

A hydraulic study was performed to delineate the 100- and 500-year floodplains for the ranch house 

drainage south of WCS. The findings show that the floodplains do not encroach on the facility complex 

or proposed disposal areas (Haas 2006:Fig II.F.4; WCS 2007a:11.1.1-24). 

3.8.3.2 Groundwater 

Groundwater occurs in two principal aquifer systems in the vicinity of WCS, the High Plains Aquifer and 

the Dockum Aquifer. The High Plains Aquifer in the vicinity of WCS occurs in the sediments of the 

OAG unit (see Section 3.8.2.1). The term “Ogallala Aquifer” is frequently used interchangeably with 

“High Plains Aquifer,” since regionally the Ogallala Formation is the primary component of the High 

Plains Aquifer. On WCS, the formations that comprise the High Plains Aquifer are saturated to the north 

of the facilities area. This is because the dry line, the southern limit of saturated conditions in the High 

Plains Aquifer, is located just on the northern border of the current WCS facilities and designated landfill 

areas (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-35, Figure 2.5.7). 

The Dockum Aquifer in the vicinity of WCS consists of two water-bearing sandstone formations in the 

Dockum Group: the Santa Rosa Formation at the base of the Dockum, between about 347 and 427 meters 

(1,140 and 1,400 feet) below ground surface and the Trujillo Formation, between about 183 and 

213 meters (600 to 700 feet) below ground surface. Both yield water with less than 3,000 milligrams per 

liter total dissolved solids. Based on carbon-14 ages of groundwater in the lower Dockum Aquifer, most 

of the recharge to the sandstones in the aquifer is considered to have occurred during the Pleistocene 

epoch, some 15,000 to 35,000 years before present. The upper portion of the Dockum Group (the Cooper 

Canyon Formation) serves as an aquitard in the region. This is supported by the fact that the hydraulic 

head of the lower Dockum Aquifer is significantly lower than that of the overlying High Plains Aquifer 

throughout much of the Southern High Plains. This relative head difference, approximately 60 to 

90 meters (200 to 300 feet) in western Andrews County, and age dating indicates that the lower Dockum 

aquifer is receiving very little recharge from cross-formational flow (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-35). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–140

Unsaturated conditions generally exist within the OAG unit along the crest and to the south-southwest of 

the red bed ridge, which trends from northwest to southeast through the area of the proposed waste 

disposal facilities. Thus, the OAG unit is dry at the WCS landfills, on the crest of the red bed ridge. The 

OAG unit has some saturation to the north and east of the WCS landfills and is dry to the south and west. 

To the north and east of the facilities across the northern half of WCS, the depth to the water table is on 

the order of 24 meters (80 feet) at the base of the OAG unit. Recharge to the OAG unit occurs in the 

vicinity of playas that collect and hold precipitation for some period. During relatively wet conditions, 

such as from late 2003 until early 2005, the dry line likely migrated southward as infiltration from the 

largest playa in the vicinity reaches the OAG unit and mounds. During dry or drought conditions, the dry 

line will likely migrate northward, retreating down the northward slope of the buried ridge (Cook-Joyce 

and Intera 2007:6-7, 6-8; WCS 2007a:11.1.1-35–37, Figure 2.5.3, Figure 2.5.7). 

Groundwater has been encountered under confined conditions in the 24-meter (80-foot) sandstone and 

38-meter (125-foot) sandstone zones of the Cooper Canyon Formation near the eastern boundary of WCS. 

Elsewhere within the site area, including beneath the footprints of the site, the 24-meter (80-foot) zone 

and the 38-meter (125-foot) zone are unsaturated. Groundwater conditions in the 55-meter (180-foot) 

zone transition from confined to unconfined to dry from north to south beneath WCS. The 69-meter 

(225-foot) zone is saturated with groundwater under confined conditions throughout WCS. The 69-meter 

(225-foot) zone is considered the uppermost saturated zone, but with very low permeability. It is the zone 

in which monitoring is conducted for the existing landfill. Groundwater flow in the OAG unit on the 

north side of the site is northward along a relatively broad north-sloping paleochannel on the paleosurface 

of the red beds. Groundwater flow in the saturated OAG unit east of the site is to the east-southeast. 

Groundwater flow velocity in the OAG unit is no more than 0.06 meters (0.2 feet) per day (Cook-Joyce 

and Intera 2007:6-7–6-98; WCS 2007a:11.1.1-35–37, Figure 2.5.7). 

Groundwater provides a backup water supply for WCS. The non-potable water supply well for the site is 

the central well, which obtains water from sandstone sections of the lower Dockum Group Santa Rosa 

Formation at a depth of about 347 to 427 meters (1,140 to 1,400 feet) below ground surface. A backup 

well, the southeast well, obtains water from the Dockum Group Trujillo Formation sandstone at a depth 

of about 183 to 213 meters (600 to 700 feet) below ground surface (Cook-Joyce and Intera 2007:6-5). 

Water use is further discussed in Section 3.8.7.4. 

The closest aquifer designated by EPA as a sole-source aquifer is the Edwards Aquifer located in San 

Antonio, Texas, area. The WCS site is not considered to be a component of a recharge area of any 

potential sole-source aquifer (WCS 2007a:11.1.1-43). 

3.8.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.8.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The climate at WCS is semiarid and is characterized by warm dry summers. The average annual rainfall 

is 36 centimeters (14 inches) (WCS 2008a:App. 13.A:7). Maximum rainfall occurs between May and 

October. Damaging hailstorms rarely occur in Andrews County (NCDC 2009f). The average annual 

snowfall in Andrews, Texas, is 8.6 centimeters (3.4 inches) (WCS 2007a:App 2.3.1:2.3.1-6). 

Severe weather events in the area include flash floods; high winds; dust storms; tornadoes; hail; and 

occasional snow, ice, and fog. During a 42-year period of record, Andrews County reported 

21 tornadoes. The average annual windspeed is 2 to 5 meters per second (5 to 12 miles per hour). The 

prevailing winds are from the south (WCS 2008a:App. 13.A:7-10). The maximum windspeed at 

Midland, Texas (highest one minute average), is 26 meters per second (58 miles per hour) 

(NOAA 2009b:70). The Midland National Weather Service Station is about 98 kilometers (61 miles) 

southeast of the facility. 
Affected Environment 

3–141

The average annual temperature at Andrews, Texas, is 17.6 °C (63.7 °F). Temperatures range from a 

monthly average minimum temperature of –1 °C (30 °F) in January to a monthly average maximum of 

about 35 °C (95 °F) in July (WCS 2007a:App. 2.3.1:2.3.1-8). Additional information on meteorology is 

provided in Section 4.1 of the WCS Renewal License Application (WCS 2008a:4-1–4-6). 

WCS is in an area of Andrews County, Texas, that is designated better than national standards for sulfur 

dioxide and better than national standards or unclassifiable for nitrogen dioxide. The area is 

unclassifiable/attainment regarding attainment of the standard for carbon monoxide and ozone. EPA has 

not assigned an attainment status designation for lead; the area is unclassifiable for PM10 and PM2.5

(40 CFR 81.344). Nearby areas of Lea County, New Mexico, are similarly designated for the criteria 

pollutants (40 CFR 81.332). 

The nearest PSD Class I area is Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, about 129 kilometers (80 miles) to the 

west. WCS and its vicinity are classified as a Class II area. No PSD permits are required for any 

emission source at WCS. 

Storage and processing operations at the facility result in some emissions of radiological particulate 

matter and tritium. The primary sources of criteria pollutants at WCS are stabilization activities, 

unloading, liquid waste bulking, landfill operation, waste solidification, and silos and stockpiles 

(TCEQ 2009). WCS has an operating permit that covers these sources as required under the Federal 

Clean Air Act and companion State of Texas regulations (WCS 2008a:Ch. 3:Table 3.5). 

There are ambient air monitors for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 in Lea County, New Mexico. 

Monitored concentrations in the region are well below ambient standards. 

3.8.4.2 Noise 

Major noise emission sources within WCS include various equipment and machines—HVAC equipment, 

material-handling equipment, and vehicles. No environmental noise studies have been conducted at the 

site. There are few noise-sensitive receptors near the facility since it is not located near populated areas, 

and nearby land uses include a quarry, farming operations, and radioactive waste storage operations. 

Noise levels from the plant are expected to be compatible with nearby land uses. The closest residence is 

approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) from the facility (WCS 2008a:App. 4.A:103, App. 13.A, 

Section 3:3). 

The State of Texas and Andrews County have not established community noise standards, which specify 

acceptable noise levels applicable to the facility. Sound level measurements have not been recorded near 

the site; however, it is expected that the acoustic environment near the site boundary ranges from that 

typical of rural to industrial locations. Traffic is the primary source of noise at the site boundary and near 

roads used to access the site. The traffic generated by activities at the site includes employee vehicles and 

trucks used for shipping. Roads that provide access to the site include Texas State Highway 176/New 

Mexico State Road 176 and other roads. There is occasional railroad activity on the spur between the 

Texas–New Mexico Railroad near Eunice that provides access to the site (WCS 2008a). 

3.8.5 Ecological Resources 

3.8.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

The facilities area of WCS consists of 541 hectares (1,338 acres) of low desert grassland populated with 

scattered trees and shrubs. The site’s vegetation is classified mainly as mixed, shortgrass, and, in limited 

quantities, tallgrass prairie. Shrubs and grasses such as mesquite and buffalo grass dominate the majority 

of the landscape. In areas of overgrazing soapweed and snakeweed are common. Many areas on site 

exhibit some degree of disturbance from human activities. Portions of the site have been developed to 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–142

include oil well pads, pipelines, and access roads. In bare soil areas resulting from disturbance, species 

such as mesquite, soapweed, and Russian thistle are common (WCS 2007a:5-7). 

Common mammals found on WCS include coyote, black-tailed jackrabbit, gopher, and rodents such as 

Ord’s kangaroo rat and the silky pocket mouse. Common bird species found on site include the American 

kestrel, barn swallow, and the scaled quail. Reptile species present include the whiptail lizard, southern 

prairie lizard, sand dune lizard, and western hognose snake. No evidence of amphibians was found in the 

ephemeral pools located in the north and south of the site (WCS 2007a:5-7). Habitat and species 

composition in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mercury storage facility is typical of the 

surrounding landscape. 

3.8.5.2 Wetlands 

Wetland resources are limited to ephemeral pools located in the extreme northern and southern portions 

of WCS, and at the Baker Spring outcrop. These limited wetland resources provide habitat for 

amphibians such as the Texas toad and spadefoot toad (WCS 2007a:2.9.1-55). No wetlands exist in the 

vicinity of the proposed mercury storage facility. 

3.8.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

No permanent aquatic resources exist on WCS and, as such, aquatic resources are limited. Although not 

observed to date, surface pools and roadside ditches may provide breeding habitat for the Texas and 

spadefoot toads following periods of rain (WCS 2007a:2.9.1-55). 

3.8.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Nine federally and/or state-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species have been identified as 

occurring or possibly occurring on WCS. While suitable habitat does not exist for the peregrine falcon, 

American swallow-tailed kite, southwestern willow flycatcher, and whooping crane, these species may 

pass through the site during migration. Marginal habitat for the lesser prairie chicken does exist, but no 

occurrences have been reported (WCS 2007a:2.9.1-60). Table 3–20 lists all sensitive species occurring or 

potentially occurring on site. 

Table 3–20. Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring 

at the Waste Control Specialists Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

American peregrine 

falcon 

Falco peregrinus Endangered 

American swallowtailed kite Elanoides forficatus Threatened 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Threatened 

Lesser prairie chicken Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus 

Candidate 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

Endangered Endangered 

Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Endangered 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Candidate 

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Threatened 

Sand dune lizard Sceloperus arenicolus Candidate 

Source: WCS 2007a:2.9.1-60. 
Affected Environment 

3–143

3.8.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

3.8.6.1 Prehistoric and Historic Resources 

A 1994 survey (Galvin Eling Associates 1994) of WCS involved a thorough pedestrian survey that 

identified no cultural resources. The assessment found an absence of archaeological and cultural 

resources and found no evidence of prehistoric or significant historic occupation or exploitation of the 

area. This is due in large part to a lack of essential resources that would provide an enticement for 

occupation. The study found no site that was currently listed or nominated for listing in the NRHP. The 

potential to find buried deposits in upland soils is low. 

A determination of “No Effect” was issued by the SHPO in 1994. A June 2004 letter of acceptance of the 

“No Effect” determination was received from the Texas Historical Commission to confirm this status 

(WCS 2009a). 

3.8.6.2 American Indian Resources 

There have been no American Indian resources identified on WCS. 

3.8.6.3 Paleontological Resources 

There have been no paleontological resources identified on WCS. 

3.8.7 Site Infrastructure 

In addition to the description provided below, a summary of WCS’s sitewide infrastructure characteristics 

is presented in Table 3–21. 

Table 3–21. Waste Control Specialists Infrastructure Characteristics 

Resource Current Site Usage Site Capacity 

Transportation (kilometers)

Roads Not Available Not Available 

Railroads 9.6 9.6 

Electricity

Energy consumption (megawatt-hours per year) 3,488a Not Available 

Fuel 

Natural gas (cubic meters per year) (b) (b)

Fuel oil (liters per year) (b) (b)

Diesel fuel (liters per year) 86,276 (c) 

Gasoline (liters per year) 108,496 (c) 

Propane (liters per year) 16,159 (c) 

Water (liters per year) 24,721,000 49,740,311d

a Estimate based on usage from January through May 2009. 

b Fuel resource not used on site. 

c Limited only by the ability to transport resource to the site. 

d Annual capacity of the central well located east of the storage buildings (see Section 3.8.7.4). 

Note: Unless noted all values based on 2008 usages. To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0.6214; cubic meters to cubic 

feet, by 35.315; and liters to gallons, by 0.26417. 

Source: Hicks & Company 2008:105; Reavis 2009a, 2009b; WCS 2009a. 

3.8.7.1 Ground Transportation 

WCS is located approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) west of Andrews, Texas, and 122 meters 

(400 feet) east of the Texas–New Mexico state line. It is 10 kilometers (6 miles) east of the city of 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–144

Eunice, New Mexico. Road access to the site is via State Highway 176, located 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) 

south of the site. Site roads are limited in extent and provide access to onsite facilities such as the Mixed 

Waste and Treatment Facility (WCS 2009a:3, Figure 5-2). 

A railroad spur is located on site and a railroad staging area is located within 114 meters (375 feet) of the 

Container Storage and Bin Storage Facilities (WCS 2009a). The rail access gate is located on the western 

side of the facility. The onsite railroad spur has a 110-railcar capacity, and the rail line that connects to 

the plant from the west connects from the cities of Eunice and Hobbs, New Mexico, near the Texas–New 

Mexico state line. WCS owns 10 kilometers (6 miles) of rail connection from the west near Eunice to the 

Union Pacific line in Monahans, Texas (Hicks & Company 2008:105). 

3.8.7.2 Electricity 

Sitewide electricity is purchased from Oncor. There are no substations on the site; transformers support 

individual buildings or equipment (Reavis 2009b). Annual electricity consumption is estimated at 

3,488 megawatt-hours per year. Electrical capacity information, the maximum ability to draw power 

from the utility, is not available (Reavis 2009a, 2009b). 

3.8.7.3 Fuel 

Fuel use at WCS consists of propane (for heating), diesel fuel, and gasoline (Beach 2009; WCS 2009a). 

Fuel is delivered by truck and refilled as needed. The facility has the following diesel storage tanks: a 

30,270-liter (8,000-gallon) tank, a 1,890-liter (500-gallon) portable tank, a 1,060-liter (280-gallon) tank, 

and a 380-liter (100-gallon) tank. Other fuel tanks include an 18,920-liter (5,000-gallon) gasoline tank 

and an 18,920-liter (5,000-gallon) and 3,785-liter (1,000-gallon) propane tank (Reavis 2009b). 

3.8.7.4 Water 

The primary source of potable water for WCS is via pipeline from Eunice, New Mexico. WCS uses water 

from its central well for fire water and dust suppression. The central well is located east of the 

Container Storage and Bin Storage Facilities and is completed in the Santa Rosa sandstone; a backup 

well, the southeast well, obtains water from the Trujillo Formation. Production from the central well is at 

a rate of 95–114 liters (25–30 gallons) or 50–60 million liters (13–16 million gallons) per year. Sewage 

flows directly into 10 aboveground 28,000-liter (7,500-gallon) tanks, where the sewage is sampled for 

radionuclides before shipment by tanker truck to a publicly owned treatment work in Andrews, Texas. 

Sewage holding tanks are added as new personnel facilities are added. Wastewater, primarily landfill 

leachate, is treated in the wastewater treatment unit (Reavis 2009b). 

Estimated annual water use was about 24.7 million liters (6.5 million gallons) in 2008. Total sanitary 

wastewater generated is estimated to be 1 million liters (270 thousand gallons) per year. An estimated 

290,000 liters (76,000 gallons) of process wastewater is treated annually in an onsite wastewater 

treatment unit (Reavis 2009a, 2009b). 

3.8.8 Waste Management 

WCS operates a 541-hectare (1,338-acre) waste disposal facility capable of managing the following waste 

forms: TRU waste, mixed TRU waste, LLW, MLLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. The 

WCS property is licensed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for the following waste 

management facilities (WCS 2007a, 2009a): 

 An RCRA storage, processing, and disposal facility (RCRA Subtitle C landfill) 

 A TSCA treatment, storage, and disposal facility 
Affected Environment 

3–145

 A radioactive waste treatment, storage, and near-surface disposal facility for LLW (Federal and 

Texas compact material only) 

 An NRC-exempt facility to treat and store special nuclear material 

 A nuclear byproduct material receipt and disposal facility (as defined in Title 30 of the Texas 

Administrative Code, Section 336.1105) 

WCS operations are supported by multiple facilities, including various radiological and RCRA/TSCA 

treatment/processing facilities, multiple storage buildings with a capacity to store 50,970 cubic meters 

(66,664 cubic yards) of material, an RCRA/TSCA landfill with a capacity of 4.1 million cubic meters 

(5.4 million cubic yards), a LLW/MLLW/TRU shallow landfill, and a site water treatment plant 

(WCS 2007a, 2009a). 

3.8.8.1 Waste Generation and Management 

Table 3–22 summarizes recent waste management activities for waste received at WCS. Although WCS 

is permitted to manage multiple radioactive waste streams, no Federal LLW or byproduct waste has been 

received for disposal. WCS received 19,995 cubic meters (26,150 cubic yards) of LLW in 3,776 canisters 

from the DOE Fernald former uranium processing facility for storage in 2005. The Fernald canisters will 

ultimately be disposed of in the newly permitted byproduct WCS landfill (WCS 2009a). 

Table 3–22. Waste Received and Managed at Waste Control Specialists Site, 2006–2008 

2006 2007 2008 

Waste Type (metric tons) 

RCRA/TSCA hazardous 14 203 132 

TCEQ Class 1 29,017 5,388 3,098 

TCEQ Class 2 0 1 1 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

designated 1 7 0 

Municipal 0 92 146 

Note: Waste received is treated and stabilized, as required, and disposed of in an RCRA-permitted landfill. Waste amounts do 

not include secondary waste generated during treatment or waste generated from active site remediation efforts. Low-level 

radioactive waste (byproduct waste) was received prior to 2006 for storage only. To convert metric tons to tons, multiply 

by 1.1023. 

Key: RCRA=Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCEQ=Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; TSCA=Toxic 

Substances Control Act. 

Source: WCS 2009a. 

To date, the WCS-permitted RCRA/TSCA landfill has received 324,281 cubic meters (424,127 cubic 

yards) of material for disposal (approximately 7.8 percent of the landfill capacity) (WCS 2009a). The site 

wastewater treatment plant primarily treats leachate from the RCRA/TSCA landfill and collected 

stormwater. In 2008, the wastewater plant treated 288,638 liters (76,250 gallons) of leachate and 

stormwater. 

Nonhazardous wastes generated at WCS includes construction and maintenance waste (e.g., wood, 

concrete, metal objects, soil, and roofing materials), office waste, lunchroom waste, and janitorial waste. 

Nonhazardous waste generated is collected by a commercial waste–hauling contractor and disposed of at 

the Lea County Landfill in New Mexico. Sanitary wastewater generated at WCS is collected in large 

aboveground storage tanks and disposed of off site using a commercial sanitary waste contractor. 

3.8.8.2 Waste Minimization 

WCS has an active Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program to reduce the total amount of 

waste generated and disposed of at WCS. This is accomplished by eliminating waste through source 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–146

reduction or material substitution; by recycling potential waste materials that cannot be minimized or 

eliminated; and by treating all waste that is generated to reduce its volume, toxicity, or mobility prior to 

storage or disposal (WCS 2009a). 

3.8.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.8.9.1 Normal Operations 

WCS contains facilities for storage of radioactive and toxic wastes and land disposal facilities for 

hazardous and toxic wastes (WCS 2008b:8-9). Soil and groundwater conditions are described in 

Sections 3.8.2.2 and 3.8.3.2. 

3.8.9.2 Facility Accidents 

WCS has had no spills, fires, explosions, leaks, or other such incidents that have resulted in offsite 

impacts. Spills and leaks from waste containers and equipment have occurred in the operational area of 

the site with only localized spread of released material (WCS 2009b). Various hypothetical accidents 

have been evaluated by WCS, including fires, explosions, material releases, equipment or vehicle 

accidents, and natural events (WCS 2008b:11-13). 

WCS has an established Consolidated Emergency Response Plan to maintain adequate preparedness for 

fire and hazardous materials releases (WCS 2008b:22). The site has a full emergency response 

organization that includes capabilities for radiological, hazardous materials, fire, and medical incidents. 

Onsite equipment includes a fully equipped mobile response trailer and fire truck. Emergency personnel 

include State of Texas certified emergency medical technicians and two fully trained and qualified 

firefighters. Additionally, offsite first responders participate in annual drills (WCS 2009b). 

3.8.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death or injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and radioactive 

materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incident-free) 

transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive or 

radioactive materials. Risks related to nonradioactive transportation to WCS and to normal radioactive 

transportation of LLW to WCS were evaluated in the Application for License to Authorize Near-Surface 

Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. The total annual average population dose would be about 

133 person-rem for shipment of LLW from utilities, assuming drum shipments use commercial routing 

and cask shipments use population-constrained routing. For shipments from major non-utility 

commercial LLW generators, the total average annual population dose would be 17 person-rem from an 

average of 7.26 equivalent full shipments annually. For shipments from major DOE LLW generators, the 

total average annual population dose would be 57 person-rem from an average of 4,436 equivalent full 

shipments annually (for an average of 0.013 person-rem per shipment) (WCS 2007a:11.7-19–24). Risks 

related to radiological transportation were estimated, using the currently recommended dose conversion 

factor, to be about 0.1 latent cancer fatalities per year in the total affected population. 

Based on a daily trip rate of approximately 347 trips per working day in the vicinity of WCS, an 

accident rate of 1.123 × 10-6 per mile, and an average distance of 56 kilometers (35 miles) (the distance 

from WCS to Andrews) per trip, it was estimated that the WCS-generated traffic near WCS would result 

in about 123 additional accidents over the 35-year anticipated operating life of the WCS facility 

(WCS 2007a:11.7-32). 
Affected Environment 

3–147

3.8.10 Socioeconomics 

WCS is located approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) west of Andrews, Texas, near the Texas–New 

Mexico state line. As of 2009, WCS employed approximately 150 persons. Approximately 90 percent of 

the people employed at WCS reside in two counties: Andrews in Texas and Lea in New Mexico 

(WCS 2009b). Therefore, these two counties are identified as the ROI in this socioeconomics analysis. 

3.8.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the two-county ROI increased by 30 percent to 36,626. By 

July 2009, the unemployment rate of the ROI was 8.0 percent, slightly lower than the unemployment rate 

across the two-state region of Texas and New Mexico (8.2 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.8.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the two-county ROI was 72,800. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 6.3 percent, compared with 16.1 percent growth throughout the two-state region of 

Texas and New Mexico (DOC 2009b). In 2000, the percentage of the ROI population under the age of 

18 was 30 percent; women ages 18 to 39 composed 14 percent (DOC 2009d). Young children and 

pregnant women are considered to be among the most vulnerable populations to mercury poisoning. 

There were 29,624 housing units in the ROI in 2007, an increase of 2.8 percent from 2000 (DOC 2008). 

In 2000, 62.4 percent of housing units in the ROI were owner occupied, 22 percent were renter occupied, 

and 16 percent were vacant (DOC 2009d). 

3.8.10.3 Local Transportation 

The primary route into WCS is Texas State Highway 176, which serves as a major east-west route 

connecting to New Mexico State Road 176 to the west and the city of Andrews, Texas, to the east. 

U.S. Route 385 and Ranch Road 181 are the main north-south routes in Andrews County. Both of these 

routes connect to Texas State Highway 176 east of WCS. The average daily traffic volume on the 

segment of Texas State Highway 176 west of the site to the state line was 2,700 vehicles per day in 2007 

(TXDOT 2009). In 2004, the segment of New Mexico State Road 176 from the state line west toward 

New Mexico State Road 209 and the outskirts of Eunice had an average daily traffic volume of 2,250 

vehicles per day (NMDOT 2009). The average daily traffic on Texas State Highway 176 was 

3,000 vehicles per day to the east of the site approaching Ranch Road 181, and 2,700 vehicles per day 

from Ranch Road 181 approaching the city of Andrews, where it intersects U.S. Route 385. The average 

daily traffic volume on Ranch Road 181 was 650 vehicles per day north of Texas State Highway 176 and 

1,150 south of 176 (TXDOT 2009). A rail line services WCS from the west that connects to the 

Texas–New Mexico Railroad approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) west of the site near Eunice, New 

Mexico. This line connects to the Union Pacific line in Monohans, Texas (WCS 2007b:10). The closest 

commercial airport to WCS is the Lea County Regional Airport located in the city of Hobbs, New 

Mexico. This airport is operated by Lea County along with two general aviation facilities located 

adjacent to the cities of Jal and Lovington. There are two other general aviation airports in the region: the 

Andrews County Airport, owned and operated by Andrews County, and Gaines County Airport, owned 

and operated by Gaines County. The airport formerly operating in Eunice was closed in 2007 

(NMDOT 2009). 

3.8.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius the storage location at WCS encompasses parts of three counties: 

Andrews and Gaines in Texas and Lea in New Mexico. Figure 3–24 shows populations residing in the 

three-county area, as reported in the 1990 and 2000 censuses (DOC 2009d, 2009e). In this figure, lightly 

shaded bars show populations in 1990, while the darker bars show those in 2000. In the decade between 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–148

1990 and 2000, the total population of Andrews, Gaines, and Lea Counties decreased by approximately 

1.5 percent to 82,982, while the minority population increased by approximately 24 percent to 36,880, 

and the low-income population decreased by approximately 11 percent to 16,553. Demographic data 

from the 2000 census show that the White Hispanic population accounts for approximately 35 percent of 

the total minority population, while those people self-identified as “some other race” (meaning those who 

provided write-in entries such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) residing in the three-county area 

accounted for approximately 47 percent of the total minority population. Persons who declared that they 

are of Hispanic or Latino origin are included in the “total Hispanic” population shown in Figure 3–24, 

regardless of race. They composed approximately 88 percent of the total minority population residing in 

Andrews, Gaines, and Lea Counties in 2000. 

Figure 3–24. Populations Residing in the Three-County Area Surrounding 

Waste Control Specialists Site in 1990 and 2000 

Data for Andrews, Gaines, and Lea Counties are unavailable from the 2007 ACS 1-Year Estimates due to 

the population threshold of 65,000 necessary for inclusion. Data for Andrews and Gaines Counties are 

unavailable from the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates due to a population threshold of 20,000 people. 

However, the 3-year estimates do report data for Lea County. According to the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year 

Estimates, the total population of Lea County increased by approximately 3 percent to 56,998, and the 

low-income population decreased by approximately 17 percent to 9,405 since 2000. Detailed 

demographic data of race and Hispanic origin for Lea County from the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates

are unavailable due to an insufficient number of sample cases. 

Approximately 2,900 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of WCS in 2000 (DOC 2009d). This 

area included an estimated 40 percent minority and 17 percent low-income population. By comparison, 

the three-county area included a 44 percent minority and 20 percent low-income population and the 

two-state region of Texas and New Mexico included a 48 percent minority and 16 percent low-income 

population. There are eight census block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius 
Affected Environment 

3–149

surrounding WCS, one of which contained a disproportionately high number of minority individuals; 

none contained a disproportionately high number of low-income individuals. Figure 3–25 shows the 

proximity of the identified minority community to WCS. Figure 3–26 shows the cumulative populations 

living at a given distance from WCS. The population living within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of WCS is 

mostly concentrated to the west in the city of Eunice. 

Approximately 20 people lived within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of WCS in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). This area included an estimated 27 percent minority and 6 percent low-income population. 

There are two census block groups located within this ROI; of this total, none contained a 

disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. 

Figure 3–25. Block Group Containing Minority Populations Surrounding 

Waste Control Specialists Site 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–150

Figure 3–26. Cumulative Populations Residing Within 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) of 

Waste Control Specialists Site 

POTENTIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS 

Environmental justice concerns were considered in greater detail in areas that have been identified as 

containing a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. This section 

presents information regarding factors that may contribute to disproportional impacts, such as age and 

access to health care. 

Figure 3–27 displays a breakdown of potentially susceptible demographics for the 16-kilometer (10-mile) 

ROI, the 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI, the two-state region, and the three-county region. For purposes of 

this analysis, the demographics of primary concern are children under the age of 18, women ages 18 to 

39, and individuals ages 65 and up. The populations of children under 18 living within the 16-kilometer 

(10-mile) and 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROIs slightly exceed that living in the two-state region. The 

populations of women ages 18 to 39 living in the two ROIs appear to be consistent with the surrounding 

three-county and two-state regions, and the populations of individuals ages 65 and up living in the two 

ROIs slightly exceed that of the surrounding areas. None of the differences appear to be appreciable. 
Affected Environment 

3–151

Figure 3–27. Percentage of Age Groups Within the 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) and 

3.2-Kilometer (2-Mile) Regions of Influence and the Two-State and 

Three-County Areas Surrounding Waste Control Specialists Site 

HPSAs are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration. These data are presented at 

the greatest level of spatial resolution available for each county within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI. 

Andrews County is designated as a primary medical care HPSA for low-income populations; the entire 

county is designated as a mental health HPSA. There are no dental HPSA designations in Andrews 

County. All of Gaines and Lea Counties are designated as primary medical care, dental, and mental 

health HPSAs (HRSA 2009b). 

3.9 Y–12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX 

3.9.1 Land and Visual Resources 

3.9.1.1 Land Use 

Y–12 is an industrial site that has been in operation since World War II. It is one of the three principal 

industrial sites within the 14,164-hectare (35,000-acre) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Y–12 is situated 

in Bear Creek Valley at the eastern boundary of ORR. It is bounded by Pine Ridge to the north and 

Chestnut Ridge to the south. The main area of Y–12 is classified as industrial and encompasses 

approximately 324 hectares (800 acres) of numerous support, manufacturing, and storage facilities located 

in central and west-central portions of the site. The eastern portion of Y–12 is occupied by Lake Reality 

and the former New Hope Pond (now closed), maintenance facilities, office space, and training facilities. 

The far western portion of the site consists primarily of waste management facilities and construction 

contractor support areas (DLA 2004:3-68; DOE 2001c:4-12; 2008e:4-383; 2009g:4-5). 

Lands bordering ORR and Y–12 are predominantly rural and are used primarily for residences, small 

farms, forest land, and pasture land. The residential section of the city of Oak Ridge forms the northern 

boundary of ORR (DOE 2009g:4-2). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–152

3.9.1.2 Visual Resources 

The landscape at ORR is characterized by a series of ridges and valleys that trend in a northeast-tosouthwest direction. The viewshed around the site consists mainly of rural land. Views are limited by the 

hilly terrain, heavy vegetation, and generally hazy atmospheric conditions (DOE 2009g:4-7). 

The developed areas of ORR, including Y–12, are consistent with BLM’s VRM Class IV. Class IV 

includes areas in which major modifications to the character of the landscape have occurred. These 

changes may be dominant features of the view and the major focus of viewer attention 

(DOI 1986:App. 2). At Y–12, most structures are of a low profile and reach heights of three stories or 

less. 

3.9.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards 

3.9.2.1 Geology 

ORR lies in the southwestern portion of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of east-central 

Tennessee. The topography consists of alternating valleys and ridges that have a northeast-southwest 

trend, with most ORR facilities occupying the valleys. Y–12 is located in Bear Creek Valley between 

Pine and Chestnut Ridges (DOE 2009g:4-13, 4-14). Most of Y–12 lies at an elevation of approximately 

305 meters (1,000 feet) above mean sea level (DLA 2004:3-59). 

Unconsolidated materials across the valley and the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek watershed, which 

drains most of Y–12, include Holocene (recent) alluvium (streamlaid deposits), colluvium (material 

transported downslope), manmade fill, fine-grained residuum from the weathering of the underlying 

bedrock, saprolite (a transitional mixture of fine-grained residuum and bedrock remains), and weathered 

bedrock. The overall thickness of these materials in the Y–12 area is typically less than 12 meters 

(40 feet). In the undeveloped areas of the site, the saprolite retains primary textural features of the 

unweathered bedrock, including fractures (DOE 2009g:4-17). 

Bedrock comprising the Cambrian age Conasauga Group underlies the valley. The upper part of the 

group is mainly limestone, while the lower units consist mostly of shale. Karst features, including large 

fractures, cavities, and conduits, are typically found at depths greater than approximately 300 meters 

(980 feet) (DOE 2009g:4-13, 4-14). 

3.9.2.2 Soils 

Developed portions of Bear Creek Valley are designated as urban land in the county soil survey. Due to 

extensive cut-and-fill grading during construction of Y–12, very few areas have natural soil horizons. 

Alluvium, colluvium, manmade fill, fine-drained residuum from the weathering of the underling bedrock, 

saprolite, and weathered bedrock mainly compose the surficial materials across Y–12 (DOE 2009g:4-19). 

3.9.2.3 Geologic Hazards 

There is no evidence of active faults in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province or within the 

sedimentary rocks comprising the Appalachian Basin structural feature, where ORR is located. The 

nearest active faults are approximately 480 kilometers (298 miles) northwest of ORR in the New Madrid 

(Reelfoot rift) fault zone (see Section 3.6.2.3). Historical earthquakes occurring in the Valley and Ridge 

of Tennessee are not attributable to fault structures in underlying sedimentary rocks, but rather occur at 

depth in basement rock (DLA 2004:3-59). 

The closest large earthquake in eastern Tennessee occurred on November 30, 1973, in Maryville, 

Tennessee. It had a local magnitude of 4.6 with an epicenter located about 34 kilometers (21 miles) 

southeast of Y–12. This earthquake produced an MMI of V to VI at ORR (DLA 2004:3-60; 
Affected Environment 

3–153

USGS 2009n). Since the 1973 Maryville earthquake, 61 earthquakes have been recorded within 

100 kilometers (62 miles) of Y–12, generally ranging in magnitude from 2.6 to 4.2 (USGS 2009n). 

Appendix B, Table B–4, summarizes and compares the parameters cited in this Mercury Storage EIS to 

describe earthquakes and their effects. 

As previously described in Section 3.2.2.3, the latest probabilistic PGA data from the USGS are used in 

this EIS to assess seismic hazard among the various mercury storage candidate sites. The PGA values 

cited are based on a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This corresponds to an annual 

probability (chance) of occurrence of about 1 in 2,500. For Y–12, the calculated PGA is approximately 

0.22 g (USGS 2009d). 

3.9.3 Water Resources 

3.9.3.1 Surface Water 

Upper East Fork Poplar Creek drains the majority of the industrial facilities within Y–12 and has been 

radically altered from its natural state by the construction of facilities at the site. The western portion of 

the creek flows underground through pipes, and the remaining portion flows in a modified and 

straightened channel lined with riprap and concrete. To maintain a minimum flow equivalent to 

26 million liters (7 million gallons) per day and to improve downstream water quality, raw water from the 

Clinch River has been added to the western portion of the open channel. This flow augmentation was 

stipulated under the Y–12 1995 NPDES permit. Drainage from Y–12 enters both Bear Creek and East 

Fork Poplar Creek. These streams ultimately converge and enter Poplar Creek approximately 

13 kilometers (8 miles) east of the site. Poplar Creek then flows into the Clinch River about 

19 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Y–12 (DLA 2004:3-62; DOE 2008f:4-52). 

The Clinch River is the only surface-water body on or near ORR classified for domestic water supply use. 

Classifications for all streams in Tennessee are for fish and aquatic life, recreation, irrigation, livestock 

watering, and wildlife. In addition, the Clinch River and a short segment of Poplar Creek from its 

confluence with the Clinch River are classified for industrial water supply use. From its mouth to 

mile 15, East Fork Poplar Creek, is posted with public health warnings from the State of Tennessee 

against fish consumption and water contact due to bacterial contamination, mercury, and PCB 

contamination (TDEC 2008). 

Approximately 65 outfalls from Y–12 are subject to compliance monitoring under its NPDES permit 

(TN0002968). Under the permit, DOE must also maintain a stormwater pollution prevention plan to 

minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and results of stormwater monitoring are 

provided in the annual stormwater report, which is submitted to the Tennessee Division of Water 

Pollution Control. Sanitary wastewater from Y–12 is discharged to the City of Oak Ridge publicly owned 

treatment works under Industrial and Commercial Users Wastewater Permit Number 1-91 (DOE 2008f:4-

45, 4-46, 4-50–4-53). 

Ambient surface-water quality in Upper East Fork Poplar Creek has been affected primarily by Y–12 

legacy operations from the late 1940s to the early 1980s. Contaminants include mercury, PCBs, and 

uranium isotopes, which have also been found at detectable concentrations in stream sediments. 

Surface-water surveillance monitoring continues to be conducted as a best management practice 

(DOE 2008f:4.53). 

The Tennessee Valley Authority has conducted floodplain studies along Bear Creek, Clinch River, and 

East Fork Poplar Creek. Some easternmost portions of Y–12 lie within the 100- and 500-year floodplains 

of East Fork Poplar Creek. However, the current mercury storage location is located outside of the 

500-year floodplain (DOE 2009g:4-47, 4-49). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–154

3.9.3.2 Groundwater 

Y–12 is divided into three hydrogeologic regimes, which are mainly delineated by surface-water drainage 

patterns, topography, and groundwater flow characteristics. These regimes include the Bear Creek 

hydrogeologic regime; the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek hydrogeologic regime, in which the majority of 

the Y–12 complex is located; and the Chestnut Ridge hydrogeologic regime. Most of the Bear Creek and 

Upper East Fork Poplar Creek regimes are underlain by geologic formations that are part of the ORR 

aquitard. Collectively, the units composing the aquitard have low permeability and low transmissivity; 

water is not easily transmitted through these formations (DOE 2009g:4-32, 4-33). 

In general, nearsurface (shallow) groundwater flow follows topography at Y–12. Shallow groundwater 

flow in the Bear Creek regime and the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek regime is divergent from a 

topographic and groundwater divide located near the western end of Y–12 that defines the boundary 

between the two regimes. In addition, flow converges on the primary surface streams (Bear Creek and 

Upper East Fork Poplar Creek) from Pine Ridge and Chestnut Ridge. In Bear Creek Valley, groundwater 

in the intermediate and deep intervals moves predominantly through fractures in ORR aquitards, 

converging on and then moving through fractures and solution conduits in the Maynardville Limestone. 

Karst development in the Maynardville Limestone has a significant impact on groundwater flow paths in 

the shallow and intermediate intervals. In general, groundwater flow parallels the valley and geologic 

strike (DOE 2009g:4-33, 4-34). 

In Bear Creek Valley, the depth to groundwater is generally about 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) 

(DLA 2004:3-64). Because of the abundance of surface water and its proximity to the points of use, very 

little groundwater is used at Y–12. Industrial and drinking water supplies are taken primarily from 

surfacewater sources; however, single-family wells are common in adjacent rural areas not served by the 

public water supply system. Most of the residential wells in the immediate vicinity of Y–12 are south of 

the Clinch River (DOE 2009h:4-36). Aquifers would be considered Class II (current or potential sources 

of drinking water or other beneficial use). 

Groundwater monitoring at Y–12 has shown that the groundwater quality has been affected by nitrate, 

VOCs, metals, and radionuclides, with nitrate and VOCs being the most widespread contaminants. Some 

radionuclides are also present, particularly in the Bear Creek hydrogeologic regime and the western 

portion of the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek regime (DLA 2004:3-64; DOE 2008f:4-63–4-65, 4-67). 

Groundwater monitoring conducted in 2007 continues to show that concentrations of nine different metals 

(barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, thallium, and uranium) exceeded MCLs 

in groundwater wells and in surface-water locations downgradient of the S-2 Site, the S-3 Site, and the 

Salvage Yard source areas, and throughout Y–12. Some metals, such as mercury and uranium, are being 

transported through the surface-water and groundwater systems and have been observed in concentrations 

above standards some distance from source areas (DOE 2008f:4-65–4-69). Groundwater contamination 

at the site is associated with past industrial and waste disposal activities and is not associated with the 

current storage of DOE elemental mercury. 

3.9.4 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 

3.9.4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The mean annual temperature for the ORR area is 14.2 °C (57.6 °F). Local winters consist of migratory 

cyclones that produce significant precipitation events every 3 to 5 days. The coldest month is usually 

January, with an average temperature of about 2.6 °C (36.7 °F) and low temperatures that occasionally 

drop as low as –31 °C (–23.8 °F). Summers are characterized by warm, humid conditions. July is 

typically the hottest month of the year with an average temperature of about 25.2 °C (77.4 °F) and high 

temperatures that occasionally exceed 38 °C (100 °F) (DOE 2008f:4-389). 
Affected Environment 

3–155

The annual average precipitation is 140 centimeters (55 inches), which includes about 24 centimeters 

(9.6 inches) of snowfall. Precipitation in the region is greatest in the winter months, December through 

February. Precipitation in the spring exceeds the summer rainfall, but the summer rainfall may be locally 

heavy because of thunderstorm activity. The driest periods generally occur during the fall months when 

high-pressure systems are most frequent (DOE 2008f:4-389–4-390). 

Severe weather events in the area include flash floods, high winds, hail, and occasional snow and ice. 

During a 60-year period of record, Anderson County reported three tornadoes (NCDC 2009g). The 

maximum windspeed, based on the highest 1-minute average, is 29 meters per second (64 miles per hour) 

(NOAA 2009b:69). 

ORR is located in Anderson and Roane Counties in the Eastern Tennessee–Southwestern Virginia Air 

Quality Control Region No. 207, and Y–12 is completely within Anderson County. EPA has designated 

Anderson County as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard, as part of the larger Knoxville 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area that encompasses several counties. Anderson County is also designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5. For all other criteria pollutants for which EPA has made attainment 

designations, the ORR area is designated as attainment with the NAAQS (40 CFR 81.343). 

Airborne discharges from ORR facilities, both radioactive and nonradioactive, are subject to regulation 

by EPA, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Air Pollution Control, 

and DOE orders. The primary source of criteria air pollutants at Y–12 is the steam plant, where coal and 

natural gas are burned. In fact, more than 90 percent of the Y–12 air pollutant emissions to the 

atmosphere are attributed to the operation of the steam plant. Actual emissions from the steam plant are 

well below allowable emissions (DOE 2008c:4-390). 

Concentrations of regulated pollutants observed at locations near ORR are presented in the annual 

environmental report (DOE 2008c:4-40–4-45). Monitoring results indicate that the ORR operations have 

an insignificant effect on local air quality (DOE 2008f:4-390). 

The nearest PSD Class I area is Great Smoky Mountains National Park, about 51 kilometers (32 miles) to 

the southeast. Y–12 and its vicinity are classified as a PSD Class II area (DOE 2001c:4-56). 

The release of radiological contaminants, primarily uranium, into the atmosphere at Y–12 occurs as a 

result of plant production, maintenance, and waste management activities. Atmospheric emissions of 

radionuclides from DOE facilities are limited by EPA regulations found under the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations (40 CFR 61.90–61.97), which have been delegated to 

the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation for implementation. All three ORR 

facilities are operated in accordance with the Tennessee regulatory dose limits for hazardous air pollutants 

for radionuclides and have met all emission and test procedures (DOE 2008c:4-390). Details on the 

annual radionuclide compliance modeling and other National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants that cover asbestos and specific source categories on ORR are reported in the Oak Ridge 

Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report for 2007 (DOE 2008f:7-1–7-6). 

3.9.4.2 Noise 

Major noise sources within Y–12 include various industrial facilities and equipment and machines 

(e.g., cooling systems, transformers, engines, pumps, boilers, steam vents, paging systems, construction 

and material-handling equipment, vehicles). Most Y–12 industrial facilities are at a sufficient distance 

from the site boundary so that noise levels at the boundary from these sources are not distinguishable 

from background noise levels. The acoustic environment along the Y–12 boundary, in rural areas, and at 

nearby residences away from traffic noise, is typical of a rural location with a day-night average sound 

level in the range of 35 to 50 dBA. Areas near the site within the city of Oak Ridge are typical of a 

suburban area, with a day-night average sound level in the range of 53 to 62 dBA. Traffic is the primary 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–156

source of noise at the Y–12 boundary and at residences located near roads. During peak hours, the Y–12 

worker traffic is a major contributor to traffic noise levels in the area (DOE 2008c:4-392). The nearest 

residences are about 0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles) north of Bear Creek Road and are separated from Y–12 by 

a ridge. 

3.9.5 Ecological Resources 

3.9.5.1 Terrestrial Resources 

ORR consists of approximately 14,164 hectares (35,000 acres) of eastern deciduous and mixed hardwood 

forest. Forested land within the site is composed largely of oak-hickory stands with lesser quantities of 

pine-hardwood and pine. Large sections of land have been designated as protected natural areas, 

including a 1,416-hectare (3,500-acre) parcel on the western side of the site (DLA 2004:3-64; 

DOE 2008c:4-398). 

Within ORR, 39 species of mammals, 260 species of birds, and 59 species of reptiles and amphibians 

have been recorded. Common mammals include the opossum, raccoon, and red fox. Common resident 

bird species include the summer tanager and yellow-throated vireo, while migratory species include the 

scarlet tanager and Philadelphia vireo. Reptiles represented at ORR include the common garter snake, 

southern ring-necked snake, and copperhead. Amphibians include the bullfrog, southern leopard frog, 

and spring peeper (DLA 2004:3-64; DOE 2008c:4-398). 

Y–12 consists of 328 hectares (811 acres) of mowed grass, concrete, gravel, asphalt, and industrial 

structures. Thus, the site lacks unique habitats and contains little diversity in flora and fauna. Plant 

species encountered within Y–12 are typical of a disturbed and developed landscape. Such species 

include grasses, common plantain, and dandelion. Animal species within the vicinity of the proposed 

mercury storage facility at Y–12 are limited to those tolerant of human activities and are likely to include 

house sparrow, pigeon, and raccoon (DLA 2004:3-64; DOE 2008c:4-398). 

3.9.5.2 Wetlands 

Approximately 243 hectares (600 acres) of wetlands have been identified at ORR. Most of these are 

classified as forested palustrine, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands. There is an emergent wetland 

(0.18 hectares [0.45 acres]) at the eastern end of Y–12 at a seep by a small tributary of East Fork Poplar 

Creek. The wetland receives effluent from an NPDES outfall (DLA 2004:3-65; DOE 2008c:4-399). 

3.9.5.3 Aquatic Resources 

The Clinch River is the main aquatic resource found within ORR. The Clinch River supports a diverse 

fishery, including largemouth bass, channel catfish, and carp. Although sport fishing is not allowed 

within ORR, it is permitted downstream of the Melton Hill Dam. Within Y–12, aquatic resources are 

limited to drainage basins, retention ponds, and other manmade structures. The closest natural water 

feature to the proposed mercury storage facility is Bear Creek, which flows along the southern boundary 

of Y–12 (DLA 2004:3-65; DOE 2008c:4-399). 
Affected Environment 

3–157

3.9.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

ORR is home to several federally and state-protected plant and animal species. Two federally listed 

vertebrate species are known to occur at ORR: the endangered gray bat and the threatened spotfin chub. 

State-listed mammals include the endangered peregrine falcon. No federally listed vascular plants occur 

on site, although several state-listed species, including the endangered pink lady’s-slipper, tall larkspur, 

and fen orchid, have been recorded. Table 3–23 lists all sensitive species potentially occurring at ORR 

(DLA 2004:3-65-66; DOE 2008c:4-400-402). 

Within Y–12, no protected species are known or expected to occur (DLA 2004:3-66). 

Table 3–23. Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring 

at the Oak Ridge Reservation 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Plants 

Spreading false-foxglove Aureolaria patula Threatened 

Appalachian bugbane Curiesmicifuga 

rubifolia 

Threatened 

Pink lady’s-slipper Cypripedium acaule Endangered 

Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Endangered 

Northern bushhoneysuckle Diervilla lonicera Threatened 

Mountain witch-alder Fothergilla major Threatened 

Butternut Juglans cinerea Threatened 

Canada lily Lilium canadense Threatened 

Michigan lily Lilium michiganense Threatened 

Fen orchid Liparis loeselii Endangered 

Tuberculed rein-orchid Platanthera flava var. 

herbiola 

Threatened 

Shining ladies-tresses Spiranthes lucida Threatened 

Animals 

Spotfin chub Cyprinella monacha Threatened Threatened 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered 

Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered Endangered 

Source: DOE 2008c:Table 4.9.7-1. 

3.9.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

About 90 percent of ORR has been surveyed on a reconnaissance level for prehistoric and historic 

archaeological resources, but less than 5 percent has been intensely surveyed. There have been several 

archaeological surveys conducted at Y–12 in the past (DOE 2008c:4-403). 

3.9.6.1 Prehistoric Resources 

Human occupation and the use of the East Tennessee Valley between the Cumberland Mountains and the 

southern Appalachians are believed to date back to the Late Pleistocene epoch, at least 14,000 years ago. 

Archaeologists have traditionally believed that these Paleo-Indian bands subsisted primarily by hunting 

the large game of that era and collecting wild plant foods (DOE 2008c:4-402, 4-403). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–158

During the Mississippian periods (900 A.D. to historic times), larger-scale permanent communities 

developed in the ORR region, first along the alluvial terraces, and later on the second river terraces in the 

rich bottomlands suitable for intensive agriculture. These communities included multiple structures, 

storage pits, hearths, mounds, stockades, plazas, and semi-subterranean earth lodges. 

Forty-four prehistoric sites have been recorded within the boundaries of ORR. Y–12 contains only one 

known archaeological site (40AN68), which is located on a flat rise overlooking East Fork Poplar Creek. 

This site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (DOE 2008c:4-403). 

3.9.6.2 Historic Resources 

While no cultural resources at Y–12 are listed in the NRHP, the site has 76 existing historic properties. 

The Tennessee SHPO has concurred with this determination. The district and its contributing properties 

are eligible under Criterion A for historical associations with the Manhattan Project, development as a 

nuclear weapons component plant within the post–World War II scientific movement, and early nuclear 

activities. The historic district is also eligible under Criterion C for the engineering merits of many of the 

properties and their contributions to science. 

There are at least 32 cemeteries located within the boundaries of the ORR, 7 of which are located on the 

Y–12. These cemeteries are associated with the European-American use of the area prior to World War II 

and are likely to have religious or cultural importance to descendants and the local community. All are 

currently maintained and protected. No other traditional, ethnic, or religious resources have been 

identified on the Y–12 (DOE 2008c:4-404). 

3.9.6.3 American Indian Resources 

Ancestors of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma may be 

culturally affiliated with the prehistoric use of ORR area. The Overhill Cherokee occupied the 

surrounding area by the late 1700s. Their subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and horticulture. 

Residences had both summer and winter structures. Most of the Cherokee people were relocated to the 

Oklahoma Territory in 1838 (DOE 1996c:4-31). 

Procedures for consulting with the Cherokee regarding traditional cultural places are in place. No 

American Indian traditional use areas or religious sites are known to be present on Y–12. Also, no 

artifacts of American Indian religious significance are known to exist or to have been removed from Y–12 

(DOE 2008c:4-404). 

3.9.6.4 Paleontological Resources 

The area is underlain by bedrock formations dominated by calcareous siltstones, limestones, sandstones, 

siliceous shales, and siliceous dolostones. The majority of geologic units with surface exposures contain 

paleontological materials. All of these paleontological materials consist of common invertebrate remains, 

which are unlikely to be unique compared with those available throughout the east Tennessee region. 
Affected Environment 

3–159

3.9.7 Site Infrastructure 

3.9.7.1 Ground Transportation 

Y–12 is located on ORR in Anderson County, Tennessee, approximately 29 kilometers (18 miles) west of 

the city of Knoxville. Y–12 contains 105 kilometers (65 miles) of roads ranging from well-maintained, 

paved roads to remote, seldom-used roads that provide occasional access. Primary roads serving Y–12 

include Tennessee State Routes 58, 62, 95, and 170 and Bear Creek Road. In addition, Y–12 is located 

within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of three interstate highways: Interstates 40, 75, and 81. Rail transport to 

the site is from a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) rail spur from the CSX main line, east of Oak Ridge 

(DOE 2009g). DOE maintains an additional 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) of rail at Y–12 (DLA 2004:3:69). 

3.9.7.2 Electricity 

Electric power is supplied to ORR by the Tennessee Valley Authority and is distributed to Y–12 via three 

161-kilovolt overhead radial feeders. There are eleven 13.8-kilovolt distribution systems that range in 

size from 10 to 50 megavolt-amperes that distribute power to substations located at facilities throughout 

Y–12. In total, these distribution systems include approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles) of overhead 

lines, 16 kilometers (10 miles) of underground cable, and 740 pole- and pad-mounted transformers 

(DOE 2009g:4-8). 

At Y–12, the average monthly power usage is less than 10 to 40 megawatts. The available capacity, 

approximately 430 megawatts, greatly exceeds current demands due to the fact that the original uses of 

the site required a large, robust electrical system to support the uranium enrichment mission. The change 

in mission from uranium enrichment to weapons manufacturing and subsequent evolution to the current 

mission has greatly reduced electrical requirements (DOE 2009g:4-9). 

Y–12 has a significant emergency and standby power generator system. The emergency power system 

provides backup power to critical safety-related loads, such as the emergency egress lighting systems and 

the fire alarm system, as well as non-critical loads, such as security systems and mission-related process 

systems. The combined capacity of the emergency and standby power generator system is 2.6 megawatts 

(DOE 2009g:4-9). 

The annual consumption at the site as a whole is 350,000 megawatt-hours; electrical capacity is 

3,770,000 megawatt-hours (DOE 2009g). 

3.9.7.3 Fuel 

Both natural gas and coal are used as fuels for heating and operations at Y–12. Sigcorp Energy Services 

supplies natural gas to Y–12. Natural gas, which is used for furnaces, the Y–12 steam plant, and 

laboratories, is supplied via a pipeline from the East Tennessee Natural Gas Company at “C” Station 

located south of Bethel Valley Road near the eastern end of Y–12. It is distributed via pipelines of 

varying size throughout Y–12. Each boiler of the Y–12 steam plant is capable of firing on either 

pulverized coal or natural gas and includes two coal pulverizers and four burners. Coal for the steam 

plant is purchased regionally, delivered by truck, and stored in a bermed area near the plant 

(DOE 2009g:4-9, 4-10). Current site usage is 64,000 metric tons (70,550 tons) per year, while that of 

natural gas is 2.7 million cubic meters (97 million cubic feet) per year. 

3.9.7.4 Water 

Raw water for ORR is obtained from the Clinch River south of the eastern end of Y–12 and pumped to 

the water treatment plant located on the ridge northeast of Y–12. Ownership and operation of the treated 

water system was transferred from DOE to the City of Oak Ridge in April 2000. The water treatment 

plant can deliver water to two water storage reservoirs at a potential rate of 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–160

90.8 million liters (24 million gallons) per day. Water from the reservoirs is distributed to Y–12, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, and the City of Oak Ridge. Separate underground piping systems provide 

distribution of raw and treated water within Y–12. The primary use of the raw water is to maintain a 

minimum flow of 26.5 million liters (7 million gallons) per day in the East Fork Poplar Creek. The 

treated water system supplies water for fire protection, process operations, sanitary sewage requirements, 

and boiler feed at the steam plant (DOE 2009g:4-10). 

Estimated annual treated water use was 5.9 billion liters (1.6 billion gallons) (DOE 2009g:4-10). Water 

capacity was 9.7 billion liters (2.6 billion gallons) (DLA 2004:3-68). 

3.9.8 Waste Management 

Y–12 is part of DOE’s ORR, which also includes the East Tennessee Technology Park and Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. In general, ORR environmental compliance and waste management activities are 

the responsibility of site contractors overseen by DOE’s Environmental Management Program and other 

facility-specific government agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Defense, NNSA). Across ORR, waste 

management programs, systems, and facilities have managed various forms of HLW, LLW, MLLW, TRU 

waste, and hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams (DOE 2008e). 

As a function of routine onsite activity and ongoing site remediation efforts, Y–12 manages LLW, 

MLLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. Y–12 does not generate HLW or TRU waste. All 

site wastes are managed in accordance with appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal technologies and 

in compliance with applicable Federal and state law. Y–12 is identified as an RCRA large-quantity 

generator. In general, waste management activities at Y–12 are the responsibility of NNSA and are 

regulated under the Tennessee Solid Waste Management Act (TCA 68-211-801 et seq.) and DOE’s 

Records of Decision associated with the Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous 

Waste (DOE 2008c). 

Several waste treatment and disposal facilities are managed by DOE at Y–12. These facilities include 

multiple onsite nonhazardous landfills, a recently constructed above-grade CERCLA waste treatment and 

disposal facility in support of ongoing site remediation activity, and multiple wastewater treatment 

facilities that predominantly handle mercury-contaminated water discharges and remediation waste 

streams (DOE 2009h). Site disposal facilities are the responsibility of DOE’s Environmental 

Management Program (DOE 2008c). 

3.9.8.1 Hazardous Waste Generation and Management 

Y–12 is currently the designated storage location of DOE’s NNSA national defense stockpile of mercury. 

The mercury stockpile, located in a mercury-specific, single-story, slab-on-grade block/masonry building, 

includes 1,206 metric tons (1,329 tons) of mercury in 35,000 3-liter (0.8-gallon), 34.6-kilogram 

(76-pound) seamless carbon steel flasks. Mercury-contaminated waste (air monitoring equipment, 

personal protective equipment, spill rags, etc.) generated from maintaining the mercury stockpile is 

minimal. Mercury-contaminated waste from the stockpile is generally disposed of off site using licensed 

waste disposal contractors (DOE 2007e). 
Affected Environment 

3–161

Y–12 RCRA-regulated waste is generated through a variety of production and maintenance operations. 

The major sources of hazardous wastes are plating rinse waters, waste oil, and solvents from machining 

and cleaning operations; contaminated soil, soil solutions, and soil materials from RCRA closure 

activities; and waste contaminated with hazardous constituents from construction and demolition 

activities (DOE 2008c). The majority of the 13 cubic meters (17 cubic yards) of RCRA-regulated waste 

generated per year is in solid form. Some hazardous waste may be treated on site and then disposed of as 

nonhazardous waste. The remaining hazardous waste is shipped off site for treatment and disposal at 

either DOE or commercial facilities (DLA 2004; DOE 2008c). 

At Y–12, DOE’s Oak Ridge Environmental Management Program oversees large mercury remediation 

activities as a result of historic mercury use at the site. These remediation efforts include the cleanup of 

an estimated 907 metric tons (1,000 tons) of released mercury in surrounding soils, sediments, streams, 

aquifers, and landfills across the site. Various remediation methods and support facilities are utilized at 

the Y–12 site to clean up mercury, including Big Springs Water Treatment Facility for wastewater 

treatment and Environmental Management Waste Management Facility for onsite CERCLA waste 

treatment and disposal (DOE 2009h, 2009i). 

3.9.8.2 Waste Minimization 

Y–12 has an active Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program to reduce the total amount of 

waste generated and disposed of at the site. These minimization efforts are in compliance with DOE’s 

ORR Office Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program. This program focuses on 

eliminating waste by reducing waste sources, by substituting materials, by recycling potential waste 

materials that cannot be minimized or eliminated, and by treating all waste that is generated to reduce its 

volume, toxicity, or mobility prior to storage or disposal. In 1999, Y–12 reported 38 pollution prevention 

projects, which resulted in a waste reduction of 8,283 cubic meters (10,833 cubic yards) (DOE 2001c). 

3.9.9 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 

3.9.9.1 Normal Operations 

Activities at ORR have the potential to release hazardous chemicals and radionuclides to the environment. 

These releases could result in exposures of members of the public to low concentrations of chemicals or 

radionuclides. Monitoring and surveillance are used to show that doses from chemicals and radionuclides 

are in compliance with regulations. Recent estimates of doses from chemical and radionuclide releases 

are reported in the Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report for 2007. There are several 

non-DOE-related sources of radiation exposure near ORR. Based on responses from owners of these 

sources, the annual dose to a member of the public from the DOE and non-DOE sources was well below 

any regulatory dose limit (DOE 2008f:7-1–7-20). Radiation doses to the public and to workers have been 

estimated and compared with the applicable criteria in the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Y–12 National Security Complex (DOE 2009g). 

Reported ambient mercury concentrations at the two monitoring sites continue to be elevated above the 

reference site background level of 0.006 micrograms per cubic meter, but were well below the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ threshold limit value of 25 micrograms per cubic 

meter and the EPA reference concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter for chronic-inhalation 

exposure (DOE 2008f:4-42, 4-43). 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–162

Concentrations of mercury in fish tissue collected near Y–12 have historically been elevated in East Fork 

Poplar Creek compared with concentrations in reference samples and samples taken from other streams 

near ORR. In 2007, the average mercury concentration in fish tissue from East Fork Poplar Creek was 

about 0.8 parts per million, which is above the Tennessee precautionary advisory level for mercury of 

0.3 parts per million and within the EPA recommended consumption limit of one fish meal per month 

(greater than 0.47 through 0.94 parts per million for methylmercury) (DOE 2008f:4-58, 5-54, 6-15; EPA 

2009i:4-5; TDEC 2007:7). Soil and groundwater conditions are described in Sections 3.9.2.2 and 3.9.3.2, 

respectively. 

3.9.9.2 Facility Accidents 

Accidents evaluated for the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12 National 

Security Complex included wildfires, earthquakes, explosions, criticality events, fire events involving 

radioactive materials, and chemical accidents. The evaluation of hazardous chemicals at Y–12 concluded 

that no chemical impacts would cause adverse impacts beyond the site boundary (DOE 2009g:3-39, 

D-36–D-52). 

DOE has established emergency response plans for Y–12 to maintain adequate response preparedness for 

fire and hazardous materials releases. Fire and emergency services are coordinated with offsite 

emergency organizations (DOE 2009g:3-39, D-40). 

3.9.9.3 Transportation 

There are a number of risks to the public and workers related to transporting materials to the site and 

employee traffic. These include death and injury from accidental release of nonradioactive and 

radioactive materials, effects of air pollutants and low levels of radiation emitted during normal (incidentfree) transportation, and accidents resulting in death or injury where there is no release of nonradioactive 

or radioactive materials. Risks related to truck transportation of radioactive material to Y–12 were 

evaluated in the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12 National Security 

Complex. The impacts associated with radiological transportation would be less than 1 latent cancer 

fatality per year (DOE 2009g:5-7, 5-9, 5-17). 

3.9.10 Socioeconomics 

Y–12 is located on ORR in eastern Tennessee, approximately 29 kilometers (18 miles) west of the city of 

Knoxville. Over 90 percent of people employed at Y–12 reside in four counties: Anderson, Knox, 

Loudon, and Roane (DOE 2008c:4-404). Therefore, these four counties are identified as the ROI in this 

socioeconomics analysis. Y–12 employs approximately 6,000 persons (DOE 2009i). 

3.9.10.1 Regional Economic Characteristics 

From 2000 to 2008, the labor force of the ROI increased by approximately 12 percent to 313,806. By 

July 2009, the unemployment rate of the ROI was 8.7 percent, which was lower than the unemployment 

rate for Tennessee (11 percent) (BLS 2009). 

3.9.10.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

In 2008, the estimated population of the four-county ROI was 604,063. From 2000 to 2008, the ROI 

population grew by 11 percent, compared with 9.2 percent growth throughout the state of Tennessee 

(DOC 2009b). Young children and pregnant women are considered to be among the most vulnerable 

populations to mercury poisoning. The percentage of the ROI population under the age of 18 was 

22 percent; women ages 18 to 39 composed 15 percent (DOC 2009c). There were 272,204 housing units 

in the ROI in 2007 (DOC 2008), 64 percent of which were owner occupied, 27 percent were renter 

occupied, and 8.9 percent were vacant (DOC 2009c). 
Affected Environment 

3–163

3.9.10.3 Local Transportation 

There are several interstate highways in the region surrounding ORR. The primary east-west route is 

Interstate 40, which passes the site approximately 14 kilometers (9 miles) south, where it merges with 

Interstate 75, the primary north-south route. Interstate 75 runs in conjunction with Interstate 40 for 

approximately 27 kilometers (17 miles), then splits to the west of Knoxville and continues north. Access 

routes to Y–12 are provided from State Routes 58, 62, 95, and 170 (Bethel Valley Road), and Bear Creek 

Road. In 2008, the average annual daily traffic along the segment of State Route 170 most accessible to 

Y–12 was 8,007 vehicles per day. The average annual daily traffic for the segment of State Route 62 

from State Route 95 to State Route 170 was 31,959 vehicles per day. State Route 95’s annual average 

daily traffic was 23,986 vehicles per day from the county line to State Route 62, and 6,666 vehicles per 

day from State Route 95 to Interstate 40 (TTD 2009). There is no public access to Bear Creek Road. 

Rail access is provided to Y–12 by a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) rail spur connecting to the CSX main line east 

of Oak Ridge (DLA 2004:3-69). There are two airports located in the ROI operated by the Metropolitan 

Knoxville Airport Authority. The McGee Tyson Airport is located approximately 32 kilometers 

(20 miles) southeast of Y–12. This facility handles commercial airline traffic, air cargo, military aviation, 

and general aviation. The Downtown Knoxville Island Airport is a general aviation facility located 

approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles) east of Y–12 (COK 2009). There are several private airports 

located throughout the ROI, primarily engaged in agricultural services. 

3.9.11 Environmental Justice 

The 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding the storage location at Y–12 encompasses parts of five 

Tennessee counties: Anderson, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, and Roane. In the decade between 1990 and 

2000, the total population of the five-county area increased by approximately 13 percent to 564,115; the 

minority population increased by approximately 38 percent to 58,573; and the low-income population 

decreased by approximately 1 percent. Demographic data from the 2000 census show that the Black or 

African American population accounts for approximately 65 percent of the total minority population. 

Persons who declared that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin are included in the “total Hispanic” 

population, regardless of race. They composed approximately 12 percent of the total minority population 

residing in Anderson, Knox, Loudon, Morgan and Roane Counties in 2000. 

Data for Loudon, Morgan, and Roane Counties from the 2007 ACS 1-Year Estimates are unavailable due 

to a population threshold of 65,000 people necessary for inclusion. However, the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year 

Estimates reported data for all five counties included in the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding 

Y–12. According to the 2005–2007 ACS 3-Year Estimates, the total population of the five-county area 

increased by 8 percent to 606,721, and the low-income population increased by 20 percent to 83,919 since 

2000. During this time, the total minority population of Knox County increased by approximately 

21 percent to 58,125. Detailed demographic data of race and Hispanic origin from the 2005–2007 ACS 

3-Year Estimates for Anderson, Loudon, Morgan, and Roane Counties are unavailable due to an 

insufficient number of sample cases. 

Approximately 101,939 people lived within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of Y–12 in 2000 (DOC 2009d). 

This area included an estimated 7.6 percent minority and 7.9 percent low-income population. By 

comparison, the five-county area included a 10 percent minority and 13 percent low-income population, 

and the state included a 21 percent minority and 13 percent low-income population. There are 89 census 

block groups located within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius surrounding Y–12. Of this total, one 

contained a disproportionately high number of minority individuals and one contained a 

disproportionately high number of low-income individuals. Figure 3–28 shows the proximity of the 

identified minority and low-income communities to Y–12. The population living within 16 kilometers 

(10 miles) of Y–12 is more densely concentrated to the southeast toward the outskirts of Knoxville. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–164

Figure 3–28. Block Group Containing Minority Populations Surrounding 

Y–12 National Security Complex 

Approximately 3,093 people lived within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of Y–12 in 2000 

(DOC 2009d). This area included an estimated 27 percent minority and 14 percent low-income 

population. There are nine census block groups located within this ROI; three contained a 

disproportionately high number of minority individuals and none contained a disproportionately high 

number of low-income individuals. There are more block groups containing a disproportionately high 

number of minority individuals within the approximately 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI than in the 

16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI. This is due to a lower threshold within the smaller ROI because it only 

includes parts of Anderson County, while the larger 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI includes parts of five 

counties (see Appendix B, Section B.11). Figure 3–29 shows the proximity of the identified minority 

communities to Y–12. 
Affected Environment 

3–165

Figure 3–29. Block Groups Containing Minority Populations Surrounding 

Y–12 National Security Complex 

POTENTIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS 

Environmental justice concerns were considered in greater detail in areas that have been identified as 

containing a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income individuals. This section 

presents information regarding factors that may contribute to disproportional impacts, such as age and 

access to health care. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–166

Factors such as age could have the potential to amplify an individual’s exposure to environmental 

contaminants, such as mercury. For purposes of this analysis, the age groups of primary concern are 

children under the age of 18, women ages 18 to 39, and individuals ages 65 and up. The populations of 

children under 18 and women ages 18 to 39 living within the 16-kilometer (10-mile) and 3.2-kilometer 

(2-mile) ROIs appear to be consistent with the surrounding areas. The population of individuals ages 65 

and up living in the 3.2-kilometer (2-mile) ROI (20 percent) is noticeably larger than that demographic 

living in the 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI (14 percent), the state (12 percent), and the five-county region 

(14 percent). 

Factors such as access to health care could hamper a community’s ability to cope with potentially adverse 

health impacts. HPSAs are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration. These data 

are presented at the greatest level of spatial resolution available for each county within the 16-kilometer 

(10-mile) ROI. There are no primary medical care or mental health HPSA designations in Anderson 

County; however, the county is designated as a dental HPSA for low-income populations. Several Knox 

County census tracts have been designated as dental HPSAs, although none lie within the 16-kilometer 

(10-mile) ROI. There is one medical facility in Knox County designated as a primary medical care 

HPSA; there are no mental health HPSA designations in the county. There are no HPSA designations in 

Loudon County. One medical facility in Morgan County is designated as a primary medical care, dental, 

and mental health HPSA; and the entire county is designated as a primary medical care HPSA. Morgan 

County is also designated as a dental HPSA for low-income populations. Roane County is designated as 

a primary medical care and dental HPSA for low-income populations. There are no mental health HPSA 

designations in Roane County (HRSA 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

3–167

3.10 REFERENCES 

Adams, M.L., 2006, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communication (letter) to 

L.A. Sehlke, Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Idaho Falls, Idaho, “Use of the ‘Big Lost River Flood 

Hazard Study, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2005’ 

(AS-SSD-INL-06-030),” January 12. 

Baur, G., 2009, S.M. Stoller Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado, personal communication to 

S. Dixon, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Additional 

Information on Site Infrastructure,” August 5. 

BCPD (Benton County Planning Department), 2007, Benton County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8, 

“Transportation Element,” accessed through http://www.co.benton.wa.us/comp_plan_.htm. 

Beach, L., 2009, Waste Control Specialists, LLC, Andrews, Texas, personal communication (email) to 

S. Dixon, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Request for 

Additional Information, WCS,” August 19. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2009, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 1990–2008 by 

Selected States and Counties, accessed through http://www.bls.gov/data/, June 26. 

Bulgarino, N., 2008, Ameresco Federal Solutions, personal communication (telephone conversation) with 

R. Werth, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “P-Area Biomass 

Facility Modeling and PM2.5 Concerns in the Aiken/Augusta Area,” August 15. 

Caudell, M.B., 2000, Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area and Ecological Reserve, Comprehensive 

Natural Resource Management Plan, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina, July. 

CDNR (Colorado Department of Natural Resources), 2009, Threatened and Endangered Species List – 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, accessed through http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ 

SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/ListOfThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm, June 22. 

CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), 2009, Vehicle Traffic Volumes and Truck Weights on 

Colorado State Highways, accessed through http://www.dot.state.co.us/app_DTD_DataAccess/Traffic/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=TrafficMain&MenuType=Traffic. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Executive Office of the President, accessed through 

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/ej.pdf, December 10. 

Chatters, J.C., and N.A. Cadoret, 1990, Archaeological Survey of the 200 East and 200 West Areas, 

Hanford Site, Washington, PNL-7264, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, March. 

Clawson, K.L., G.E. Start, and N.R. Ricks, eds., 1989, Climatography of the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, 2nd ed., DOE/ID-12118, Rev. 00, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, December. 

COK (City of Knoxville), 2009, Airports, accessed through http://www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/newcomers/ 

airports.asp, August 13. 

Cook-Joyce and Intera (Cook-Joyce, Inc., and Intera, Inc.), 2007, Geology Report, Rev. 12c, 

Appendix 2.6.1, Austin, Texas, prepared for Waste Control Specialists, LLC, Austin, Texas, May 1. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–168

CTUIR (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation), 2009, Draft Language Submitted by 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Department of Science and Engineering, 

Pendleton, Oregon. 

Depperschmidt, J.D., 2007, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communication 

(email) to M. Burandt, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington, 

“Fed Ex Address” (regarding response to data request for INL, including 2006 nonradiological criteria 

pollutant releases), May 22. 

Desormeau, J., 2009, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, Grand Junction, 

Colorado, personal communication (email) to J. DiMarzio, Science Applications International 

Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Information at the Grand Junction 

Disposal Site,” July 16. 

DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), 2004, Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement, 

Defense National Stockpile Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, March. 

DNSC (Defense National Stockpile Center), 2006, “Defense Stockpile Announces the Selection of the 

Mercury Consolidation Storage Location,” Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, February 2. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2008, U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4: Annual Estimates of Housing 

Units for Counties of Selected States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, accessed through 

http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2007-4.html, August 21. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009a, U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics, Labor 

Shed Reports for Selected Regions Generate Using LED OnTheMap Version 3, accessed through 

http://lehdmap3.did.census.gov/themap3/, October 8. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009b, U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1: Annual Estimates of the 

Resident Population for Counties of Selected States; April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, accessed through 

http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-01.html, March 19. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009c, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2007 American Community 

Survey 3-Year Estimates, accessed through http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ 

program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009d, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, accessed 

through http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId= 

datasets_1&_lang=en. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009e, U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Decennial Census, accessed 

through http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_tabId=DEC2&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=269449200487. 

DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2009f, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey 1-

Year Estimates, accessed through http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program 

=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&lang=en. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986, Final Environmental Statement, Remedial Actions at the 

Former Climax Uranium Company Uranium Mill Site, Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado, 

DOE/EIS-126-F, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

December. 
Affected Environment 

3–169

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995, Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0217, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, July. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996a, Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0229, Office of Fissile Materials 

Disposition, Washington, D.C., December. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996b, Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S. Department of 

Energy Richland Operation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington 

State Historic Preservation Office for the Maintenance, Deactivation, Alteration, and Demolition of the 

Built Environment on the Hanford Site, Washington, DOE/RL-96-77, Rev. 0, Richland Operations Office, 

Richland, Washington, August 21. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996c, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Stockpile Stewardship and Management, DOE/EIS-0236, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, LowLevel Burial Grounds, DOE-RL-88-20, Rev. 1, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999a, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0222-F, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999b, Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, DOE/EIS-0283, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, Washington, D.C., November. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999c, Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0290, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, January. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2000, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production 

Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, DOE/EIS-0310, Office of 

Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., December. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001a, Environmental Assessment, Use of Existing Borrow Areas, 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-1403, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001b, Hanford Waste Management Program Strategic Plan, 

DOE/RL-2001-15, Rev. 0, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, February. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001c, Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12 

National Security Complex, DOE-EIS-0309, Oak Ridge Y–12 Area Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002a, Standardized Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Post-RingoldFormation Sediments Within the Central Pasco Basin, DOE/RL-2002-39, Rev. 0, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington, June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002b, Central Waste Complex, Fact Sheet, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington, January. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002c, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 

Relocation of Technical Area 18 Capabilities and Materials at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 

DOE/EIS-0319, National Nuclear Security Administration, Washington, D.C., August. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–170

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002d, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0287, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 

September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002e, Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank Closure Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0303, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South 

Carolina, May. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004a, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2003, DOE/ID-12082(03), Idaho Operations Office, Idaho 

Falls, Idaho, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004b, Environmental Assessment for the Construction, Operation, 

and Closure of the Burma Road II Borrow Pit at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1501, Savannah 

River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, July. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005a, Grand Junction, Colorado, Site Environmental Report for 

Calendar Year 2004, Office of Legacy Management, Washington, D.C., August. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005b, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 

Consolidation of Nuclear Operations Related to Production of Radioisotope Power Systems, 

DOE/EIS-0373D, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005c, 2005 Supplement Analysis of the INL Site Portion of the 

April 1995 “Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs, Final Environmental Impact Statement,”

DOE/EIS-0203F-SA-02, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005d, Environmental Remediation and the Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order, accessed through http://cleanup.inel.gov/remediation, February 23. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005e, Savannah River Site End State Vision, Office of 

Environmental Management, accessed through http://sro.srs.gov/srs%20end%stat%20vision.htm., 

July 26. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005f, Natural Resources Management Plan for the Savannah River 

Site, New Ellenton, South Carolina, May. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006a, Calendar Year 2005 Nonradioactive Inventory of Airborne 

Emissions Report, DOE/RL-2006-05, Rev. 0, Richland Operations Office and Office of River Protection, 

Richland, Washington, March. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006b, Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report, 

Calendar Year 2005, DOE/ID-12082(05), Idaho Operations Office, Environmental Surveillance, 

Education and Research Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006c, Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit 

Part 1, Permit No. MO9890010524, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007a, Occurrence Reporting and Processing System, “ORPS 

Summary Report,” accessed through https://orps.hss.doe.gov/Orps/Reports/Summary.asp, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security, April 30. 
Affected Environment 

3–171

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007b, Type A Accident Investigation Report: The July 27, 2007, 

Tank 241-S-102 Waste Spill at the Hanford Tank Farms, Vol. 1, Office of Health, Safety and Security, 

Office of Corporate Safety Programs, Washington, D.C., September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007c, Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report, 

Calendar Year 2006; DOE/ID-12082(07), Idaho Operations Office, Environmental Surveillance, 

Education and Research Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007d, Environmental Assessment for the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Compliance Alternative at the Savannah River Site, 

DOE/EA-1563, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007e, Power Point Presentation at “Department of Energy National 

Nuclear Security Administration Mercury Storage at the Y–12 National Security Complex”, Power Point 

Presentation at DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Commodity-Grade Mercury 

Stakeholder Meeting, NNSA Y–12 Site Office, June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008a, Occurrence Reporting and Processing System, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security, Washington, D.C. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008b, Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report, 

Calendar Year 2007, DOE/ID-12082(07), Idaho Operations Office, Environmental Surveillance, 

Education and Research Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008c, Final Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0236-S4, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

Washington, D.C., October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008d, Environmental Assessment for Biomass Cogeneration and 

Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1605, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, 

South Carolina, August. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008e, The Oak Ridge Reservation 2006 Annual Site Environmental 

Report Summary, DOE/ORO-2234, National Nuclear Security Administration, accessed through 

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser2006/aser_summary.pdf, March. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008f, The Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report 

2007, DOE/ORO/2261, accessed through http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser2007.shtm, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009a, Grand Junction, Colorado, Processing Site and Disposal Site 

Fact Sheet, Office of Legacy Management, Washington, D.C., May 5. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009b, 2008 UMTRCA Title 1 Annual Report, Grand Junction 

Colorado, Office of Legacy Management, Washington, D.C., January. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009c, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0391, Office of River Protection, 

Richland, Washington, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009d, Hanford Site, Hanford Overview, accessed through 

http://www.hanford.gov/?page=215, July 12. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009e, Solid Waste Integrated Forecast Technical (SWIFT) Report 

2008.0: FY 2008 to FY 2035, accessed through http://hanford.gov/swift/index.htm, September 29. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–172

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009f, Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management 

Plan, DOE/ID-10997, Rev. 3, Idaho Operations Office, accessed through http://www.inl.gov/technical 

publications/Documents/4192201.pdf, February. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009g, Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12

National Security Complex, DOE/EIS-0387, National Nuclear Security Administration, Y–12 Site Office, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009h, Y–12 National Security Complex Fact Sheet, accessed through 

http://www.y12.doe.gov/about/factsheet.php, August 11. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009i, Factsheet – Y–12 National Security Complex and Off-site, 

DOE Oak Ridge Office, January. 

DOE and DOI (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Washington D.C., and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.), 2008, “DOI Designates 

B Reactor of DOE’s Hanford Site As a National Historic Landmark: DOE to Offer Regular Public Tours 

in 2009,” August 25. 

DOE and Ecology (U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland Washington, and 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington), 1996, Tank Waste Remediation 

System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0189, 

August. 

DOE and Mesa County (U.S. Department of Energy and Mesa County), 1996, Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the United States Department of Energy and The Mesa County Board of 

Commissioners, April 24. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 1986, Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Manual 

Handbook 8410-1, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., January. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 2000, 24 Command Fire, Benton County, Washington, 

June–July 2000, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Plan, Northern States Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation Team, Richland, Washington, July 7. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 2008, Programmatic Biological Assessment: Gunnison River 

Basin, Colorado: Operations of the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit; Operations and Depletions of Existing 

Reclamation Projects; and Operations and Depletions of Non-federal Water Development, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Western Colorado Field Office, December 23. 

DOI (U.S. Department of Interior), 2009, “Secretary Salazar Dedicates Dominguez-Escalante National 

Conservation Area, Emphasizes Economic Benefits of BLM’s Ax Format National Landscape 

Conservation System,” Office of the Secretary, accessed through 

http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081209.html, October 5. 

Duncan, J.P., ed., 2007, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, 

PNNL-6415, Rev. 18, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2001, Hanford Site Air Operating Permit, Permit 

No. 00-05-006, Olympia, Washington, June 20. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2003, personal communication (letter) to 

J.E. Rasmussen, U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Treatment Plant, Olympia, Washington, “Final 
Affected Environment 

3–173

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application, No. PSD-02-01, Amendment 1,” 

November 12. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2005, Final Approval of PSD Application, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Treatment Plant, No. PSD-02-01 Amendment 2, Olympia, 

Washington, October 6. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2006, Hanford Site Air Operating Permit, 2006 

Renewal, Permit No. 00-05-006, Olympia, Washington, December 29. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2006, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment: Mid-Atlantic 

Highlands Steams Assessment, Appendix C, “Glossary,” Office of Research and Development, accessed 

through http://www.epa.gov/maia/thml/mah-apc.html, March 3. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2007, EPA AirData, Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air 

Pollutants, Idaho, Ozone, 2004–2006, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html, 

February 8. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009a, Monitor Values Report – Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, Colorado, Mercury, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports/html, September 8. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009b, Monitor Locator Map – Criteria Pollutants, 

Colorado, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009c, Region 10: The Pacific Northwest, Sole Source 

Aquifer Program, accessed through http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifiers/SSA, 

January 7. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009d, Monitor Locator Map – Criteria Air Pollutants, 

Nevada, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009e, Monitor Locator Map – Criteria Air Pollutants, 

Missouri, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009f, Monitor Values Report – Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, Missouri, Mercury, accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html, October 2. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009g, Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air Pollutants, 

Georgia, accessed through http://www.iaspub.epa.gov/airsdata/. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009h, Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air Pollutants, 

South Carolina, accessed through http://www.iaspub.epa.gov/airsdata/. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009i, Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contamination 

Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Vol. 2, Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, 3rd ed., 

EPA 823-B-00-008, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., November. 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), 2009, Airport Data (5010) and Contract Information, accessed 

through http://www.faa.gov/airports/airports_safety/airportdata_5010/. 

Ferns, T.W., 2003a, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

personal communication (email) to T. Friend, Science Applications International Corporation, Richland, 

Washington, “Infrastructure,” June 19. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–174

Ferns, T.W., 2003b, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

personal communication (email) to P. Dunigan, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington, 

“Infrastructure Questions,” September 9. 

Fluor Hanford (Fluor Hanford, Inc.), 2006, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Fluor Hanford Annual Energy 

Management Report, FH-0602654.1, Richland, Washington, November 7. 

Foss, J.L., 2009, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, 

Idaho, personal communication (letter) to R.D. Blew, Plant Ecologist, The S.M. Stoller Corporation, 

Idaho Falls, Idaho, “Semi-Annual Species List Update,” June 1. 

Fossum E. and Ischay C., 2009, INL 2007 Reportable Water Baseline: Credit for Clean Water Returned 

to the Aquifer, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 3. 

Galvin Eling Associates, 1994, Cultural Resource Survey of a Proposed Waste Facility, Andrews County, 

Texas, Appendix 2.2.1, “Archaeological and Cultural Survey of the Application for License to Authorize 

Near-Surface Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” Austin, Texas, August. 

GAP (Government Accountability Project), 2003, Knowing Endangerment: Worker Exposure to Toxic 

Vapors at the Hanford Tank Farms, Nuclear Oversight Campaign, September. 

Geiser, D.W., 2009, Response to Expression of Interest: Facility for the Long-Term Management and 

Storage Elemental Mercury, S05346, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 

Washington D.C., April 24. 

GJDS (Grand Junction Disposal Site), 2009 “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response. 

GSA and NNSA (U.S. General Services Administration and National Nuclear Security Administration), 

2008, Environmental Assessment for the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the 

Non-nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant, DOE/EA-1592, Kansas City, 

Missouri, April 21. 

Haas, F.H., 2006, Application for License to Authorize Near-Surface Land Disposal of Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste, Appendix 2.4.1, “Flood Plain Study,” Rev. 11a, Prepared for Waste Control 

Specialists, LLC, Austin, Texas, March 31. 

Hartman, M.J., ed., 2000, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring: Setting, Sources, and Methods, 

PNNL-13080, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, February. 

Hartman, M.J., V.S. Richie, and J.A. Rediker, 2009, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for Fiscal 

Year 2008, DOE/RL-2008-66, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, accessed through 

http://www.hanford.gov/cp/gpp/library/annualreports.cfm., March. 

Hawthorne (Hawthorne Army Depot), 2001, Hawthorne Army Depot Installation Action Plan, 

Hawthorne, Nevada, March. 

Hawthorne (Hawthorne Army Depot), 2009, “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response.

Hebdon, J., 2003, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

personal communication (letter) to M.A. Wilson, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 

Kennewick, Washington, “Calendar Year 2002 Nonradioactive Inventory of Airborne Emissions Report,” 

April 7. 
Affected Environment 

3–175

Hicks & Company, 2007, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Waste Control Specialists Proposed Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, Andrews County, Texas, Proposed Low-Level Radioactive License 

No. 4100, March 16. 

Hicks & Company, 2008, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Waste Control Specialists Radioactive Material 

Storage and Processing Facility, Andrews County, Texas, Renewal of License No. R04971, Appendix A 

(page 105), July 3. 

Holecek, M.L., 2009, Identifying a Storage Facility for Elemental Mercury, Response to Request for 

Expressions of Interest, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Kansas 

City Site Office, Kansas City, Missouri, April 24. 

Honeywell (Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies), 2007, 2007 Annual Site Environmental 

Summary, Kansas City, Missouri, September. 

Honeywell (Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies), 2008, FY 2009 Kansas City Plant TenYear Site Plan, Kansas City, Missouri, August. 

Hortness, J.E., and J.P. Rousseau, 2003, Estimating the Magnitude of the 100-Year Peak Flow in the Big 

Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4299, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration), 2009a, Shortage Designation: HPSAs, MUAs, 

and MUPs, accessed through http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/index.htm., April 20. 

HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration), 2009b, Find Shortage Areas: HPSA by State and 

County, accessed through http://hpsafind.hrsa.gov/HPSASearch.aspx., November 16. 

ICF KH Engineers Hanford, 1995, Life Cycle Strategy, 100/200 Areas Electrical Transmission and 

Distribution, Richland, Washington, June 29. 

IFG (Idaho Fish and Game), 2009, Idaho’s Special Status Vertegrates and Invertebrates, access through 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cdc/animals/, October 28. 

IMNH (Idaho Museum of Natural History), 1991, Subsurface Archaeological Investigations at New 

Production Reactor Area E on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Northern Intermountain 

Quaternary Institute Archaeological Report No. 91-6, Pocatello, Idaho. 

INEEL (Idaho National engineering and Environmental Laboratory) 2000, Recomputation of the Seismic 

Hazard at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL/EXT-99-00786, 

Rev. 1, Idaho Falls, Idaho, February. 

INL (Idaho National Laboratory), 2009a, INL Standardized Safety Analysis Report, SAR-400, Rev. 2, 

May 27.

INL (Idaho National Laboratory), 2009b, INL Seismic Monitoring Program, accessed through 

http://www.inl.gov/geosciences/earthquakes.shtml, July 13. 

INL (Idaho National Laboratory), 2009c, Quarterly Energy Conservation Performance Report, Idaho 

Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

INL (Idaho National Laboratory), 2009d, “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response.
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–176

ITD (Idaho Transportation Department), 2008, Rural Traffic Flow Map, State of Idaho, Average Daily 

Traffic Figures for Districts 5 and 6, accessed through http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/roadwaydata/ 

RTFMaps/2007/index.html. 

Jackson, S.M., and J. Boatwright, 1985, “The Borah Peak, Idaho Earthquake of October 28, 1983–Strong 

Ground Motion,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2 (1). 

Jacobs (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.), 1998, Interim Long-Term Surveillance Plan for the Cheney 

Disposal Site Near Grand Junction, Colorado, DOE/AL/62350-243, Rev. 1, April. 

KCP (Kansas City Plant), 2009, “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response.

Koslow, K.N., and D.H. Van Haaften, 1986, Flood Routing Analysis for a Failure of Mackay Dam, 

EGG-EP-7184, EG&G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June. 

Leonard, P.R., 1993, Environmental Resource Document for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 

Vol. 1, Section 3, “Air Resources,” EGG-WMO-10279, EG&G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, July. 

Livaccari, R. and J. Hodge, 2005, “Laramide and Quaternary-Age Faulting Along the Northern 

Uncompahgre Plateau, Western Colorado,” Geological Society of America Abstracts from the 57th GSA 

Rocky Mountain Section Meeting, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, Colorado, May 23–25.

Mamatey, A., ed., 2008, Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2007, WSRC-STI-2008-00057, 

Washington Savannah River Company, LLC, Aiken, South Carolina. 

Marceau, T.E., 1998, Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Cold War Era Historic District Treatment 

Plan, DOE/RL-97-56, Rev. 1, Bechtel Hanford, Inc., accessed through http://www.hanford.gov/doe/ 

historic/docs/rl97-56/rl97-56.htm, January. 

MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2001, Mineral Resources of Missouri, Mineral 

Industries in Missouri, accessed through http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/adm/publications/mapMinRes.pdf, July 7. 

MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2009a, Classified Waters of Missouri, accessed 

through http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/wqstandards/wq_classfd_wb.htm, July 16. 

MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2009b, Kansas City Area Air Monitoring Sites, 

10/29/09, accessed through http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/wqs/bc.htm., October 29. 

MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation), 2008, 2008 District 4 Traffic Volume and 

Commercial Vehicle Count Map, accessed through http://www.modot.mo.gov/safety/ 

documents/2008_Traffic_District04.pdf. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009a, Storm Events for Colorado, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009b, Storm Events for Washington, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009c, Storm Events for Idaho, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009d, Storm Events for Missouri, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 
Affected Environment 

3–177

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009e, Storm Events for South Carolina, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009f, Storm Events for Texas, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2009g, Storm Events for Tennessee, accessed through 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2009a, Hawthorne Army Depot Webpage: HWAD 

Mission, accessed through http://ndep.nv.gov/hwad/haap03.htm, July. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2009b, Fact Sheet for Class 3 Hazardous Waste 

Permit – Modification to Permit Number NevHW0013, Hawthorne Army Depot Facility, accessed 

through http://ndep.nv.gov/sec/bwmfshwadpods62202.pdf. 

Neitzel, D.A., 2005, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, 

PNNL-6415, Rev. 17, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. 

Nichols, M.D., 1996, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum to Regional Directors, 

“Areas Affected by PM-10 Natural Events,” accessed through http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/ 

meta/m32461.html, May 30. 

NMDOT (New Mexico Department of Transportation), 2009, New Mexico Traffic Flow Maps of Urban 

Areas (2004) AADT, accessed through http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/photo_galleries/TrafficFlowMaps/ 

2004%20Traffic%20Flow%20Maps/County/Traff2004County_LEA.pdf. 

NNHP (Nevada Natural Heritage Program), 2009, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Animal and Plant 

At-Risk Tracking List, accessed through http://heritage.nv.gov/lists/track.pdf, March. 

NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration), 2008a, Final FY 2009 Kansas City Plant Ten-Year 

Site Plan, Kansas City Site Office, August. 

NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration), 2008b, Pollution Prevention and Reporting System, 

Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, September. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2009a, 2008 Local Climatological Data, 

Annual Summary with Comparative Data – Grand Junction, Colorado, National Climatic Data Center, 

Asheville, North Carolina. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2009b, Comparative Climatic Data for the 

United States Through 2008, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2009c, 2008 Local Climatological Data, 

Annual Summary with Comparative Data – Reno, Nevada, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, 

North Carolina. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2009d, 2008 Local Climatological Data, 

Annual Summary with Comparative Data – Kansas City, Missouri, National Climatic Data Center, 

Asheville, North Carolina. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2009e, 2008 Local Climatological Data, 

Annual Summary with Comparative Data – Augusta, Georgia, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, 

North Carolina. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–178

Noson, L., A. Qamar, and G. Thorsen, 1988, Washington State Earthquake Hazards, Washington 

Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 85, accessed through 

http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/INFO_GENERAL/NQT/. 

NPS (National Park Service), 2003, Final 2001 Air Emissions Inventory: Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve, Idaho, WASO – Air Resource Division, Denver, Colorado, October. 

NPS (National Park Service), 2009, Mandatory Class I Areas, accessed through http://www.epa.gov 

/oaqps001/visibility/maps.html. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2005, Environmental Impact Statement on the Construction 

and Operation of a Proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, South 

Carolina, NUREG-1767, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., January. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009a, Web Soil Survey, Mesa County Area, Colorado 

(Grand Junction Disposal Site) (generated for Latitude 38.906122 N, Longitude -108.340906 W), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed through 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx , July 9. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009b, Web Soil Survey, Hawthorne Ammunition 

Plant, Nevada, Part of Mineral County (Hawthorne Army Depot) (generated for Latitude 38.555015 N, 

Longitude - 118.593964 W), U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed 

through http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, September 1. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009c, Web Soil Survey, Soil Map—Jackson County, 

Missouri (Kansas City Plant) (generated for Latitude 38.958434 N, Longitude -94.570245 W), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed through 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, July 15. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009d, Web Soil Survey, Soil Map—Savannah River 

Plant Area (E-Area) (generated for Latitude 33.266906 N, Longitude -81.664165 W), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed through http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, July 20. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009e, Web Soil Survey, Soil Map—Andrews County, 

Texas (Waste Control Specialists Site) (generated for Latitude 32.437417 N, Longitude -103.061434 W), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed through 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, July 21. 

NVDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation), 2009, 2008 Annual Traffic Report, Annual Average 

Daily Traffic Count Stations for Mineral County, accessed through http://www.nevadadot.com/ 

reports_pubs/traffic_report/2008/, June 10. 

O’Rourke, T., 2006, Idaho National Laboratory Comprehensive Land Use and Environmental 

Stewardship Report, INL/EXT-06-00726, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, September. 

Ostenaa, D.A., and D.R.H. O’Connell, 2005, Big Lost River Flood Hazard Study Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho, Summary Document, Report 2005 2, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Seismotectonics and Geophysic Group, Denver, Colorado, 

November.

Perry, J., 2009, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communication (email) to 

J. DiMarzio, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Updated 

Reference for WM Volumes,” November 13. 
Affected Environment 

3–179

Poston, T.M., R.W. Hanf, R.L. Dirkes, and L.F. Morasch, eds., 2006, Hanford Site Environmental Report 

for Calendar Year 2005 (Including Some Early 2006 Information), PNNL-15892, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. 

Poston, T.M., R.W. Hanf, J.P. Duncan, and R.L. Dirkes, eds., 2007, Hanford Site Environmental Report 

for Calendar Year 2006 (Including Some Early 2007 Information), PNNL-16623, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. 

Poston, T.M., J.P. Duncan, and R.L. Dirkes, eds., 2008, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar 

Year 2007 (Including Some Early 2008 Information), PNNL-17603, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September.

Poston, T.M., J.P. Duncan, and R.L. Dirkes, eds., 2009, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar 

Year 2008 (including some early 2009 information), PNNL-18427, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September. 

Prendergast-Kennedy, E., 2003, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, personal 

communication (letter) to C. Johnson, Science Applications International Corporation, Richland, 

Washington, “Cultural Resources Review of Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste and 

Closure of Single Shell Tanks (Tank Closure) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), (HCRC #2003 

200 044),” August 28. 

Reavis, S., 2009a, Waste Control Specialists, LLC, Andrews, Texas, personal communication (email) to 

S. Dixon, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Mercury Storage 

EIS,” June 16. 

Reavis, S., 2009b, Waste Control Specialists, LLC, Andrews, Texas, personal communication (email) to 

S. Dixon, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “Request for 

Additional Information,” August 4. 

Reidel, S.P., N.P. Campbell, K.R. Fecht, and K.A. Lindsey, 1993, “Late Cenozoic Structure and 

Stratigraphy of South-Central Washington,” Regional Geology of Washington State, Bulletin 80, 

pp. 159–180, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources.

Ringe Pace, B., C. Marler, H. Gilbert, D. Lowrey, and J. Braun, 2005, Cultural Resource Assessment of 

the Power Line Road and T-24 at the Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-05-01033, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Cultural Resource Management, Idaho Falls, Idaho, December. 

Rodgers, D.W., H.T. Ore, R.T. Bobo, N. McQuarrie, and N. Zentner, 2002, “Extension and Subsidence of 

the Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho,” in Tectonic and Magmatic Evolution of the Snake River Plain 

Volcanic Province, Idaho Geological Survey Bulletin 30, pp. 121–155.

Sackschewsky, M.R., 2003a, Blanket Biological Review for General Maintenance Activities Within Active 

Burial Grounds, 200 E and 200 W Areas, ECR No. 2002-200-034, PNNL-14133, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, July. 

Sackschewsky, M.R., 2003b, Biological Review for the “Hanford Solid Waste EIS” – Borrow Area C 

(600 Area), Stockpile and Conveyance Road Area (600 Area), Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility (ERDF) (600 Area), Central Waste Complex (CWC) Expansion (200 West), 218-W-5 Expansion 

Area (200 West), New Waste Processing Facility (200 West), Undeveloped Portion of 218-W-4C 

(200 West), Western Half and Northeastern Corner of 218-W-6 (200 West), Disposal Facility Near 

Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Facility (200 East), ECR No. 2002-600-012b, PNNL-14233, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, April. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–180

Sackschewsky, M.R., and J.L. Downs, 2007, Ecological Data in Support of the “Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement,” Part 2, “Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys,” PNNL16620, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, May. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2003, Part 70, Air Quality 

Permit, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington Savannah River Company, LLC - Savannah River Site, 

Permit No. TV-0080-0041, February 19. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2006, Regulation 61-62, 

Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, Standard 2, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” Standard 

8, “Toxic Air Pollutants,” Air Pollution Control, Columbia, South Carolina. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2008, Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Standards, Document No. 3224, Chapter 61 (amendments), South Carolina 

State Register, Vol. 32, Issue 10, October 24. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2009a, Ambient Air 

Quality Data Summaries for 2007, accessed through http://www.scdhec.gov 

/environment/baq/ambientairdata.aspx. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2009b, Ozone Daily 

Maxima for 2008, accessed through http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/ambientairdata.aspx. 

SCDNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources), 2006, South Carolina Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Inventory: All Species Found in South Carolina, accessed through 

https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.list?pcounty=all, January 17. 

SCDOT (South Carolina Department of Transportation), 2009, 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic 

Counts for Aiken and Barnwell Counties, accessed through http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/aadt.shtml, 

March 23. 

SCEEPP (South Carolina Earthquake Education and Preparedness Program), 2009, About South Carolina 

Earthquakes, accessed through http://scearthquakes.cofc.edu/SCEQ/aboutSCEQ.html, September 10. 

Schinner, J.R., 2003, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, personal 

communication (telephone conversation) with D. Stapp, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington, “Paleontological Resources of the 200 Areas,” June 18. 

SOC (Special Operating Consulting, LLC), 2009, Response to the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

Request for Expressions of Interest for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury, 

April 20. 

SREL (Savannah River Ecology Laboratory), 2008, The Savannah River Site National Environmental 

Research Park, The University of Georgia, accessed through http://www.uga.edu/srel/ 

Snapshots/NERP.htm, February 18. 

SRNL (Savannah River National Laboratory), 2007, Air Dispersion Modeling for the SRS Title V Permit 

Renewal, SRNL-ATG-2007-00021, Aiken, South Carolina, October 4. 

SRNS (Savannah River Nuclear Solutions), 2008, “News from the Savannah River Site, New Highly 

Efficient, Clean Energy Steam Plant Begins Operations at the Savannah River Site,” accessed through 

http://www.srs.gov/general/news/releases/NR2008_SteamPlant.pdf, October 24. 
Affected Environment 

3–181

SRNS (Savannah River Nuclear Solutions), 2009, Facts About the Savannah River Site, accessed through 

http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/srs.pdf, June. 

SRS (Savannah River Site), 2008, Environmental Data for 2007, Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions 

(2004–2006), accessed through http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/er08. 

SRS (Savannah River Site), 2009, “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response.

Stoller (Stoller Legacy Management Team), 2009, Comprehensive Emergency Management System, 

LMS/POL/ S04326-3.0

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), 2009, Permit Amendment, Permit 

Number: 72653, Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Andrews County, Texas, May 18. 

TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation), 2007, Mercury Levels in Tennessee 

Fish, Nashville, Tennessee, May. 

TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation), 2008, Posted Streams, Rivers, and 

Reservoirs, accessed through http://www.state.tn.us/environment/water.shtml, August. 

TTD (Tennessee Transportation Department), 2009, 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic Book, accessed 

through http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/projectplanning/adt.asp. 

TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation), 2009, TXDOT Statewide Planning Map, 2007 Average 

Annual Daily Traffic Counts, accessed through http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/ 

StatewidePlanningMap.html, July 21. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2008, Hanford Reach National Monument Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Adams, Benton, Grant and 

Franklin Counties, Washington, Burbank, Washington, August. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009a, USFWS Critical Habitat Mapping System, Crithab 

Mapper, accessed through http://crithab.fws.gov/, June 22. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009b, Species by County Report (Mesa, CO), accessed through 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=08077, June 1. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009c, Species by County Report (Mineral County, NV), 

accessed through http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips 

=32021, June 1. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009a, US Earthquake Information by State, Colorado, Earthquake 

History, Earthquake Hazards Program, accessed through http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ 

states/colorado/history.php, January 30.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009b, US Earthquake Information by State, Colorado, Notable 

Earthquakes, Largest Earthquake in Colorado, Earthquake Hazards Program, accessed through 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1882_11_08.php, January 30.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009c, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Results, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 38.906122 N, 

Longitude -108.340 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake Information 

Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–182

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009d, 2008 United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, Interactive 

Maps, accessed through http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/products_data/2008/, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009e, US Earthquake Information by State, Washington, Notable 

Earthquakes, Largest Earthquake in Washington, Earthquake Hazards Program, accessed through 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1872_12_15.php, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009f, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Results, 

Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 46.551329 N, Longitude -

119.578 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake Information Center, 

accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009g, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Results, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 38.555015 N, 

Longitude -118.593 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake Information 

Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009h, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Results, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 43.567975 N, 

Longitude -112.931769 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake 

Information Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009i, US Earthquake Information by State, Missouri, Notable 

Earthquakes, Largest Earthquake in Missouri, Earthquake Hazards Program, accessed through 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1811-1812.php#february_7, July 15. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009j, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Results, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 33.266906 N, 

Longitude -81.664165 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake 

Information Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009k, Water-Data Report 2008, 06893500 Blue River at Kansas City, 

MO, Lower Missouri Basin, Blue Subbasin, Missouri Water Resource Center, accessed through 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=06893500&agency_cd=USGS, July 16.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009l, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Results, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 38.958434 N, 

Longitude -94.5792 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake Information 

Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009m, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Result, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 32.437417 N, 

Longitude -103.061434 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake 

Information Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, July 1.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009n, Earthquake Search, Circular Area, NEIC: Earthquake Search 

Result, Search Parameters: USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 – Present Data Base, Latitude 35.98577 N, 

Longitude -84.258916 W, Radius 100 km, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Earthquake 

Information Center, accessed through http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html, August 24.

Vaughan, B.E., and W.H. Rickard, 1977, Hanford National Environmental Research Park (NERP), A 

Descriptive Summary of the Site and Site Related Research Programs, 1952–1977, PNL-2299, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, November. 
Affected Environment 

3–183

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2007a, Application for License to Authorize Near-Surface Land 

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Rev. 12a, Andrews, Texas, March 16. 

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2007b, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Waste Control Specialists 

Proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, Andrews County, Texas, Dallas, Texas, 

March 16. 

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2008a, WCS Renewal License Application, Rev. 0, Andrews, 

Texas, July 3. 

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2008b, Consolidated Emergency Response Plan, ERP-100, 

Rev. 3A, Andrews, Texas, March 4. 

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2009a, Response to DOE Solicitation No: DE-SOL-0000415, 

Expression of Interest, Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury, Dallas, Texas, 

April 16. 

WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC), 2009b, “Mercury Storage EIS” Data Call Response.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2009, Priority Habitats and Species, accessed 

through http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm, August 16. 

Wenzel, D.R., H.K. Peterson, and R.L. Dickson, 1993, INEL Historical Dose Evaluation – 

Reconstruction of Operational Airborne Releases of Radioactivity to the Environment, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

WHPP (Worker Health Protection Program), 2008, The Worker Health Protection Program: About 

WHPP, accessed through http://www.worker-health.org/aboutwhpp.html. 

Wilkison, D.H., D.J. Armstrong, R.E. Brown, B.C. Poulton, J.D. Cahill, and S. D. Zaugg, 2005, WaterQuality and Biologic Data for the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Missouri and 

Kansas, October 2000 to October 2004, U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 127, accessed through 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/127/. 

Wiser, T., 2008, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communication (email) to 

T. Binder, Science Applications International Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, “INL Employee 

Residence Distribution,” March 5. 

Wisness, S.H., 2000, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 

personal communication (letter) to S. Otterson, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, 

Washington, “Calendar Year 1999 Nonradioactive Inventory of Airborne Emissions Report,” 

00-OSS-301, April 17. 

WRCC (Western Region Climate Center), 2009a, Western Region Climate Summaries, Colorado, Grand 

Junction, accessed through http//www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html. 

WRCC (Western Region Climate Center), 2009b, Hawthorne, Nevada, Period of Record Monthly 

Climate Summary, accessed through http://www.wrcc.dri.edu. 

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), 2008, Annual Traffic Report, accessed 

through http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/annualtrafficreport.htm. 

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, LLC), 1993, Savannah River Site Environmental 

Report for 1992, WSRC-TR-93-075, Aiken, South Carolina. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–184

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, LLC), 1994, Savannah River Site Environmental 

Report for 1993, WSRC-TR-94-075, Aiken, South Carolina. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2006a, Savannah River Site Environmental Report 

for 2005, WSRC-TR-2006-00007, Aiken, South Carolina. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2006b, SRS Ecology Environmental Information 

Document, WSRC-TR-2005-00201, Aiken, South Carolina. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2006c, Facts About the Savannah River Site: 

Effluent Treatment Project, accessed through http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/etp/pdf, 

February. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2007a, Savannah River Site Annual Meteorology 

Report for 2006 (u), WSRC-TR-2007-00118, Aiken, South Carolina, April. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2007b, Savannah River Site Environmental Report 

for 2006, WSRC-TR-2007-00008, Aiken, South Carolina. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2007c, Facts About the Savannah River Site: SRS 

Ship to WIPP and Transuranic Waste Program, accessed through http://www.srs.gov/general/ 

news/factsheets/truw/pdf, December. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2007d, Facts About the Savannah River Site: 

Liquid Nuclear Waste Processing Facilities, accessed through http://www.srs.gov/general/ 

news/factsheet/lnwpf.pdf. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2007e, Facts About the Savannah River Site: 

Saltstone Facility, accessed through http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/salt/pdf, December. 

WSRC (Washington Savannah River Company, LLC), 2008, E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility 

DOE 435.1 Performance Assessment, WSRC-STI-2007-00306, Rev. 0., July. 

Code of Federal Regulations

10 CFR 40.27, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “General License for Custody and Long-Term Care 

of Residual Radioactive Material Disposal Sites.” 

10 CFR 100, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Reactor Site Criteria.” 

14 CFR 150, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Airport Noise 

Compatibility Planning.” 

33 CFR 328.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Definition of Waters of the United States.” 

40 CFR 50, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR 61.90 – 61.97, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants,” Subpart H, “Natural Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides 

Other Than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.” 

40 CFR 70, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “State Operating Permit Programs.” 
Affected Environment 

3–185

40 CFR 81.306, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Colorado.” 

40 CFR 81.311, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Georgia.” 

40 CFR 81.313, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Idaho.” 

40 CFR 81.326, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Missouri.” 

40 CFR 81.329, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Nevada.” 

40 CFR 81.332, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: New Mexico.” 

40 CFR 81.341, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: South Carolina.” 

40 CFR 81.343, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Tennessee.” 

40 CFR 81.344, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Texas.” 

40 CFR 81.348, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart C, Section 107, “Attainment Status Designations: Washington.” 

40 CFR 81.434, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes,” Subpart D, “Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility Is an 

Important Value: Washington.” 

40 CFR 141, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” 

40 CFR 143, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.” 

40 CFR 192.11(e), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Definitions.” 

Colorado Code of Regulations

5 CCR 1002-31, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control 

Commission, “The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water,” May 31, 2008. 

5 CCR 1002-35, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control 

Commission, “Classifications and Numeric Standards for Gunnison And Lower Dolores River Basins,” 

July 1, 2007. 

5 CCR 1002-41, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control 

Commission, “Basic Standard for Groundwater,” May 31, 2008. 

Colorado Revised Statutes

CRS 25-12-103, “Maximum Permissible Noise Levels.” 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–186

Executive Orders

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

Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994. 

Federal Register

65 FR 37253, Executive Office of the President, 2000, “Proclamation 7319 of June 9, 2000, 

Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument,” June 13. 

71 FR 61144, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Final Rule, “National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter,” October 17. 

Idaho Administrative Code

IDAPA 58.01.01.577, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, “Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Specific Air Pollutants,” Boise, Idaho, May 1, 1994. 

IDAPA 58.01.02, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, “Water Quality Standards,” Boise, Idaho, 

2009. 

IDAPA 58.01.11, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, “Ground Water Quality Rule,” Boise, 

Idaho, 2009. 

IDAPA 58.01.17, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, “Rules for the Reclamation and Reuse of 

Municipal and Industrial Wastewater,” Boise, Idaho, 2009. 

Kansas City Code of Ordinances

KCC Chapter 46, “Noise Control,” Article IV, “Sound Levels by Receiving District.” 

Missouri Code of State Regulations

10 CSR 20-7.031, Clean Water Commission, Department of Natural Resources, “Water Quality 

Standards,” May 31, 2009. 

Nevada Administrative Code

NAC 445A.124, State Environmental Commission, “Class A Waters: Description; Beneficial Uses; 

Quality Standards,” April 23, 2004. 

NAC 445A.1693, State Environmental Commission, “Beneficial Uses For Walker Lake,” January 18, 

2002. 

South Carolina Code of Regulations

SCR 61-69, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, “Classified Waters,” 

June 23, 2006.
Affected Environment 

3–187

Tennessee Code Annotated

TCA 68-211-801 et seq., Solid Waste Management Act of 1991. 

United States Code

15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act. 

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

16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq., Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 

16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act of 1970. 

42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq., Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. 

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

(CERCLA) of 1980.

U.S. Department of Energy Orders

DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, Change 2, January 7, 1993. 

U.S. Public Laws

P.L. 100-605, Hanford Reach Study Act. 

P.L. 104-333, Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. 

Washington Administrative Code

WAC 173-60, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Maximum Environmental Noise Levels,” 

Olympia, Washington, December 2000. 

WAC 173-201A, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters 

of the State of Washington,” Olympia, Washington, November 20, 2006. 

WAC 173-303, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Dangerous Waste Regulations,” Olympia, 

Washington, November 2004. 

WAC 173-401, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Operating Permit Regulation,” Olympia, 

Washington, September 2002. 

WAC 173-460, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air 

Pollutants,” Olympia, Washington, July 1998. 

WAC 173-470, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter,” Olympia, Washington, January 1989. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

3–188

WAC 173-474, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur 

Oxides,” Olympia, Washington, September 1987. 

WAC 173-475, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon 

Monoxide, Ozone, and Nitrogen Dioxide,” Olympia, Washington, February 1980. 

WAC 173-481, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Ambient Air Quality and Environmental 

Standards for Fluorides,” Olympia, Washington, August 2005. 

WAC 173-490, Washington State Department of Ecology, “Emission Standards and Controls for Sources 

Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC),” Olympia, Washington, February 1998.