DOE/EA-1605 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR 

BIOMASS COGENERATION AND HEATING 

FACILITIES 

AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

AUGUST 2008 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 
DOE/EA-1605 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR 

BIOMASS COGENERATION AND HEATING 

FACILITIES 

AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

AUGUST 2008 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 
This page intentionally left blank 

- i - 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Proposed Action ...............................................................1 

1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................4 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................................................4 

2.1 Proposed Action...........................................................................................4 

2.1.1 ECM 1: Biomass Cogeneration Facility ..........................................4 

2.1.1.1 Biomass Energy .............................................................4 

2.1.1.2 Facility Components......................................................6 

2.1.2 ECM 2: Biomass Heating Plants for K and L-Areas.......................8 

2.2 Alternative 2: No Action Alternative...........................................................9 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed.......................................................9 

2.3.1 Alternative Site 1 ...........................................................................10 

2.3.2 Alternative Site 2 ...........................................................................10 

2.3.3 Other Alternatives..........................................................................10 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................11 

3.1 Soils and Physiography..............................................................................11 

3.1.1 Proposed Biomass Cogeneration Facility Site...............................12 

3.1.2 K and L-Areas................................................................................12 

3.2 Water Resources........................................................................................12 

3.2.1 Surface Water.................................................................................12 

3.2.1.1 Savannah River............................................................12 

3.2.1.2 Proposed Facility Site ..................................................13 

3.2.1.3 K and L-Areas..............................................................13 

3.2.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................13 

3.2.3 Wetlands and Floodplains..............................................................14 

3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................14 

3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants..........................................................................15 

3.3.1.1 Particulate Matter (PM) ...............................................15 

3.3.1.2 Ozone (O3) ...................................................................15 

3.3.2 Class I and II Areas........................................................................16 

3.3.3 Current Emissions..........................................................................17 

- ii - 
3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................18 

3.4.1 Vegetation......................................................................................18 

3.4.2 Wildlife ..........................................................................................19 

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................19 

3.5 Infrastructure..............................................................................................19 

3.5.1 Waste Management........................................................................19 

3.5.2 Utilities...........................................................................................20 

3.5.2.1 Energy Distribution and Use........................................20 

3.5.2.2 Water Distribution and Use .........................................20 

3.5.3 Traffic ............................................................................................21 

3.6 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................21 

3.7 Human Health, Safety, and Environmental Justice ...................................22 

3.8 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................23 

3.9 Noise ..........................................................................................................24 

3.10 Recreation ..................................................................................................24 

3.11 Land Use ....................................................................................................24 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................24 

4.1 Soil and Construction-Related Impacts .....................................................24 

4.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................24 

4.1.1.1 Proposed Facility Site ..................................................25 

4.1.1.2 K and L-Areas..............................................................26 

4.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................26 

4.2 Water Quality Impacts...............................................................................26 

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................26 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Facility Site ..................................................26 

4.2.1.1.1 Construction...............................................26 

4.2.1.1.2 Operation....................................................27 

4.2.1.2 K and L-Areas..............................................................28 

4.2.1.2.1 Construction...............................................28 

4.2.1.2.2 Operation....................................................29 

4.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................29 

4.3 Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................29 

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................29 

4.3.1.1 Construction.................................................................29 

- iii - 
4.3.1.2 Operation......................................................................30 

4.3.1.3 Consequences of Nonattainment..................................32 

4.3.1.4 Abatement Technology................................................32 

4.3.1.5 Associated Traffic........................................................33 

4.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................33 

4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................34 

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................34 

4.4.1.1 Vegetation....................................................................34 

4.4.1.2 Wildlife ........................................................................35 

4.4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................35 

4.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................35 

4.5 Infrastructure..............................................................................................36 

4.5.1 Waste Management........................................................................36 

4.5.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action....................................36 

4.5.1.1.1 Construction...............................................36 

4.5.1.1.2 Operation....................................................36 

4.5.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action..............................................36 

4.5.2 Utilities...........................................................................................37 

4.5.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action....................................37 

4.5.2.1.1 Energy Distribution and Use......................37 

4.5.2.1.1.1 Construction..........................37 

4.5.2.1.1.2 Operation...............................37 

4.5.2.1.2 Water Distribution and Use .......................38 

4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction..........................38 

4.5.2.1.2.2 Operation...............................38 

4.5.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action..............................................39 

4.5.3 Traffic ............................................................................................39 

4.5.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action....................................39 

4.5.3.1.1 Construction...............................................39 

4.5.3.1.2 Operation....................................................40 

4.5.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action..............................................41 

4.6 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................41 

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................41 

4.6.1.1 Construction.................................................................41 

4.6.1.2 Operation......................................................................41 

4.6.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................42 

4.7 Archaeological and Cultural Resources.....................................................42 

4.8 Human Health, Safety, and Environmental Justice ...................................43 

- iv - 
4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action......................................................43 

4.8.1.1 Construction.................................................................43 

4.8.1.2 Operation......................................................................43 

4.8.2 Alternative 2: No Action................................................................44 

4.9 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................44 

4.10 Mitigation Measures..................................................................................45 

4.10.1 Soil...............................................................................................45 

4.10.2 Water Resources..........................................................................45 

4.10.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................46 

4.10.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................46 

4.10.5 Waste Management......................................................................46 

4.10.6 Transportation and Traffic ...........................................................46 

4.11 Evaluation of Terrorism-Related Impacts..................................................46 

4.12 Accident Analysis......................................................................................46 

5.0 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING PROVISIONS CONSIDERED...............48 

5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.........................48 

5.2 Air Quality Regulations.............................................................................48 

5.3 Water Regulations......................................................................................48 

5.3.1 Storm Water and Air Regulations..................................................48 

5.3.2 Savannah River Water Withdrawal Regulations ...........................49 

5.3.3 Process Water Discharge Regulations...........................................49 

5.3.4 Domestic Water Regulations .........................................................49 

5.3.5 Sanitary Sewer Regulations...........................................................49 

5.4 Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.)...................49 

5.5 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.).....49 

5.6 Integrated Safety Management System (48 CFR 970.5223-1)..................50 

5.7 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) ...................................50 

5.8 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)......................................50 

5.9 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice).......................................50 

5.10 Executive Order 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds)...........................50 

6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED.......................................................51 

7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................53 

- v - 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1-1. SRS Vicinity Map..........................................................................2 

Figure 1-2. SRS Site Map.................................................................................3 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................16 

Table 3-2. Current Actual Emissions................................................................................18 

Table 4-1. Current and Potential Air Emissions.................................................31 

APPENDIX 

Appendix A: Floodplain/Wetland Assessment for Biomass Cogeneration 

and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site..................1-A 

- vi - 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guide Levels 

BAQ Bureau of Air Quality 

BDF biomass-derived fuel 

BFB bubbling fluidized bed 

BMPs best management practices 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide 

CSWTF Central Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA environmental assessment 

ECM Energy Conservation Measure 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines 

ESP electrostatic precipitator 

FMB Fourmile Branch 

FY Fiscal Year 

gpm gallons per minute 

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

ID induced draft 

kV kilovolts 

kVA kilovolt-amps 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

mbtu million British thermal units 

mgd million gallons per day 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NA NSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O3 ozone 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

Pb lead 

PM particulate matter 

pph pounds per hour 

ppm parts per million 

PRV pressure reducing valve 

psi pounds per square inch 

ROW right-of-way 

- vii - 
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

sf square foot 

SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SRARP Savannah River Archaeological Research Program 

SRNL Savannah River National Laboratory 

SRS Savannah River Site 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TDF tire-derived fuel 

TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Level 

tpy tons per year 

TRL Three Rivers Regional Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 

μm micrometer 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

UTR Upper Three Runs 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WSRC Washington Savannah River Company 

- viii - 
This page intentionally left blank 

- ix - 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to

analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation 

of new biomass cogeneration and heating facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS)

(Figure 1-1). The facilities would consist of two Energy Conservation Measures 

(ECMs); (1) a new biomass cogeneration facility to replace the existing coal-fired D-Area 

powerhouse, and (2) two new biomass heating plants at K and L-Areas, to replace the 

existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant. In addition to analyzing the proposed action, the 

No Action Alternative was also considered. 

1.1 Background and Proposed Action 

A large portion of SRS (the F, H, and S-Areas) is supplied with its energy and steam 

from a coal-fired powerhouse in D-Area, while an oil-fired steam plant in K-Area

supplies steam energy to both K and L-Areas (Figure 1-2). The coal-fired D-Area 

powerhouse was constructed in the 1950s and the K-Area oil-fired steam plant was

installed in 1992. Both are in need of significant modifications to reliably supply energy 

for DOE’s continuing missions and to meet current environmental regulations and air 

emission restrictions. In addition they represent significant overcapacity relative to 

current and projected needs. The project described in this EA would replace the two 

existing facilities with three biomass energy facilities. Specifically, DOE’s proposed 

action is the construction and operation of the following facilities: a new biomass 

cogeneration facility, to replace the existing D-Area powerhouse; and two new biomass 

heating plants at K and L-Areas, to replace the existing K-Area steam plant. The 

proposed biomass cogeneration facility and heating plants would supply energy to the F, 

H, K, L, and S-Areas of SRS. The proposed project would help SRS meet its energy 

requirements for an initial term of 21 years, with the potential for many years of 

continued operation after the initial term. 

The project is being proposed under the authority and terms of the DOE Biomass and 

Alternate Methane Fuel Energy Savings Performance Contract number DE-AC26-02-

NT41457. DOE anticipates the proposed project would create significant energy and 

energy cost (dollar) savings to SRS. The savings would result from fuel switching, 

reductions in line losses by placing the steam plants several miles closer to end user 

facilities, and improved operations with new equipment that is sized to better match to 

the load requirements. In addition to providing for much of SRS’s steam needs with a 

renewable energy source, the project would create benefits to the surrounding area. All 

three plants would utilize biomass obtained from the region, and would use the best 

available control technology for the reduction of air emissions. 

1 
Figure 1-1. SRS Vicinity Map 

2 
Figure 1-2. SRS Site Map

3 
1.2 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to supply large portions of SRS with reliable and 

efficient sources of energy. DOE needs to generate energy to support continuing and 

future SRS missions through more efficient and environmentally preferable means. DOE 

needs to utilize biomass and bio-derived fuels as a fuel source to move towards meeting

requirements set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, which 

directs all Federal agencies to increase their renewable energy use, with a goal of using

(1) 3 percent or more renewable energy in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 through 2009, (2) 5 

percent or more renewable energy in FY 2010 through 2012, and (3) 7.5 percent or more 

renewable energy by FY 2013. 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Proposed Action 

The proposed action, the construction and operation of biomass cogeneration and heating 

facilities at SRS, would consist of the following two Energy Conservation Measures 

(ECMs): a new biomass cogeneration facility to replace the existing coal-fired D-Area 

powerhouse; and two new biomass heating plants, one in K-Area and one in L-Area to 

replace the existing oil-fired steam plant in K-Area. The ECM project components are 

described in detail below.

2.1.1 ECM 1: Biomass Cogeneration Facility 

The biomass cogeneration facility would be located on a 30-acre site near the center of 

SRS on an old abandoned borrow pit that appears to have had no restoration. The facility 

would produce approximately 850,000,000 pounds of steam per year which would be 

exported to the 200-Area users and would meet all of the thermal energy (steam)

requirements of the F, H, and S-Areas of SRS. The facility would also produce from 6 to 

15 megawatts (MW) of electricity which would be connected and distributed to the SRS 

electrical distribution system for use onsite. Electricity output would vary based on the 

quantity of excess steam available after the steam load requirements are met. 

 

2.1.1.1 Biomass Energy 

Biomass fuel would be burned in the new facility to produce steam and power. The 

biomass would consist of primarily low-value wood residues and wood waste 

by-products with a small percentage of biomass-derived fuel (BDF) and oil delivered 

from the local Aiken and Augusta areas. Biomass sources may include low-value forest 

products, forest residues and wood processing waste by-products, agricultural crops, 

construction waste, and alcohol fuels. Wood is the most common form of biomass and is 

available from several waste sources. This material includes by-products from 

manufacturers such as furniture mills, saw mills, paper mills and other wood product

manufacturers; low-value forest products, such as small trees and top wood, and defective 

4 
or deformed trees; forest residues, such as dead wood and hazardous wildland fire fuels 

and landscaping waste. Woodwaste is typically in the form of sawdust, woodchips, 

pellets, and wood scraps such as crates and pallets, and is regularly used as an energy 

source for heating and power generation. There are numerous sources of biomass

available within 100 miles of SRS and the fuel would be procured through purchases 

from local biomass suppliers. Many of the local suppliers obtain a portion of their 

biomass through timber sales from SRS. In the future, SRS may evaluate the potential of 

increasing the quantity of onsite biomass fuel while minimizing impacts to current forest 

products management. If feasible, the forest product mix may be modified to increase the

availability of small wood suitable for bioenergy as forest products are sold and removed 

from the Site. In addition, the possibility of planting and utilizing short rotation woody 

crops is being evaluated as a sustainable source of fuel through establishing and 

monitoring of experimental and demonstration sites. This potential increase in the 

quantity of onsite biomass would allow the proposed biomass cogeneration facility to 

maximize the use of onsite biomass sources. Any such proposed changes to the SRS 

Natural Resources Management Plan to increase the quantity of onsite biomass would 

undergo the appropriate NEPA review. 

The majority of all bioenergy (64 percent) generated in the U.S. is derived from wood 

products (DOE 2005a). Bioenergy, in turn, is the largest source of domestic renewable 

energy. Of all energy consumed in the U.S., approximately 6 percent currently comes

from renewable energy sources (DOE 2005a). Bioenergy had an installed capacity of 

9,733 megawatts (MW) in the U.S. in 2002, which amounted to 47 percent of all 

renewable energy consumed (DOE 2006a). Hydroelectric (45 percent), geothermal (6 

percent), wind (2 percent), and solar (1 percent) sources account for the other sources of

renewable energy used in the U.S. (DOE 2005a). 

Clean biomass would make up 70-100 percent of the fuel source for the cogeneration 

facility. Up to 400,000 tons a year of biomass would be processed in the proposed 

cogeneration facility. The clean biomass would consist of: 

• Forest Logging Residues: Material not typically harvested or removed from

logging sites in commercial hardwood and softwood operations; and, material 

resulting from forest management operations such as precommercial thinning and 

removal of dead and dying trees, and in the reduction of hazardous wildland fire 

fuels;

• Low-Value Forest Products: Typically small trees and top wood, and defective 

or deformed trees normally used for pulp and composite material manufacturing, 

but usually of such low value as to make their cost for transportation marginal; 

• Wood Waste Residues: Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary 

wood-using mills when roundwood products are converted to other products. 

Examples are slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and 

clippings, pulp screenings, bark residues and other wood waste; 

• Urban Wood Waste: The portion of the waste stream that can include discarded 

wood products, whole trees, pruned branches or stumps generated during street 

and park maintenance. The primary constituents of urban wood waste are used 

5 
lumber, trim, shipping pallets, trees, branches, and other wood debris from 

construction and demolition clearing and grubbing activities. 

BDF would make up to 30 percent of the heat input source for the cogeneration facility.

The BDF would consist of tire-derived fuel (TDF) coming from scrap tires brought to 

transfer stations and to landfills. The maximum permitted amount of BDF processed in 

the proposed facility would be approximately 1.1 million British thermal units

(mbtu)/year or 43,000 tons of tires/year. 

In addition, each biomass boiler would be capable of burning fuel oil in the event the 

biomass feed system fails. As fuel oil is used, the biomass consumption would decrease. 

Five percent of the fuel input for the proposed cogeneration facility could be fuel oil. 

This consumption would vary, as it would be a backup fuel only. 

The delivery trucks would enter SRS using an existing primary road to the plant entrance. 

A deceleration lane would be added for trucks to enter the cogeneration facility as part of

this project. Once onsite, the trucks would be unloaded using a truck dumper. A fire 

suppression system would be part of the cogeneration fuel storage area. The trucks 

would exit behind the cogeneration facility where a new traffic light would be installed. 

The current graveled road would be paved to support the biomass truck deliveries. Peak 

truck traffic would be an 8 hour operation with 7 to 8 trucks per hour, 5 days per week. 

2.1.1.2 Facility Components 

The proposed cogeneration facility would include two 120,000 pounds per hour (pph) 

(210,000 mbtu/hr input) boilers and one 20 megawatt turbine. Each boiler would have 

full capacity fuel-oil burners that would serve as a back-up in case the biomass fuel

system is inoperable. The proposed facility would have a footprint of approximately

20,000 square feet (sf), with an additional 2,200 sf administration building in front of the 

plant, a detached garage, and fuel yard covering approximately 12-acres. 

The development on the site would include four main components: 1) the fuel handling

yard, 2) the steam/combustion system, 3) the water treatment system, and 4) the turbine 

and electrical system. The 850 pounds per square inch (psi) steam produced by the steam

plants would pass through a single extraction turbine. Steam required by SRS would then 

be transferred to an existing steam distribution system, and the remaining steam would 

flow through the other stage of the turbine for additional power generation. 

The combustion/steam system would include the components from the fuel feeder to the 

exhaust stack and the steam auxiliaries. A bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) combustion 

technology is proposed for this project. BFB technology uses high pressure air to fluidize 

a 2-3 foot bed of sand (inert material) in suspension. The fuel source is fed into the 

system through air spouts and dropped onto the bed. The system operates using air to 

reduce the bed temperature and minimize nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. BFB 

technology is preferable to the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) for biomass fuels due to 

its ability to better tolerate various fuel types, as well as larger variations in both fuel 

6 
mixture density and moisture content. BFBs have the advantage of reduced air emissions 

due to a more stringently controlled temperature in the combustion process. 

The BFB boiler would produce steam at 850 psi, 825° F. The steam would pass through 

a condensing steam turbine when generating electricity, or, if the turbine is down, 

through a pressure reducing valve (PRV) station which would reduce the pressure to 385 

psi. The 385 psi steam would be distributed to the existing system via the 

interconnection to the existing steam header located just across an existing road from the 

new plant. 

Each boiler would include a flue gas handling system, which would consist of an induced 

draft (ID) fan to pull the boiler flue gas through the economizer, and then through a

multiple cone dust collector. The ID fan would exhaust into a fabric filter baghouse and 

then to an integral exhaust stack. The baghouse would capture particulate matter from 

the flue gas with removal efficiencies of 99.9+ percent. Because of the lower bed 

temperature of a BFB, a baghouse would be used instead of an electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP). The baghouse would be more effective in capturing sulfur and mercury 

components and has minimal energy requirements compared to the ESP. The flue gas 

would then exit through a stack adjacent to the ID fan and baghouse, to be located just 

outside of the new facility. 

The flue gas from the steam plant would be treated in the combustion system using 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology to reduce nitrogen oxides. Urea 

would be injected into the furnace typically above the over-fire air ports, reacting with 

the oxides to form innocuous nitrogen and hydrogen. 

Cooling process water for the facility would be drawn from the Savannah River. New 

more efficient pumps would be installed in the 681-3G Pumphouse to provide the water 

to the biomass cogeneration facility. A new pipeline would be installed from the

proposed facility site to the nearest water main pump house in C-Area, a distance of 

approximately 1.5 miles. Of this distance, the pipeline would follow an existing 

right-of-way (ROW) for a mile and would then branch off for 0.5 miles through forested 

land. Industrial wastewater from the facility would be discharged via a discharge system 

to Upper Three Runs (UTR). The ash and other waste generated during facility 

operations would be disposed of at the nearby permitted Three Rivers Regional 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (TRL). A new electrical feeder line would be 

constructed to tie the facility into the SRS electrical grid system at the 251-F substation. 

Construction of the cogeneration facility is scheduled to begin in September 2008, and 

would continue for 2.5 years. A peak number of 200 construction workers would be 

required during the construction period. The facility would be online near the end of 

2010, and would operate 24 hours per day for an initial term of 21 years, though the 

serviceable life of the facility would be over 30 years. Approximately 20 employees

would be required for operation of the facility. 

7 
2.1.2 ECM 2: Biomass Heating Plants for K and L-Areas 

ECM 2 would consist of two new biomass heating plants; one would service K-Area and 

the other would service L-Area. The new K-Area plant would be adjacent to the existing

oil-fired steam plant within the fenced area. The L-Area plant would be located on the 

footprint of Building 183-4L which was removed during site decommissioning and 

demolition. Both plants would consist of a combustion and steam system. The steam 

plants would each be capable of producing 10,500 pph of steam. Additionally, both the 

K and L-Area biomass heating plants would only burn clean biomass and no BDF. The 

biomass fuel (wood materials) would be stored at the fuel yard adjacent to the proposed 

cogeneration facility (ECM 1), and would be trucked to the K and L-Area plants up to a 

maximum of one trip per day at both sites. The fuel would be loaded onto a walking 

floor-bed truck at the fuel yard and then parked at the metering bin for each steam plant. 

Each of the new plants would be installed in a new enclosed metal building with an 

adjacent covered shelter to house the fuel storage and delivery equipment. A fire 

suppression system would be part of each of the fuel storage areas. The total footprint of 

construction would be 3 acres for each plant, for a total of 6 acres. The total construction 

period for both plants would be approximately 18 months. Once operational, both plants 

would only produce steam, and would distribute the produced steam within their 

respective service areas (K and L). The pipeline connecting K-Area and L-Area would 

no longer be needed and would be capped and left in place. The boilers at the K and L 

plants would each have less than 1400 gallons a day of steam blow down water at peak 

per plant. This water would drain to the existing sanitary sewer system in K-Area and to 

permitted outfall L-07 in L-Area. 

Each of the two biomass plants would use up to 2,500 tons per year of biomass (5,000 

tons total for both plants). The plants are scheduled to operate during the colder months 

of November through April. Each of the plants would also be equipped with fuel oil 

burners for fuel oil combustion during system startup and backup. Up to about 5 percent 

of the plants’ total fuel input could be fuel oil. Boiler feed water would be supplied from

the river water system in L-Area and from the well water system in K-Area. 

During the evaluation of water sources for the K and L plants, domestic water, well 

water, river water sources, and recycling of condensate were considered. Since feedwater 

is directly converted to steam and there is no condensate return system available in either 

area, the recycling of condensate as a water source is not a viable alternative. Based on

the location of the K-Area steam plant near the well water and the condition of the 

process wells in K-Area, well water was determined to be the most reliable source for 

steam plant feedwater. The river water system is not located near the new plant and was

not considered to be cost effective as a steam plant feedwater source. In L-Area, the river 

water system would be used because it is located in close proximity to the new biomass 

heating plant and the condition of the process water wells is similar to the K-Area wells. 

Domestic water was also considered but the 4-inch water line that feeds L-Area 

originates from K-Area and is inadequate to supply both the domestic water needs of 

L-Area facilities and the new biomass heating plant. 

8 
2.2 Alternative 2: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would continue to operate the coal-fired D-Area 

powerhouse, which produces both steam and electricity for onsite consumption, and the 

oil-fired K-Area steam plant, which produces only steam. These facilities are past their

design life and are in need of significant modifications and upgrades to bring them into 

compliance with current environmental standards and permitting requirements. 

The existing D-Area powerhouse currently burns almost 160,000 tons of coal annually 

and would continue to use coal at a similar rate under the No Action Alternative. In FY 

2007, 6,569 truckloads of coal were delivered to the D-Area powerhouse, totaling 

153,954 tons of coal. On average, 26 truckloads were delivered to the site each day and 

the average weight of coal delivered per truckload was 23.4 tons. 

The D-Area powerhouse is close to the Savannah River and is located several miles from 

its end users (F, H, and S-Areas) and must distribute steam through a large distribution 

pipeline to these areas, losing valuable energy in the process. In addition to steam, the 

powerhouse also produces approximately 20 MW of electricity on average that is 

consumed by DOE facilities onsite. Electricity output is based on the quantity of excess 

steam available after the steam load requirements are met. 

The D-Area powerhouse withdraws an average of 50 million gallons of water per day

from the Savannah River. Water that is used for steam plant feedwater is treated at the 

483-D water plant. Untreated raw water, which is used for condenser cooling passes 

directly through the condenser, is discharged directly through the powerhouse’s outfall. 

The primary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted 

outfall for the facility, D-01, discharges an average of 40.2 million gallons/day. 

Discharge limits are in effect for temperature, temperature difference between river water 

intake and discharge, residual chlorine, pH, total suspended solids, oil/grease, and

manganese. 

The D-Area powerhouse employs 60 people and is operated by a contractor. The existing 

oil-fired K-Area steam plant is maintained by SRS personnel, but no employees are

permanently assigned to the facility. 

The K-Area steam plant consists of two boilers, one 30,000 pph and one 60,000 pph; the

30,000 pph steam plant has been and would continue to be the primary boiler. The 

K-Area steam plant serves both K and L-Area users, and a 2.5 mile pipeline delivers

steam to the L-Area from K-Area. The steam that travels in this distribution pipeline also 

loses valuable energy before reaching L-Area. The source for process water for the 

K-Area plant would continue to be from the well water system in K-Area. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 

9 
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require that Federal agencies explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action and to briefly discuss the 

rationale for eliminating any alternatives that are not considered in detail. For this

project, two alternative locations were considered for the biomass cogeneration plant, but 

were dismissed from further analysis. These alternatives are described below and 

represent the full range of alternatives considered for this action. 

2.3.1 Alternative Site 1 

Alternative Site 1 is in close proximity to the main steam header, SC Highway 125, and a 

115 kilovolts (kV) electrical system. Drawbacks to this location include the distance of 

the site from the F-Area production wells and the Central Sanitary Wastewater Treatment

Facility (CSWTF). The major drawback to this site is the distance to the 200-Area 

end-users (SRNL 2007). This site is the closest of the considered locations to the existing 

powerhouse site. Therefore, compared to the other locations, more steam line would 

have to stay in service if this site was used. The cost of operating and maintaining this 

additional line would be considerable. The energy loss from transporting the steam 

across this distance is also considerable (AFS 2007; SRNL 2007). To compensate for 

this energy loss, more fuel would be needed (AFS 2007). For these reasons, Alternative 

Site 1 was dismissed from further evaluation. 

2.3.2 Alternative Site 2 

Alternative Site 2 is close to the 200-Area end-users and groundwater production wells. 

However, it is far from the highway, CSWTF, and the steam main (SRNL 2007). 

Because of the distance from a main SRS thoroughfare, this site location would create 

access difficulties for construction activities and fuel delivery. Further, the site is in close 

proximity to a remediated nuclear waste operations site (AFS 2007). However, the key 

drawback of this site is that it is in close proximity to the H-Area meteorological tower

and therefore would interfere with the tower’s operation (SRNL 2007). For these

reasons, Alternative Site 2 was dismissed from further evaluation. 

2.3.3 Other Alternatives 

DOE also considered alternatives related to water sources, the discharge of industrial

effluent, and the cooling of process water, but did not evaluate them in this EA. The 

biomass cogeneration facility would require process water for steam and cooling tower 

makeup and for backwash and regeneration cycles associated with the plant’s water 

treatment system. Expected water flow demand could peak at 2,000 gallons per minute. 

Alternative sources of process water identified but not considered in this EA included: (a) 

treated effluent from CSWTF, (b) groundwater from existing F-Area production wells or

new production wells installed at the preferred plant site, and (c) the SRS domestic water 

system. DOE determined that the CSWTF was not a viable water source because the 

volume of treated effluent would not be sufficient to meet facility needs. Although the 

site’s groundwater resource could easily accommodate projected water demand, DOE 

10 
determined the use of existing or new production wells would not be cost effective. From

this analysis, DOE has determined the SRS domestic water system has sufficient capacity

to support the proposed action, but its use for this purpose would not be economical. The

biomass cogeneration facility would draw its water from the existing river water system. 

If, at some point in the future, the river water system is no longer available due to 

insufficient river flows, the above water source alternatives would be reconsidered. 

A potential alternative to discharging industrial effluent (steam and cooling tower blow 

down) to UTR is to discharge this waste stream to CSWTF. DOE determined that the

site’s wastewater treatment facility could not accommodate the increased inflow, and this 

option was not considered in the EA. The use of air-cooled condensers as an alternative 

to the construction and operation of cooling towers was also identified. However, 

air-cooled condensers are space and energy intensive, and would not function effectively 

during the hot and humid summer period. Therefore, DOE did not evaluate this 

alternative method for cooling process water in this EA. 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

SRS occupies approximately 300 square miles of land adjacent to the Savannah River, 

primarily in Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina. It is located approximately 

25 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 20 miles south of Aiken, in west-central 

South Carolina (Figure 1-1). SRS was established in the early 1950s by the U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission, DOE’s predecessor agency. Until the early 1990s, the primary SRS 

mission was the production of special radioactive isotopes to support national defense

programs. More recently, the SRS mission has evolved into nuclear material legacy

management, waste management, environmental restoration, and decontamination and 

decommissioning of facilities that are no longer needed for SRS’s traditional defense 

activities (DOE 2002). SRS continues to support the nuclear weapons stockpile through 

its tritium missions. 

3.1 Soils and Physiography 

SRS is located on the Aiken Plateau of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, approximately 100 

miles west of the Atlantic Ocean. Approximately 25 miles north of SRS is the Fall Line, 

the geographical separation between Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. Northwest of the

Piedmont are the Appalachian Mountains. The physiography of SRS is comprised of two 

major physiographic components: the Aiken Plateau and the alluvial terraces of the

Savannah River. The Aiken Plateau is a dissected, sandy plain situated between the 

Savannah and Congaree Rivers on the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina. 

Its sandy sediments dominate the SRS landscape and range in elevation from 250 to 400 

feet above mean sea level. The alluvial terraces of the Savannah River occur below 250 

feet mean sea level. Seven soil associations are represented with SRS (Rogers 1990). 

Generally, sandy soils occupy the uplands and ridges and are less fertile than the 

loamy-clayey soils of the stream terraces and floodplains (Rogers 1990) 

11 
3.1.1 Proposed Biomass Cogeneration Facility Site 

The biomass cogeneration facility site encompasses a variety of soil types. These include

the Blanton, Troup, Udorthents, Ailey, Dothan, Norfolk, and Vaucluse – Ailey Series. 

Blanton and Troup soils are well-drained sandy loams formed in marine and wind 

deposits along the Coastal Plain. They are highly permeable and found on slopes ranging 

from 0-45 percent. Dothan soils are deeply formed, well-drained and slowly permeable. 

They are also formed from marine deposits along the Coastal Plain on slopes ranging 

from 0-12 percent. The Norfolk soil series consist of loamy sands that are moderately

permeable and considered to have negligible to medium levels of surface runoff. Slopes

range from 0-10 percent. Ailey and Vaucluse – Ailey soils are well drained clayey 

loams. They are typically located on slopes between 6-15 percent and considered to have 

a high to very high surface runoff potential, be well-drained and have slow permeability.

Udorthents are soils that have been excavated, disturbed and constructed upon (Rogers

1990). 

3.1.2 K and L-Areas 

Soils at K and L-Areas are predominately classified as Udorthents and urban land due to 

the developed nature of the area. Since these proposed sites are within developed areas, 

no further soil descriptions are necessary. 

3.2 Water Resources 

3.2.1 Surface Water 

3.2.1.1 Savannah River 

The Savannah River flows through the Southeastern U.S., forming the border between 

South Carolina and Georgia. It is approximately 350 miles long with two major

tributaries, the Tugaloo and the Chattooga Rivers. The river begins in Lake Hartwell and 

flows as freshwater until it reaches the City of Savannah, where it begins to be tidally

influenced, and widens into an estuary before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The 

Savannah River forms the southern border of SRS. 

Total flows of the river near the project site range from 1.8 million gallons per minute

(gpm) to 4.5 million gpm; with averages of approximately 3.8 million gpm (USGS 2008).

Water is withdrawn from the Savannah River at the 681-5G Pumphouse for dedicated use 

at the D-Area powerhouse within SRS at an average rate of 50 million gallons per day 

(mgd). In 2006, water withdrawals for use at the powerhouse ranged from 24,000 gpm

(34.5 mgd) (November) to 41,000 gpm (59 mgd) (August). Process water is discharged 

back into the river at an average rate of 28,000 gpm. Discharge limits are in effect for

temperature, temperature difference between river water intake and discharge, residual 

chlorine, pH, total suspended solids, oil/grease, and manganese. 

12 
Savannah River water for the new biomass cogeneration facility would be supplied from 

the 681-3G Pumphouse. The 681-3G Pumphouse currently supplies small quantities of 

river water to the River Water System that runs throughout SRS to maintain the level of L 

Lake. New more efficient pumps would be installed in the pumphouse to provide the 

water to the biomass facility. The proposed cooling process water discussion can be 

found under section 2.1.1.2. 

3.2.1.2

3.2.1.3

Proposed Facility Site 

The two most prominent natural surface water features near the project site are UTR and

Fourmile Branch (FMB) tributaries to the Savannah River. Both of these streams flow 

past the proposed biomass cogeneration facility site to the Savannah River. UTR, which 

is the largest stream on SRS discharging into the Savannah River, is the only SRS stream 

that has its headwaters located outside of SRS. Average flow rates in these two streams 

range from 50,664.7 gpm to 109,848.2 gpm (FMB and UTR, respectively) (DOE 2002). 

Surface drainage from the proposed biomass cogeneration plant site is to the UTR 

watershed. 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)

regulates the physical properties and concentrations of pollutant constituents in effluents 

and receiving surface waters at SRS via the NPDES program. In the past, the 

concentrations of selected pollutant constituents (e.g., iron and pH) in both UTR and 

FMB have exceeded applicable water quality criteria on rare occasions. These 

exceedances, however, were naturally occurring (e.g., high metals content in soils or 

natural biological processes) and not attributable to site-related activities (DOE 2007). 

K and L-Areas 

K and L-Areas are located near the center of SRS. Surface water from these areas drains 

to the Savannah River. L Lake is a 1000-acre man-made surface water impoundment. In

the past decade, several of the contaminants listed above have exceeded USEPA 

benchmark criteria in stormwater outfalls to both Pen Branch and Steel Creek water

bodies. Specifically, selected stormwater outfalls to these two tributaries have had 

elevated levels of cadmium, copper, manganese, iron, and zinc (DOE 2007). SRS has 

implemented control measures to mitigate identified sources of nonpoint pollution within 

these drainage areas. 

3.2.2 Groundwater 

Groundwater beneath SRS is found in the Floridan Aquifer System. Groundwater within 

this aquifer typically travels south toward the Savannah River. The Savannah River and 

other surface water bodies within SRS are all considered to be “gaining streams” or 

streams that receive groundwater discharge. The flow of groundwater within the 

proposed project area is typically horizontal, but may occasionally flow vertically due to

changes in hydraulic pressure and discharge. 

13 
A limited review of groundwater data from a well located north of the proposed project 

area (FGW-012D) indicates the presence of no contaminants above applicable maximum

contaminant levels (Sentelle 2007). South of F and E-Areas, and directly east of the 

proposed biomass facility site, is a known contaminated groundwater plume located 

approximately 60 feet below grade. Since it can be assumed that groundwater is 

discharging to surface water, this plume is reaching the FMB tributary (SRNL 2007; 

DOE 2007). Production wells would not be considered a viable water source for the 

biomass cogeneration facility. The preferred water source for the biomass cogeneration 

facility and the L-Area plant would be the Savannah River, while the source for the 

K-Area plant would be the well water system. 

3.2.3 Wetlands and Floodplains 

There are no wetlands on the proposed project sites. However, there are contiguous 

stretches of forested or shrub lands and emergent wetlands in the immediate vicinity of 

the sites, particularly north and south of the proposed cogeneration facility, along the 

lengths of UTR, FMB, Pen Branch and Indian Grave Branch tributaries. 

The proposed project sites are not located within the 100-year floodplain (DOE 2007). 

Although the proposed biomass cogeneration facility would have a discharge pipe to 

UTR which would cross floodplain and wetlands, this structure would not impact 

floodplain hydrology or associated wetland resources (AFC 2008, Appendix A). 

3.3 Air Quality 

Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The

significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration in

the atmosphere to applicable national or State ambient air quality standards. These 

standards represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur 

and still protect public health and welfare with a reasonable margin of safety. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates air pollutants for which 

standards for safe levels of exposure have been set via the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA): 

ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM),

particulate matter 10 microns (PM10) or less, particulate matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) or 

less, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). These pollutants are referred to as “criteria 

pollutants.” In addition to the eight criteria pollutants outlined in the CAA, several other 

substances raise concerns with regard to air quality and are regulated via the CAA 

Amendments of 1990. These substances include hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and 

toxic air pollutants such as metals, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs). 

For each criteria pollutant, the maximum concentration above which adverse effects on 

human health may occur is called a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

(See Table 3-1). Currently both Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina, where 

SRS is located, are in attainment for all criteria pollutants (i.e., pollutant concentrations 

are below NAAQS thresholds) (USEPA 2007a). However, PM2.5, PM10 and O3 are 

14 
discussed below because of the possibility that the Central Savannah River Area could be 

declared nonattainment for these criteria pollutants (see nonattainment discussion at 

section 4.3.1.3). 

3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants 

3.3.1.1

3.3.1.2

Particulate Matter (PM) 

PM is a mixture of small solid and liquid particles that are suspended in the atmosphere. 

Smoke and fly ash contain PM in a wide range of sizes, from 0.05 to 200 micrometer 

(μm) in diameter. As a basis of comparison, the width of a human hair ranges between 

20 and 100 μm. PM is released through factory and utility smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, 

wood burning, construction activity, agriculture, and natural sources like volcanoes. PM

also can form in the atmosphere when oxidized sulfur or nitrogen reacts to form aerosol 

particles. Such aerosols are called secondary fine particles, adding to PM levels in the 

atmosphere (USEPA 2007e). PM is regulated based on its size, with PM2.5 regulated 

separately from PM10. PM2.5 particles, which can be carried much farther and higher than 

larger particles (like PM10), are more likely to carry heavy metals and cancer-causing

organic compounds into the alveoli, the deepest and most susceptible part of the lungs, 

and thus are more stringently regulated (Davis and Cornwell 1998). In addition to being

regulated through particle size, PM is also sampled as total PM (the sum of various-sized 

particles). 

Ozone (O3) 

O3 is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not usually emitted directly into the air, 

but at ground-level is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. O3 has the same

chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the earth or at ground-level and can be 

"good" or "bad," depending on its location in the atmosphere. In the earth's lower 

atmosphere, ground-level O3 is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx 

and VOC that help form O3. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. 

Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form in harmful concentrations in the 

air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Breathing O3 can trigger a 

variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and 

congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can 

reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may 

permanently scar lung tissue. 

15 
Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Source: USEPA 2007b 

Pollutant Primary 

Standards 

Averaging 

Times 

Ozone 0.08 parts 

per million 

(ppm) 

8-hour 

9 ppm (10 

mg/m3) 

Carbon 8-hour

Monoxide 

35 ppm

(40 mg/m3) 

1-hour 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m3)

Annual 

(Arithmetic 

Mean) 

Total PM 75 μg/m3 Annual 

(Geometric 

Mean) 

Particulate 50 μg/m3 Annual (Mean)

Matter ( PM10) 

150 μg/m3 24-hour

Particulate 15.0 μg/m3 Annual (Mean)

Matter ( PM2.5) 

35 μg/m3 24-hour

0.03 ppm Annual (Mean) 

0.14 ppm 24-hour 

Sulfur Oxides 

------- 3-hour 

Lead 1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly

Average 

3.3.2 Class I and II Areas 

Federal Mandatory Class I Areas, as defined in the CAA, are the following that were in

existence as of August 7, 1977: national parks over 6,000 acres (2,428 ha), national 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres (2,023 ha), and 

international parks. There are no Class I Areas near the proposed project site. The 

closest Class I areas are the Cape Romain Wilderness Area in South Carolina, and the 

Cohotta, Okefenokee, and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas in Georgia (USEPA 2007c). 

16 
Class II Areas are areas of the country protected via the CAA, but identified for

somewhat less stringent protection from air pollution damage than a Class I area, except 

in specified cases (NPS 2005). The closest Class II areas include the Congaree Swamp 

National Park and the Ninety Six National Historic Site in South Carolina and the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area and Ocmulgee National Monument in 

Georgia (NPS 2006; USEPA 2007c). 

3.3.3 Current Emissions 

The current D-Area powerhouse burns primarily coal, and some fuel oil and propane, 

while the K-Area steam plant uses fuel oil. Table 3-2 below summarizes air emissions

from the current operations of the D-Area powerhouse and K-Area plant. SRS operates 

via two Title V Major Source Permits issued by the South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control Bureau of Air Quality (SCDHEC BAQ): Permit No. 

TV-0080-0041 which applies to the majority of SRS including K and L-Areas, and 

Permit No. TV-0080-0044 which applies to the D-Area Powerhouse facility. A Title V 

Major Source Permit is granted to a facility that has the potential to emit more than 100 

tons per year (tpy) of any of the six criteria pollutants, or more than 10 tpy of any single 

HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs. The D-Area powerhouse and KArea plant currently and historically have been in full compliance with their air quality 

operating permits and have had no reported violations. The current site permit for the 

K-Area plant is valid through March 2008. However, SCDHEC will not renew this

permit until later in 2008 when the new replacement source of steam for A-Area (DOE 

2006b), which is currently under construction, comes online. The renewal application 

was submitted to SCDHEC on September 18, 2007. The D-Area Title V permit was 

reissued by SCDHEC effective July 1, 2007 through January 12, 2012. 

Wind directions at SRS are variable, and there is no prevailing wind at the site (DOE 

2002). According to data collected in the 1990’s, winds are most frequently from the 

southwest (9.7 percent of the time). Generally, atmospheric conditions at SRS are 

categorized as unstable (56 percent of time). The average wind speed for a measured 

5-year period was 8.5 miles per hour (DOE 2002). 

17 
Table 3-2. Current Actual Emissions 

Source: SRS 2006 

Pollutant Emissions (tpy) 

D-Area K-Area

Total PM 495.16 0.62

PM10 429.52 0.19

PM2.5 345.87 0.05

SO2 5076.59 13.33

Sulfuric Acid 57.27 0.66

CO 48.17 0.94

NOx 2948.41 4.51

VOC 3.92 0.04

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 14.25 0.00

Lead (Pb) 0.02 0.00

3.4 Biological Resources 

3.4.1 Vegetation

SRS contains over 1,300 plant species that live within a variety of habitat types (Wike et 

al. 2006). The two most prominent habitat types found within the proposed biomass

cogeneration facility site as well as K and L-Areas are developed lands and forested

lands. Both K and L-Areas are developed, while the proposed biomass cogeneration 

facility site is currently undeveloped with some existing dirt roads. Land within SRS that

has been developed typically still has some vegetative cover such as grasses and scrubshrub vegetation. 

The proposed biomass cogeneration facility site has no mature trees and consists of a 

very early successional pine environment, perhaps as a result of a relatively recent fire or 

selective site clearing. Dominant species in mature pine forests of this kind in this region 

include longleaf (Pinus palustris) and loblolly pines (P. taeda) as the major tree species.

Other tree species include oak (Quercus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), and persimmon 

(Diospyros spp.). The understory regions are typically sparse in older forests and in 

newer forests, the understory regions are filled with dense blackberry (Rubus spp.), 

18 
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and sedge (Andropogon virginicus) (Wike et al. 2006). 

Information regarding the discharge pipeline ROW vegetation is discussed in Appendix 

A. 

3.4.2 Wildlife 

SRS supports over 100 species of reptiles and amphibians, 225 species of birds, and 55 

species of mammals (Wike et al. 2006). Reptiles and amphibians thrive in this region’s 

temperate, moist climate and are commonly found throughout the marsh and wetland 

areas on a year-round basis. Birds at SRS are migratory, seasonal, and permanent 

residents. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and feral pigs (Sus spp.) are 

common, and foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyotes (Canis 

latrans), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) have been observed at SRS as well (Wike et al. 2006). 

The mature forests and marshy areas on either side of the proposed biomass cogeneration 

facility site are presumed to provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Previously 

developed areas such as K and L-Areas would have substantially less wildlife visits. 

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

SRS is home to several species of both plants and animals that are Federally or 

State-listed as threatened or endangered. These include: the purple coneflower 

(Echinacea laevigata), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), short-nosed sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), the American swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus), southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius), star-nosed mole 

(Condylura cristata), and the big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens and C. t. 

virginianus) (Wike et al. 2006). While habitat for several of these species is widespread 

on the Site, surveys have revealed that there are no threatened or endangered plant or 

animal species within the proposed biomass facility site (SRNL 2007). The developed K 

and L-Areas do not provide appropriate habitat for the threatened or endangered species

that may occur on SRS. 

3.5 Infrastructure 

3.5.1 Waste Management 

Most municipal, commercial, and industrial solid waste, including construction debris, 

generated within SRS is disposed of onsite in the Three Rivers Regional Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill (TRL). The TRL is located onsite on SC Highway 125. TRL is permitted 

via Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is compliant with the 

South Carolina Solid Waste Policy and Management Act (Haskins 2008; LSCOG 2008). 

The landfill currently receives approximately 115,000 tons of refuse annually, or about 

315 tons per day and has extensive capacity remaining (USEPA 2006). TRL would be 

used by the project for disposal of construction/operation-generated solid waste. 

19 
There are two other smaller private landfills in Aiken County. Both are Class IV landfills 

that are able to receive mixed construction and demolition waste. These landfills

primarily serve the landfill owners, both of whom are in the construction business, but 

occasionally take waste from outside parties (DOE 2002). No hazardous waste would be 

generated by the proposed action. 

3.5.2 Utilities

3.5.2.1

3.5.2.2

Energy Distribution and Use 

The electrical distribution system at SRS supplies power to facilities specializing in the 

stabilization of nuclear materials for long-term storage or disposal. Power is also being

supplied to facilities undergoing decommissioning and deactivation onsite. Many of 

these facilities may contain hazardous waste requiring disposition, before full 

decommissioning. To distribute the electrical power across SRS, there are approximately 

114 miles of 13.8 kV overhead lines and 18 miles of underground distribution cable (SRS 

2005b). 

Steam is currently generated and distributed from facilities in A, D, and K-Areas with a

facility in H-Area now in standby condition. The A-Area replacement steam facility was 

the subject of an EA in 2006. It is currently under construction and would replace the 

over capacity and outdated old A-Area steam plant (DOE 2006b). The steam generated 

at SRS is used directly in power generation, processing nuclear material, moving liquid 

waste, operating evaporators in F and H-Areas, H-Canyon, and the Tank Farm, and 

excess steam is distributed to area buildings for use in heating systems. The D-Area coal 

fired steam generation plant would be decommissioned if DOE implements the proposed 

action (SRS 2005b). All steam and power generated at SRS is consumed onsite. 

 

Water Distribution and Use 

The River Process Water System is used to take water from the Savannah River and 

deliver it to facilities throughout SRS for use as cooling water. With minor exceptions, 

the basic components of the cooling water system have remained unchanged since their 

original installation in the 1950’s. The river water system originally consisted of a 

50-mile-long distribution network with 46-inch to 84-inch diameter pipe and three pump 

stations. Of the three original pump stations, two are still in operation and one is used 

primarily for pumping water from the Savannah River to maintain the level of L Lake

and, in times of drought, Par Pond; the other pump station supplies the D-Area 

Powerhouse. 

Domestic water is drawn from 20-inch diameter production wells using vertical turbine 

pumps that are installed in the aquifer approximately 700 feet below the surface. The 

domestic water distribution systems have approximately 32 miles of intra-area 

distribution piping and 26 miles of inter-area distribution piping with five elevated 

storage tanks. The domestic water system produces and distributes all domestic water to 

SRS in compliance with State and Federal regulations, for use in bathrooms and other 

20 
domestic water uses. Water quality is governed by the Secondary Water Quality 

Standards, such as taste, odor, or appearance. Most of the domestic water produced is 

used directly by the SRS workforce population; however, some domestic water is used 

for equipment cooling, fire protection water, and as make up water to cooling towers 

(SRS 2005b). 

The sanitary wastewater systems provide for the collection, treatment, and discharge of 

sanitary wastewater effluent within NPDES outfall limits for the SRS population. The 

sanitary sewer facilities include a central treatment plant, five smaller treatment plants, 58 

miles of sewer pipe and 44 lift stations. Ninety-six percent of the SRS sanitary

wastewater is treated at the CSWTF. The remaining 4 percent of the SRS sanitary

wastewater is generated and treated at smaller, independent, treatment facilities located at 

SRS (SRS 2005b). 

Boiler feedwater is used to supply the boiler with water for steam production. The

feedwater system is also used to pressurize and deliver deaerated steam plant feedwater 

from the deaerator and desuperheater to the steam plants. Existing steam plant feedwater

services are found in K and D-Areas, for use with the existing steam plants. The sources 

and volumes of water used are discussed in Section 3.2. 

3.5.3 Traffic 

Four primary roads provide offsite access to SRS. They are SC Highway 125, the main 

access route from the Augusta/North Augusta/Allendale region; SC Highway 19, which 

provides access from the Aiken/New Ellenton region; SC Highway 39, which provides 

access from the Williston region; and SC Highway 64, which provides access from the 

Barnwell region. More than 130 miles of primary roads, 1,100 miles of secondary roads, 

and 33 miles of railroads crisscross SRS, and approximately 20,000 vehicle trips a day 

occur on these SRS roadways with people commuting to and from work as well as 

traveling among SRS sites to perform tasks (DOE 2005b). The primary highways used 

by SRS commuters are SC Highway 19, SC Highway 64, and SC Highway 125; 40, 10, 

and 50 percent of the workers use these routes, respectively. Considerable congestion 

can occur during peak traffic periods onsite on SRS Road 1-A, SC Highway 19, SC 

Highway 125, and US Highway 278 at SRS access points (DOE 2002). 

The current volume of traffic is 8 vehicles per hour for the secondary road and 542 

vehicles per hour for the primary road near the proposed site for the cogeneration facility. 

The existing design maximum capacities for these roads are 1,000 and 1,500 vehicles per 

hour, respectively. Thus, these roads are currently operating at 0.8 percent and 

approximately 36 percent of capacity, respectively. The vast majority (75 percent) of the 

traffic occurs on these site roads during the morning and evening shift changes (DOE 

2004). 

3.6 Socioeconomics 

21 
The socioeconomic region of influence for the proposed action is a six county area 

around SRS where the majority of construction and site workers reside and where 

supporting services and infrastructure are found. The six counties are Aiken, Allendale, 

Barnwell, and Bamberg Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond 

Counties in Georgia (DOE 2002). 

The 2006 population within this six-county area was approximately 503,000. The

majority of the SRS worker population resides within the following counties: Aiken (30 

percent), Columbia (21 percent), and Richmond (39 percent). The average of the six

counties’ percent growth was approximately 14.8 percent from 1990 to 2006. Columbia 

County, and to a lesser extent Aiken County, contributed to most of the growth due to 

migration from surrounding counties and States. Over the same period, Bamberg and 

Barnwell Counties experienced net emigration (STATS Indiana 2008). 

The total civilian labor force for the region of influence was approximately 243,000 in 

2006 with average unemployment rate of approximately 8.1 percent. Comparatively, the 

unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in both the United States and Georgia, and 6.5 

percent in South Carolina. All counties in the region of influence have unemployment

rates greater than both the United States and Georgia, except for Columbia County with 

4.1 percent. Aiken County had 6.5 percent of its population unemployed, Allendale 

County had 11.5 percent, Barnwell County had 9.9 percent, Bamberg County had 10.2 

percent, and Richmond County had 6.2 percent (STATS Indiana 2008). 

Total employment by sector ranges from approximately 300 people in mining to 56,000 

in Government and Government enterprises. The average per capita personal income in

2005 was $25,092 for the six counties. For the same year, the per capita personal income

was $34,685 for the United States, $28,427 for South Carolina, and $31,088 for Georgia 

(STATS Indiana 2008). 

SRS currently employs approximately 10,000 people (DOE 2007). The existing 

coal-fired D-Area powerhouse employs 60 people. The existing oil-fired K-Area steam 

plant is not manned but maintained by SRS employees. 

3.7 Human Health, Safety and Environmental Justice 

Primary concerns to human health within SRS include exposure to air pollution including 

both smokestack and radiological emissions. As discussed in Section 3.3, various 

emissions can cause breathing problems, throat and eye irritation, cancer, birth defects, 

and damage to immune, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems (USEPA, 

2007f). National and State ambient air quality standards represent the maximum 

allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur and still protect public health and

welfare with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition, the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) regulations specify appropriate protective measures for 

all employees. 

22 
Radiological exposure can cause a variety of health impacts including cancer (the 

primary health effect), genetic mutation, burns, radiation poisoning or sickness (USEPA 

2007g). Natural background radiation can come from cosmic, terrestrial, and internal 

body sources. Other common sources of exposure to radiation include medical practices, 

weapons test fallout, consumer and industrial products (such as cellular phones), and 

nuclear facilities. Because of this, radiological health concerns must be evaluated within 

the context of all sources of exposure. Doses of radiation are expressed as millirem; the 

effective doses which include the dose from existing internal level and the dose 

attributable to sources external to the body (DOE 2002). Exposure to radiation in the 

SRS area is approximately 357 millirem per year. The amount of radiation exposure 

attributable to SRS is only 0.1 percent of the total annual average environmental radiation 

dose for people within 50 miles of SRS. Other nuclear facilities located within 50 miles 

of SRS (e.g., Energy Solutions and Plant Vogtle nuclear generating station) are also 

minor sources of radiation exposure (DOE 2002). 

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

Populations and Low Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to identify and

address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities. 

The nearest residential areas to SRS have significant low-income and minority 

populations (DOE 2002). 

3.8 Cultural Resources 

Through a cooperative agreement with DOE, the Savannah River Archaeological 

Research Program (SRARP) of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and 

Anthropology, University of South Carolina, provides services required by Federal law 

for the protection and management of archaeological and cultural resources on SRS. To 

facilitate management of these resources, the SRARP defined three archaeological zones 

for SRS based on an area’s potential for containing sites of historical or archaeological 

significance (DOE 1995). Zone 1 represents areas with the greatest potential for having 

significant resources; Zone 2 possesses areas with moderate potential; and Zone 3 

represents areas of low archaeological significance. 

The proposed project area (Figure 1-2) of approximately 165 acres for the construction of 

a new biomass cogeneration facility and supporting infrastructure has been surveyed for

prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Approximately 30 acres of previously 

vegetated land would be cleared in order to construct the biomass cogeneration facility.

Five archaeological sites containing historic materials and six archaeological sites 

containing prehistoric materials have been located within the 165-acre site use area.

Additional archaeological testing is currently underway at these sites to assess their 

research potential to contribute to understanding the prehistoric and historic period 

occupation on SRS. The proposed discharge pipeline ROW, water intake pipeline ROW,

as well as overhead transmission line ROW would be reviewed for cultural resources

prior to proposed construction. Prior to any activity with potential impact to the sites in 

these areas, a consultation process would be initiated with the South Carolina Historic 

23 
Preservation Office to formally determine the National Register of Historic Place

eligibility of specific sites, and to determine necessary and appropriate mitigation 

measures (SRARP 2008). 

The proposed construction footprints for the K and L-Area biomass heating plants would 

be 3 acres each. These proposed plants would be constructed in developed areas where 

surveys for archaeological and cultural resources have found no such resources. 

3.9 Noise 

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise can influence humans or wildlife

by interfering with normal activities or diminishing the quality of the environment. Noise 

levels heard by humans are dependent on several variables, including distance, ground 

cover, and objects or barriers between the source and the receiver, as well as atmospheric 

conditions. Certain land uses, facilities, and the people associated with these noise levels

are more sensitive to a given level of noise than other uses. Such “sensitive receptors” 

include schools, churches, hospitals, retirement homes, campgrounds, wilderness areas, 

hiking trails, and some species of threatened or endangered wildlife. There are no 

sensitive receptors within many miles of the project area. 

3.10 Recreation

The project area is contained entirely within SRS. Public use of the natural resources at 

SRS is presently limited to controlled hunts and to various science literacy programs

encompassing elementary through graduate school levels (DOE 2002). In addition, 

walking and fitness trails for SRS employees are found in A and B-Areas. 

3.11 Land Use 

SRS occupies a roughly circular area of approximately 300 square miles (192,000 acres), 

and contains production, service, and research and development areas. The production 

facilities occupy less than 10 percent of SRS; the remainder of the site is undeveloped 

forest or wetlands. SRS is a large (300 square miles) Federal facility available for 

wildlife management and research activities (DOE 2002). The proposed action is limited 

to a total footprint of between 40-50 acres of new ground disturbance, in areas adjacent to 

existing development. No changes to land use or land use designations at SRS would 

result from implementation of the proposed action. 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

4.1 Soil and Construction-Related Impacts 

4.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

24 
4.1.1.1 Proposed Facility Site 

The majority of impacts to area soils as a result of the implementation of the proposed 

action would occur during the construction process. The conversion of previously 

undeveloped land, originally used as a borrow pit, for the development of the new 

facility, access road, and pipeline would result in soil disturbance. 

Construction equipment to be used during the various facets of site development would 

include bulldozers, backhoes, earth scrapers, motor graders, heavy haul trucks, large 

tractors, concrete trucks, asphalt pavers, concrete pavers, rollers, and compactors. As

with almost any construction project involving the use of heavy equipment, there is some

risk of an accidental fuel or chemical spill, and the potential contamination of soils. To 

reduce the potential for soil contamination, fuels would be stored and maintained in a 

designated equipment staging area. A person(s) designated as being responsible for 

equipment fueling would closely monitor the fueling operation, and an emergency spill 

kit containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup 

items, would readily be available on site in the event of an accidental spill. Following 

these precautions, the potential for an accidental chemical or fuel spill to occur and result 

in adverse impacts to soils would be negligible. 

The use of construction equipment would also physically disturb soils. Soil disturbance 

is defined as anything that causes the impairment of physical, chemical and biological 

properties and processes, such as erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning, 

loss of organic matter, and mass movement of soil (DeLuca 2001; USDA 2005b). Heavy 

equipment results in soil compaction, reducing the porosity and conductivity of the soil. 

Such compaction is likely to slightly increase the amount of surface runoff in the 

immediate area. Stabilization of the soils would be required to prevent sediment runoff 

impacts to water sources, possibly degrading water quality. An erosion/sediment control 

plan would be developed and implemented. 

The soils that would be disturbed during the construction process are typically found on 

shallow to moderate slopes, are slowly to rapidly permeable, and experience negligible to

moderate levels of surface runoff. These qualities would impact the amount and speed of 

any runoff of disturbed sediment. Any soils that are excavated on slopes, or are less 

permeable and experience high levels of runoff are more likely to be displaced and to 

result in sediment running off into surface waters. 

NPDES via the Clean Water Act limits the discharge of any pollutant, including 

sediments, to waters of the United States. The discharge of stormwater runoff from

construction sites is regulated via the NPDES program. Typically, sediment erosion rates 

from construction sites are 10 to 20 times greater than those from agricultural lands, and 

1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those from forest lands. A Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed for the site, as required by the NPDES 

permit. SWPPPs contain measures to reduce soil erosion and prevent pollution from

petroleum, oil, lubricants, and other chemicals or hazardous/toxic materials at 

construction sites. Specifically, SWPPPs assess the characteristics of the site such as 

25 
nearby surface waters, topography, and stormwater runoff patterns; identify potential

sources of pollutants such as sediment from disturbed areas, and stored wastes or fuels;

and identify best management practices (BMPs) which would be used to minimize or

eliminate the potential for these pollutants to reach surface waters through stormwater 

runoff. 

Standard construction BMPs, such as installing perimeter silt fences, spreading straw and 

mulch to protect exposed ground, covering stockpiles of earth or soils, and so forth, 

would minimize runoff, erosion and impacts to on and offsite soils during construction 

activities. Once the facility becomes operational, storm water from the plant area would 

continue to be regulated, and the impacts to soils would be minimal. Soils in this area 

have likely been disturbed and would be cleared of vegetation and turned into impervious 

surfaces. In addition, the construction of the facility would add 30 acres of impervious 

surface to the proposed project area. The transformation of vegetated and previously

unpaved land to impervious surfaces would result in soil disturbance, compaction and 

potentially displacement. DOE expects the overall impacts to soils at the proposed 

facility site from both construction and operation activities to be long-term and minor. 

4.1.1.2

4.2.1.1

K and L-Areas 

DOE expects that impacts to soils from the construction of plants at K and L-Areas to be

similar to those described above for the proposed facility site. As these two areas 

currently house facilities, the land and soils are already disturbed and compacted.

Additional demolition and construction at these sites would not likely result in more than 

minor impacts to soils. The total footprints for the plants would be 6 acres. DOE expects

the overall impacts to soils to be long-term and minor. 

4.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed biomass cogeneration facility and satellite 

biomass heating plants in K and L-Areas would not be constructed and DOE would 

expect no impacts to SRS soils. 

4.2 Water Quality Impacts 

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

Proposed Facility Site 

4.2.1.1.1 Construction 

General construction impacts associated with the development of the proposed facility 

site could affect water resources by increased stormwater runoff from the site carrying 

sediment and contamination loads into surface water during times of heavy rain and by 

contamination from construction activities infiltrating area soils and percolating down 

into the groundwater. Increased stormwater runoff from developed sites leads to 

26 
increased erosion of exposed soils, which leads to increased siltation in surface 

waterbodies. The first flush of rains after a long dry period would carry pollutants 

deposited on pavement into soils and water bodies, posing a risk of contaminating water 

and harming aquatic life. The incorporation of mitigation measures into the design phase

of the project would reduce impacts to water resources below the level of significance. In 

particular, the wetlands and surface water tributaries would be protected to the maximum 

extent possible by the implementation of appropriate BMPs. 

The construction phase of the project would require coverage via the NPDES general 

permit for stormwater discharge from large construction activities. SCDHEC’s Bureau of 

Water is authorized to issue NPDES permits in the State of South Carolina. The chief 

requirements of the NPDES general permit for large construction sites in South Carolina 

are a stormwater management and sediment control plan, construction Notice of Intent, 

the creation of a SWPPP, the implementation of BMPs, and a project timeline (SCDHEC 

2006). DOE expects the overall impacts to surface water from the construction activities 

of the proposed facility site to be short-term and minor. 

Throughout the construction process no excavations would occur within the vicinity of 

the area aquifer or contaminated plume. Therefore, DOE expects no impacts to 

groundwater as a result of the proposed action. 

The routing of the discharge outfall to UTR would slightly encroach upon wetland areas 

of UTR near the proposed facility site. A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 wetlands 

permit application including a plan to minimize impacts to the wetlands area for this

outfall would be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The discharge pipe 

would extend into UTR and a Construction in Navigable Waters Permit would have to be

obtained from SCDHEC. When applying for the 404 permit the navigable waters permit 

would be on the joint application form. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is 

required along with the Section 404 permit. The Section 401 Certification would also be 

on the joint application form with the 404 permit application. With the implementation 

of all BMPs to minimize runoff from the construction site and minimize direct 

encroachment on the wetlands and their associated floodplains, DOE expects the impacts 

to wetlands and floodplains to be localized and minor (AFS 2008b). 

4.2.1.1.2 Operation 

Impacts to surface water as a result of the implementation of the proposed action would 

result from water withdrawals for use in the new facility and discharges of process water. 

Once operational, the new facility would be permitted via SRS’s existing NPDES permit 

for wastewater discharges. DOE expects that the facility would be in full compliance 

with this permit and that consequently impacts to surface water from runoff throughout 

the life of the project would be negligible. 

The new facility would require approximately 600-2,500 gpm of water to be withdrawn 

from the Savannah River for use as cooling water, fire protection, steam makeup water, 

and for water treatment equipment backwash. DOE expects water use to be closer to 800 

27 
gpm, but could reach 2,500 gpm occasionally, if all intermittent users are online 

simultaneously. Currently, SRS uses between 24,000 and 41,000 gpm of river water, on 

average, for operations of the D-Area plant. The diameter of the existing water intake 

structure in the river, which would be used for the proposed action, would meet current 

impingement velocity requirements via the CWA. DOE expects no measurable effects

on fish, other aquatic life, or aquatic habitat. The proposed cogeneration facility would 

decrease the amount of river water currently drawn from the Savannah River by over 

2,900,000,000 gal per year. This is especially significant as the level of the Savannah 

River is low and this project would support efforts to manage water usage within the river 

basin. When compared to the No Action Alternative, the decrease in the water 

withdrawal rate represents a long-term, beneficial and moderate impact. 

Process water, containing trace amounts of added chemicals such as amines, phosphates,

sulfites and anti-scale treatment, would be discharged from the facility into UTR, 

approximately 1 mile northwest of the plant. The discharge would be added to SRS’s 

existing NPDES wastewater permit which allows for point source discharge to UTR. 

This permit would require regular monitoring and reporting (SCDHEC 2008). The 

NPDES permit application for this new discharge has been submitted to SCDHEC. 

No additional impacts to groundwater, wetlands, or floodplains are expected during the 

operations of the proposed facility. 

DOE expects that overall operational impacts to water quality from the implementation of 

the proposed action would not be long-term and would be negligible to minor. In 

addition, DOE expects the impacts of the substantial decrease in Savannah River water 

withdrawal rates to be beneficial, long-term, and moderate. 

4.2.1.2 K and L-Areas 

4.2.1.2.1 Construction 

DOE expects construction impacts to surface water to be similar to those described 

above. The required NPDES permits would cover construction activities at K and 

L-Areas, as well as at the proposed new facility site. Similar BMPs would be 

implemented to ensure mitigation against contaminated runoff. DOE expects overall 

impacts to surface water from the construction activities at K and L-Areas to be 

short-term and minor. 

Throughout the construction process, no excavations would occur within the vicinity of 

the area aquifer and therefore, DOE expects no impacts to groundwater as a result of the 

proposed action.

DOE expects no impacts to either wetlands or floodplains. No construction activities 

would occur on or within the vicinity of any wetlands or floodplains. With the 

implementation of BMPs to minimize runoff from the construction site, the risk of any 

contaminated runoff impacting wetlands is negligible. 

28 
4.2.1.2.2 Operation 

Process water used at the K and L-Area plants would be provided by the site well water

system and Savannah River, respectively. The steams at the K and L-Area plants would 

each have less than 1400 gallons a day of steam blow down water at peak per plant. This 

water would drain to the existing sanitary sewer system in K-Area and discharge to 

permitted outfall L-07 in L-Area. DOE expects no surface water impacts, nor impacts to 

wetlands or floodplains, as a result of operating the biomass plants. 

4.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

The current D-Area powerhouse draws an average of 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of 

water from the Savannah River. Water that is not converted to steam is then discharged 

through a NPDES permitted outfall back into the river at an average rate of 40.2 mgd. 

This amount varies seasonally, and in 2006, the gpm withdrawal rate for the plant ranged 

from a low of 24,000 gpm (34.5 mgd) in November to a high 41,000 gpm (59 mgd) in 

August. In the worst case scenario (high withdrawals and low-river flows), this 

withdrawal rate represents almost 2.3 percent of the flow in the Savannah River. If the 

No Action Alternative was selected, this impact on Savannah River water flows would 

continue. 

DOE expects no additional impacts to groundwater, wetlands, or floodplains, as a result

of the No Action Alternative. 

4.3 Air Quality Impacts 

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.3.1.1 Construction 

A construction permit, obtained through SCDHEC’s Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ) for

emissions from new industrial facilities, would be required before commencement of any 

construction activities on the proposed facility and plants. This permit would include

coverage for the projected emissions of the proposed biomass cogeneration facility, as 

well as the steams at K and L-Areas.

During the actual construction process, the equipment used to construct the proposed 

facility and plants would intermittently emit quantities of five criteria air pollutants: 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 

(PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition to tailpipe emissions from 

heavy equipment, ground surface disturbance during excavation and grading activities 

could potentially generate fugitive dust.

Fugitive dust, such as dirt stirred up from construction sites, can affect both 

environmental and public health. The type and severity of the effects depend in large part 

on the size and nature of the dust particles. The types of effects that can occur to humans

29 
include inhalation of fine particles that can then accumulate in the respiratory system 

causing various respiratory problems including persistent coughs, wheezing, eye 

irritations, and physical discomfort. Construction personnel would implement

appropriate mitigation measures, such as applying water to exposed surfaces or stockpiles

of dirt, when windy or dry conditions promote problematic fugitive dust emissions. 

Adhering to mitigation measures and BMPs would reduce the adverse impacts from

fugitive dust emissions. DOE expects the overall impacts from fugitive dust emissions

would be temporary in duration and of minor intensity. 

Exhaust emissions from equipment used in construction, coupled with likely fugitive dust 

emissions, could cause minor, short-term degradation of local air quality. DOE expects 

the overall impacts to air quality from the construction of the proposed biomass 

cogeneration facility and plants to be short-term and minor. 

4.3.1.2 Operation 

Overall emissions would change with the shift from a coal-fired power plant to a biomass 

cogeneration facility. DOE expects the overall emission levels would decrease, but the 

emissions of some criteria pollutants would increase. SRS currently operates via a Title

V-Part 70 Operating Permit, as discussed under Section 3.3.4. A new operation permit

would be obtained to include the new emissions coming from the cogeneration plant. 

DOE and Ameresco Federal Solutions, the proposed plant operator, would obtain an 

operating permit for the new cogeneration facility and the plants in K and L-Areas. 

Primary emissions from the new cogeneration plant would include PM, SO2, CO, NOx, 

and VOC. Emissions that would be substantially decreased include sulfuric acid, HF, and 

lead. Table 4-1 illustrates the change in emissions as a result of the proposed action. 

Note that the new facility would still emit PM, denoted as Total PM and PM10 and 

although PM2.5 is marked with “n/a”, PM2.5 is still being emitted in small quantities and

incorporated into Total PM emission values. The current D-Area facility does not collect

PM2.5 emission data. 

As mentioned above and illustrated in Table 4-1, the majority of pollutants that were 

emitted during the operation of the coal plant would decrease substantially. CO and 

VOCs – highlighted in red and underlined – are the only two pollutants that would 

increase as a result of the implementation of the proposed action. The decrease of 

sulfuric acid, HF, and lead is attributable to the cessation of coal combustion as these 

pollutants are directly associated with the burning of coal. The increase of CO and VOC 

levels can be attributed to the incorporation of wood and TDF. 

DOE expects the proposed facility and plants would decrease the overall air emissions 

rates for: PM by more than 400 tons a year; NOx by more than 2,500 tons a year; and 

SO2 by more than 3,500 tons a year. 

Using EPA’s Emission Factor Database, the renewable fuels used for this project would 

reduce green house gas (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone) emissions by 

at least 100,000 tons a year decreasing the carbon footprint of SRS. 

30 
Both ECMs would reduce energy consumption by eliminating over 6 miles of steam 

distribution lines (3.5 miles for ECM 1 and 2.5 miles for ECM 2). The reduced steam 

distribution pipe would decrease fuel consumption by at least 10 percent from reduction 

of in-line steam losses. 

Table 4-1. Current and Potential Air Emissions 

Pollutant Current 

Actual DArea Coal 

Plant* 

(tpy) 

Current 

Actual 

K-Area 

Plant* 

(tpy) 

Current 

Actual 

Total 

Max. 

(tpy) 

Proposed 

Cogeneration 

Plant 

 (tpy) 

Proposed 

Potential 

K & L

Plants 

(tpy) 

Proposed 

Potential 

Action 

Total 

(tpy) 

Potential 

Emissions 

Change 

(tpy) 

Total 

PM 495.16 0.62 495.78 42.49 7.06 49.55 -446.23

PM10 429.52 0.19 429.71 37.34 7.06 44.40 -385.31

PM2.5 345.87 0.05 345.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a

SO2 5076.59 13.33 5089.92 45.99 0.88 46.87 -5043.05

Sulfuric 

Acid 57.27 0.66 57.92 n/a n/a n/a -57.92

CO 48.17 0.94 49.10 239.15 9.53 248.67 199.57

NOx 2948.41 4.51 2952.92 275.94 14.11 290.05 -2662.86

VOC 3.92 0.04 3.96 31.27 0.60 31.87 27.91

HF 14.25 0.00 14.25 n/a n/a n/a -14.25

Pb 0.02 0.00 0.02 n/a n/a n/a -0.02

*Maximum annual emissions b/w 2003-6 

Source: Bulgarino, 2008 

The net change in emission levels and types marks an overall decrease in emission levels 

for the energy generated at SRS. While the levels of CO and VOC would increase, they

are still expected to be within the permitted amounts allowed as a result of the 

construction and operating permit. However, the threshold required to trigger a Title V 

Major Source permit is a total increase of 100 tpy of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a 

Title V Major Source permit would be required for operation of the biomass cogeneration

facility. 

31 
Chapter 2 (Section 2.1.1) discusses the breakdown of combustion components for the 

biomass cogeneration facility. Primary emissions resulting from burning this type of fuel 

include PM, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and VOCs from wood products, and VOCs, 

chlorine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and several metals from TDF. The 

most common volatile organic compound emitted from TDF combustion is benzene, 

which is classified as a known human carcinogen. Common PAHs include 

benzo(a)pyrene, butadiene, and styrene; and common metals emitted are zinc, arsenic, 

lead, mercury, and chromium VI (EJN No date). Chlorine compounds that undergo 

combustion form dioxins and furans. See Section 3.3 for a description of the potential 

human health impacts of these compounds. 

The new biomass cogeneration facility would be permitted to burn up to 30 percent TDF; 

in this case at least 70 percent of fuel would be wood-based and up to 30 percent could be 

TDF. Limiting the amounts of TDF that are burned at any given location limits the 

projected emissions of potentially hazardous compounds to levels that are not anticipated

to pose a threat to human or ecosystem health. 

4.3.1.3

4.3.1.4

Consequences of Nonattainment 

SRS could be in an area declared nonattainment for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone at some

future date (see Section 3.3, Air Quality). When an area is designated nonattainment for 

any of the criteria pollutants, the affected State must draft a plan known as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve air quality and outline the control measures the

State will take in order to meet National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These air 

pollution control measures include a process called Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NA NSR) permitting. 

NA NSR applies to new major sources or major modifications at existing sources for

pollutants where the source location is not in attainment with NAAQS. All NA NSR

permits require that the proposed air pollution source install the Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (LAER), pollution controls, emission offsets, and an opportunity for 

public involvement. LAER is the most stringent emission limitation derived from either 

of the following: the most stringent emission limitation contained in the SIP for a similar 

source, or the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice by a similar source. 

Also, sources must obtain emissions reductions from existing sources located in the

vicinity of the source NA NSR source. The emission reductions, generally called 

“offsets”, must offset the emissions increase from the new source or major source 

modification to ensure reasonable progress toward meeting the NAAQS. The emission 

reductions must also provide a net air quality benefit. 

Abatement Technology 

Actions that would aid in decreasing the overall impacts of air emissions include limiting 

when the plant would be operating, and utilizing abatement technologies to help decrease 

emission levels at the source. The proposed plant’s abatement measures include a fabric 

32 
filter baghouse to reduce PM, and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce

nitrogen oxide formation (AFS 2007). Baghouse filters work to curb PM emissions by 

trapping particulate matter in a fabric bag, similar to the way a vacuum cleaner operates. 

The filters are cleaned by blowing air through in the reverse direction and collecting the 

PM. This process effectively removes up to 99.9+ percent of particulate matter (USEPA 

1998). 

The SNCR method effectively reduces NOx emissions via a process of injection. Urea 

would be injected into the steam boiler at temperatures high enough to result in a 

chemical reaction between water and urea that forms ammonia, which in turn reacts with 

NOx and oxygen to form nitrogen and water. In addition, limestone would be injected 

into the flue gas and, via sorption reactions, reduce NOx and sulfur compounds (USEPA 

1999). 

Multicyclone technology would be implemented at the K and L-Area plants to aid in 

decreasing air emissions. This technology reduces the temperature of combustion by 

dilution of the combustion products with excess fuel, air, flue gas, or steam. The 

resulting chemical reactions prevent the majority of the nitrogen from becoming ionized 

and forming NOx (USEPA 1999). 

4.3.1.5 Associated Traffic 

In order to provide the new biomass cogeneration facility and heating plants with 

sufficient levels of biomass fuel, there would be trucks traveling in and out of both the 

cogeneration facility and the K and L-Area plants. Major air emissions from these

vehicles include PM, NOx, CO, and VOC. These vehicles would represent a small 

percentage increase in the current traffic levels during both construction and operation of 

the proposed facility. DOE expects that the additional vehicular emissions would result 

in negligible impacts to air quality. 

DOE anticipates that overall impacts to air quality from the implementation of the 

proposed action would be long-term, regional, and minor due to the increase in CO and 

VOCs. In addition, however, impacts to air quality would also be long-term, regional, 

and moderately beneficial due to the decrease in sulfuric acid, NOx, HF, and lead 

emissions. 

4.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, no operational changes would occur at either the 

D-Area powerhouse or at the K-Area plant. These facilities would continue to run on 

coal, fuel oil, and propane, respectively. These fuels would continue to be delivered to 

the site. However, both the D-Area powerhouse and K-Area plant are reaching the end of 

their serviceable life and would require significant upgrades in order to not only meet

emissions standards, but to remain functional and reliable in the foreseeable future.

Therefore DOE expects that if the No Action Alternative was implemented, the existing 

facilities would either receive needed upgrades, or be required to go offline. Though the

33 
continued release of fossil fuel-related emissions into the atmosphere can be expected to 

have air quality impacts ranging from local to global, a measurable change of these 

emissions is not expected to occur in this instance. Instead, since the status quo would be 

maintained under the No Action Alternative, DOE expects impacts to air quality would 

be incremental and adverse, long-term, and minor to moderate. 

4.4 Biological Resources 

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.4.1.1 Vegetation

Construction preparation at the proposed cogeneration facility site would require the

removal of shrubs, immature trees, and grasses. Approximately 30 acres of previously 

vegetated land would be cleared in order to construct the biomass cogeneration facility.

A total of 0.5 linear miles of previously undeveloped forested land would be cleared of its 

existing mature trees to allow for the installation of the buried 12-inch river water intake 

pipeline and its associated ROW. The upland ROW portion of this pipeline would be

between 50-75 feet wide, and would be maintained by regular mowing and vegetation

removal. No herbicides would be used. Overstory vegetation in the proposed river water 

intake pipeline ROW includes loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), slash pine (P. elliottii), 

longleaf pine (P. palustris), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and water oak 

(Quercus nigra). 

There would also be a new over head and underground electrical feeder installed from the 

new plant to the F-Area Substation. The feeder would follow the existing secondary road 

and route through the primary road and into F-Area. The over head feeder line ROW 

would be approximately 1.3 miles long by 50 feet wide and would require tree clearing 

on the existing secondary road and within F-Area. A total of about 0.6 linear miles of 

minimally developed land would be cleared of trees to accommodate the new over head

electrical feeder. A portion of the new feeder line ROW would be located adjacent to an

existing feeder line ROW. The underground sections of the feeder line ROW would be 

approximately 800 and 1000 feet long and would be located under the proposed 

cogeneration facility parking area to avoid interference with 115 kV overhead electrical 

lines. No wetlands would be impacted as a result of the construction of the new feeder 

lines. Overstory vegetation in the upland feeder line ROW includes loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda), slash pine (P. elliottii), longleaf pine (P. palustris), sweetgum (Liquidambar

styraciflua), and water oak (Quercus nigra).

The threshold level of significance for vegetation impacts is removal in amounts that

would permanently alter the habitat in a manner detrimental to the species living there.

Construction of the proposed plant and its pipelines and feeder lines would contribute to 

the fragmentation of an existing forest habitat. The biomass cogeneration facility site is

an old abandoned borrow pit that appears to have had no restoration. The soil is highly 

disturbed and not characteristic of an intact series. Prior to removal of the soil, the area

was most likely a Blanton sand series. The site supports fairly sparse vegetation that 

34 
consists of volunteer loblolly pine typically 1 to 4 meters in height. The seedlings are not 

evenly distributed on the site, and appear to be nutrient deficient based on foliar 

coloration. This is not unexpected due to the prior history of the site. There is very little 

herbaceous cover at the site and broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) and bahia grass 

(Paspalum notatum) have established themselves, although they are also scattered. Due

to the substantial amount of undeveloped land that would remain at SRS, DOE expects 

these adverse impacts to be localized and that terrestrial productivity not be adversely 

affected. The proposed facility would have a discharge pipe that would go to UTR and 

would cross wetlands but would not impact floodplain hydrology or associated wetland 

resources (Appendix A). 

4.4.1.2

4.4.1.3

Wildlife 

Any wildlife that uses the proposed cogeneration facility site would likely be displaced as 

a result of the proposed action. As discussed above, a portion of this area would be

cleared of its vegetation, effectively limiting any wildlife habitat. Section 3.4 discusses 

the potential wildlife residing or using this portion of SRS. Many of these species are 

mobile generalist species that use a variety of interspersed and fragmented habitats and 

range over wide areas for food and cover. Such species include small mammals, whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and migratory birds. Therefore, many wildlife 

species would be able to avoid the disturbance by relocating to adjacent minimally

disturbed areas. Earth-moving activities may result in some unavoidable mortality to 

burrowing and less mobile fauna. DOE expects that the existing rural fauna would be 

replaced by a more urban setting in the proposed developed area. 

Impacts to vegetation and wildlife at K and L-Areas would be less than those at the 

proposed biomass cogeneration facility site. As these areas have been previously 

developed, there is unlikely to be more than negligible impacts to area vegetation and any 

species that may utilize the area. 

DOE expects overall impacts to both vegetation and wildlife to be long-term and minor 

throughout the biomass cogeneration facility and plant sites. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

As there is no known State or Federal threatened or endangered species that exist at the 

proposed facility site or at the previously developed K and L-Areas nor is the habitat 

suitable for threatened or endangered species known to occur on or near SRS, DOE has 

determined the proposed action would not have more than a negligible impact to 

threatened and endangered species. Therefore DOE has determined that formal

consultations with State and Federal natural resource agencies would not be required for 

these proposed actions. 

4.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

35 
With no new construction or development taking place, DOE expects no impacts to

vegetation, wildlife, or threatened and endangered species, as a result of the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.5 Infrastructure 

4.5.1 Waste Management 

4.5.1.1

4.5.1.2

Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.5.1.1.1 Construction 

As a result of the proposed action some building material debris and associated rubble 

would be generated. This type of waste would be disposed of onsite at the TRL. The 

volume or weight of the debris is not known at this time, but would likely be small

relative to the yearly totals over the lifespan of the landfill. Considering this is a 

one-time increase in waste disposal the impacts to the landfill would be negligible. 

4.5.1.1.2 Operation 

Waste ash resulting from the combustion of woody materials would be deposited in an 

approved solid waste management facility. The amount of ash generated would vary 

seasonally, as the two new biomass heating plants at K and L-Areas would only be 

operational during the coldest winter months. In a typical year they would be operating 

for approximately 4 months; in exceptionally cold years they may be online for as many 

as 5 months, from December to April if necessary. The total annual generation of waste 

ash from all three sites is estimated to be 8,000 tons, of which less than 30 tons would be

coming from the K and L-Area biomass heating plants. This would represent a 7 percent 

increase in waste entering the TRL, based on estimates of current inputs. The impact of 

waste generated would be minor; the landfill at its busiest is already expected to be 

receiving nearly twice the current amount of waste annually. Much of the material being 

used as fuel at SRS as a result of the proposed action, especially the TDF, would have 

otherwise gone directly into a landfill. The amount of waste entering the landfill as a 

result of the proposed action is approximately 2-3 percent of the original material, a 

substantial decrease both in weight and volume of waste. 

No hazardous waste would be generated as a result of the proposed action and therefore

none would require disposal. This would be a decrease from the No Action Alternative 

(Bulgarino 2008). DOE expects the overall impact of implementing the proposed action 

on waste management would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate; the biomass fuels 

being burned in the new plants would reduce the amount of ash (compared to coal) 

entering landfills by greater than 95 percent. 

Alternative 2: No Action 

36 
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional waste generated beyond 

current levels. With no change in operations, DOE expects no impacts to waste 

management and none of the beneficial impacts discussed under the proposed action 

would be realized. 

4.5.2 Utilities

4.5.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.5.2.1.1 Energy Distribution and Use 

4.5.2.1.1.1 Construction 

Throughout construction activities, there would be short lapses in service and energy 

transmission as components of the project would require shut down while they are taken 

offline or added on. There would also be a short time during the official transition from 

the old D-Area plant to the new biomass cogeneration facility, and old K-Area steams to 

the new K and L-Area biomass heating plants when utilities, such as power and water, in 

those areas would be shut off. This would be a minor disruption of service. 

4.5.2.1.1.2 Operation 

As a result of the proposed action, power would be transferred between the existing 

F-Area substation at 13.8 kV and the biomass cogeneration facility on the secondary road 

over a new overhead feeder line roughly two miles in length. The proposed route of this

new line would be from the primary F-Area entry road parallel to circuit 2B and across 

the primary road to the site. This would terminate in a 2,500 kilovolt-amps (kVA) pad 

mounted transformer on the site. The secondary voltage of the transformer would be 

4,160 volts. The purpose of this utility feed would be to handle all startup needs and 

provide backup should the turbine and the emergency generator be out of service at the 

same time. From the 2,500 kVA pad mounted transformer, an underground feeder would 

serve a 4,160 volt package substation located in the main process building. This 

substation would be made up of feeder breakers for the two turbines, the generator, the 

utility feed, and the general plant process power distribution system. The general plant 

process power would be distributed at 480 volts from a 3,000 amp main combustion 

chamber located adjacent to the package substation. 

Steam produced by the cogeneration facility would be connected across the secondary

road from the facility to the existing steam transmission line. 

As a result of the proposed action, steam would be generated in both K and L-Areas and 

not exported from these areas. The 2.5-mile pipeline between the areas would no longer 

be used, as L-Area would have its own steam from the new biomass heating plant. By 

eliminating the pipeline, energy lost in transmission between areas would be retained.

DOE anticipates that overall impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to 

moderate. 

37 
4.5.2.1.2 Water Distribution and Use 

4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction 

Throughout construction activities, there would also be short lapses in water service as 

components of the project would require shut down while they are taken offline or added 

on. This would be a negligible to minor disruption of service. 

4.5.2.1.2.2 Operation 

As a result of the proposed action, the Savannah River would be the source of process 

water, through a connection at the existing river water valve house in C-Area. This

operational change would require some upgrades, including the installation of a new 

pump in the 681-3G Pumphouse before operation. The pipes used to tap into the main 

would be 8 to 10 inches in diameter. The process waste water would be discharged to an 

outfall approximately one mile from the cogeneration plant on UTR. 

Approximately 500 feet of additional steam pipe, on above-ground pipe supports, would

be required to connect into the existing distribution system located across the secondary 

road from the proposed site. A steam meter would be placed in the steam line to measure 

steam flow delivered to SRS end users. In K and L-Areas, the new biomass heating 

plants would be connected to the existing steam distribution lines. 

As a result of the proposed action, existing domestic water pipelines would be tapped for 

bathroom use and other domestic water needs. An additional 0.3 miles of new pipeline 

would be required to bring the water and sanitary sewer lines from existing pipes to the 

new cogeneration facility. 

DOE plans to use the existing water treatment system with minimal modifications to the 

chemical injection system in the current building for the new biomass heating plant 

located at K-Area. DOE would install a new water treatment system for use at the new 

biomass heating plant located in L-Area. 

The proposed action includes many upgrades to the existing infrastructure, which has 

seen few changes since the 1950’s. Replacing the coal-fired plant and steams would 

necessitate upgrading associated infrastructure to support the new biomass heating plants 

and biomass cogeneration facility. Whenever possible, the existing infrastructure, such 

as pipelines and feeder lines, would be used with the new plants and facility. However, 

in the case of water treatment facilities, the requirements of the new biomass heating 

plants and biomass cogeneration facility cannot be met with existing infrastructure and 

would be replaced. The direct impacts to utilities would be negligible, since the level of

service provided would not change; only the infrastructure on which it is delivered would

change. The only increase in existing site capacities would be a new river water pump in 

the 681-3G Pumphouse. The operational lifespan of steam production would increase as 

a result of the proposed actions. 

38 
4.5.2.2

4.5.3.1

Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE anticipates that minor to moderate amounts of 

steam would continue to be lost during the distribution process, both between the D-Area 

plant and its end users, and between K and L-Areas. In addition, the existing facilities 

and their infrastructure would require substantial and costly upgrades in order to stay 

online and meet permitting thresholds. This is anticipated to be very costly, but

necessary. DOE expects the overall impact to utilities would be adverse, long-term, and 

minor, but continuing substantial investment would be required to maintain the systems. 

4.5.3 Traffic 

Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.5.3.1.1 Construction 

Construction workers would use both regional and local SRS roads to travel to and from 

the project site(s) throughout the duration of construction activities. However, since 

workers would be hired from the local area, the increase in vehicle miles traveled would 

be minimized. 

For the site of the new biomass cogeneration facility near F-Area, both deliveries and 

workers would use the site entrance. This entrance can become congested during peak 

hours (DOE 2002). A recent study shows that this route is capable of supporting the 

proposed biomass trucks without impacting traffic flow (DOE 2004). 

 

Some internal worker movement around and between sites would occur; this travel would 

be negligible considering the approximately 20,000 existing daily SRS vehicle trips 

(DOE 2005b). Further, this level of increase would not be sustained during the entire

two-year construction period, as most workers would not be employed for the entire two 

years. The existing road capacity would accommodate construction deliveries and any 

additional construction workers associated with the proposed action. 

DOE does not expect roads near SRS to be taxed beyond existing capacity. Given the

existing level of traffic in SRS and the fact that SRS infrastructure was built for a 

considerably larger sized installation capacity, these additional trips should not 

measurably increase accident rates. 

As part of the proposed action, the road leading to the biomass cogeneration facility 

would be paved, have a deceleration lane added, and driveways would be developed for

the K-Area and L-Area biomass heating plants. The construction equipment and paving 

of the roads and driveways may cause temporary congestion. However, DOE anticipates 

that these impacts would be minimal nuisance impacts. Given the nature of the road

system at SRS, alternative routes could be used, and any impact should be short-term. 

DOE would make advance notice to employees and the community, or post road signs 

39 
indicating construction and any road closures, which would help lessen the transportation 

impact. Avoiding construction deliveries during the morning and evening shift changes 

would help reduce the conflict with the employee traffic, especially as the SC Highway 

125 entrance security point is already congested at these peak hours (DOE 2004). 

DOE expects that the overall impacts of the proposed action to transportation would be 

limited to short-term, and minor inconveniences such as longer wait times at security 

points and the need to use alternative routes. 

4.5.3.1.2 Operation 

The major source of traffic of the cogeneration facility operations would be the fuel 

delivery trucks to the handling yard. The normal truck traffic for fuel deliveries would be

7 to 8 per hour for 8 hours per day for 5 days per week. Thus, a peak total of 320 fuel 

delivery trucks a week, or 64 per day, would deliver fuel to the fuel handling yard next to 

the new biomass cogeneration facility (AFS 2007). 

The SRS entrance used by the fuel delivery trucks could become congested during peak 

hours (DOE 2002). After delivering the fuel to the proposed cogeneration facility, the 

truck traffic flow would be regulated by a new traffic light to be installed at the primary 

road. The vehicles would then proceed offsite. 

In addition, on average one truck per week would be used to deliver fuel to each of the

K-Area and L-Area biomass heating plants from November to April. Compared to the 

320 per week peak fuel delivery trucks to the fuel handling yard and the 20,000 daily 

existing trips on SRS, the weekly fuel deliveries from November to April to K-Area and 

L-Area would be negligible. 

Assuming that the trucks complete travel and unloading within one hour, the peak 64 

daily fuel delivery trucks to the fuel handling yard would cause the secondary road to the 

biomass facility to operate at approximately 3 percent of capacity and the primary road to

operate at approximately 37 percent of capacity during the eight hours of delivery. 

Although the fuel deliveries constitute an increase, the roads would still be operating well 

below capacity. 

Since the K-Area and L-Area plants would be unmanned, the operation of these plants 

should generate no additional traffic. The new biomass cogeneration facility would only 

require 20 employees instead of the current 60 employed at the D-Area powerhouse. 

This would result in a net loss of 40 jobs. This personnel decrease would be negligible 

considering the existing traffic and capacity of the primary and secondary roads. Given 

the 20,000 existing daily SRS vehicle trips and that the current infrastructure at SRS was 

built for a considerably larger population than currently exists, the trips to maintain the 

proposed action should be negligible. For the same reasons, additional accidents for the 

increased traffic should be negligible. Overall, because the roads would still operate 

considerably below capacity, DOE expects the change in on and offsite traffic would be 

long-term and negligible to minor. 

40 
4.5.3.2

4.6.1.1

4.6.1.2

Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed plant and facility would not be built. The 

existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse and the existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant 

would continue to operate. The secondary road would not be paved or have a 

deceleration lane added and the driveways at K-Area and L-Area would not be 

developed. The traffic light at the intersection of the secondary and primary roads would 

not be installed. The roads would remain below capacity. DOE expects the overall

impacts to transportation as a result of the No Action Alternative to be negligible. 

4.6 Socioeconomics 

The threshold level of significance for socioeconomic resources is the potential of the 

project to result in a substantial change in population or employment increase or decrease 

in the region of influence. 

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

Construction 

It would take 2.5 years to build the new biomass cogeneration facility and nine months to 

build each of the smaller new biomass heating plants at K and L-Areas. Implementing

the proposed action would require 200 temporary construction workers to be used for

different tasks on and off throughout the entire construction period. Two hundred 

workers make up less than 0.1 percent of the total civilian labor force within the six 

county area surrounding SRS (STATS Indiana 2008). Compared to the employment at 

SRS, these 200 additional jobs would represent an increase of 2 percent (AFS 2007). 

Representing less than 0.1 percent of the total civilian labor force in the region of 

influence and 2 percent of the current employment at SRS, the proposed action would not 

significantly impact employment in the region of influence. Since the temporary

construction workers would be recruited from the local areas (within daily commuting

distance of SRS), there should not be an influx of people for these jobs. Consequently, 

DOE does not expect measurable impacts to housing and community services. The 

increase in job numbers, even temporarily, would likely stimulate economic activity from 

increased demand for goods and services, which would result in beneficial, short-term, 

and minor impacts. 

Operation 

The two smaller new biomass heating plants at K and L-Areas would be run by operators 

at the cogeneration facility. Since the existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant is unmanned, 

the two new plants would not need additional personnel. The new biomass cogeneration

facility would only require 20 employees instead of the current 60 employed at the DArea powerhouse. This would result in a net loss of 40 jobs. Compared to the 10,000 

personnel at SRS, these 20 jobs lost represent 0.2 percent job loss (DOE 2007). In 

41 
respect to the region of influence, these jobs represent less than 0.01 percent of the total 

labor force (STATS Indiana 2008). DOE expects overall impacts to jobs at SRS and 

within the region of influence from the implementation of the proposed action to be 

long-term and negligible to minor. 

The projected annual cost savings of the proposed action is $26 million. With an 

estimated $142 million project design and construction cost, simple payback would occur 

in less than 11 years (AFS 2008a). DOE expects the economic impact of the proposed 

action to be beneficial, long-term and minor for the region of influence although cost 

savings and cost avoidance for SRS would be substantial. 

4.6.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse and the 

existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant would continue to operate. Thus, the annual cost 

savings of the proposed action would not occur, and current employment levels would 

likely continue. 

The current powerhouse is oversized and coming to the end of its useful life. It would 

likely require significant upgrades to be dependable and to meet current Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) air quality requirements. This is likely to result 

in adverse, long-term and increasing impacts to the SRS budget. 

4.7 Archaeological and Cultural Resources 

The primary site for the construction of a new biomass cogeneration facility and 

supporting infrastructure has been surveyed for prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources. Of the approximately 165 acre proposed project area, approximately 30 acres 

of previously vegetated land would be cleared in order to construct the biomass 

cogeneration facility. Five archaeological sites containing historic materials and six 

archaeological sites containing prehistoric materials have been located within the

165-acre site use area. Additional archaeological testing is currently underway at these 

sites to assess their research potential to contribute to understanding of the prehistoric and 

historic period occupation on SRS. Prior to any activity with potential impact to the sites

in this area, a consultation process would be initiated with the South Carolina Historic 

Preservation Office to formally determine the National Register of Historic Places

eligibility of specific sites, and to determine necessary and appropriate mitigation 

measures (SRARP 2008). 

The proposed construction footprints for the K and L-Area biomass heating plants would 

be 3 acres each. These proposed plants would be constructed in developed areas and 

were reviewed under previously approved site use permits. Therefore, DOE anticipates 

that the potential for the proposed construction footprints for the K and L-Area biomass

heating plants to impact archaeological or cultural resources at SRS would be negligible. 

42 
Utility line construction ROWs for the proposed actions would be reviewed for impact to

archaeological or cultural resources at SRS. 

4.8 Human Health, Safety, and Environmental Justice 

4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

4.8.1.1

4.8.1.2

Construction 

Because of the level and duration of air quality degradation expected during construction

activities, DOE expects that the impacts to human health (workers and the public) would 

be negligible (See Section 4.3). Implementing the mitigation measures and BMPs would 

reduce the adverse impacts to human health from air quality. Workers would follow 

OSHA procedures, which would further reduce the impact to human health. Since the

proposed action includes no drilling or excavations, additional groundwater 

contamination would not be a source of impacts to human health (see Section 4.2). 

DOE believes the statistical risk of death of or injury to construction and biomass

harvesting workers as a result of the implementation of the proposed action would be 

low. Given the 20,000 existing daily SRS vehicle trips (people commuting and 

performing job tasks) and that the current infrastructure at SRS was built for a 

considerably larger staff than currently exists, the risk of accidents from the minor traffic 

increase from the proposed action would be negligible (DOE 2005b). 

Operation 

The decommissioning of the existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse and the existing 

oil-fired K-Area steam plant would cause a reduction in the majority of air pollutants, and 

an increase in CO and VOC emissions (see Section 4.3.1). DOE expects a net overall 

beneficial impact to air quality and human health. DOE expects accidents from

operations would be minimal as long as OSHA regulations are followed. As discussed 

above, the risk of vehicle-related accidents is likely to be negligible due to the minor shift

in expected traffic post-construction. 

DOE does not expect the proposed action to result in any high or adverse impacts to 

health and safety. Therefore, there are no expected disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations in the 

SRS region of influence. 

Neither construction nor operation activities of the proposed action would be audible 

offsite of SRS. Onsite impacts of noise during construction should be minimized by 

limiting construction activity to daylight business hours and by using properly maintained 

and muffled equipment. Hearing protection equipment would be required for sound 

levels that exceed Federal workplace standards. Implementing the preceding steps would

result in no noise impacts from the proposed project. 

43 
No changes in radiation exposure are expected. Therefore, there would be no associated 

impact to human health. OSHA procedures would continue to be followed to minimize 

worker exposure to hazardous substances. These may include warning systems and 

alarms to detect exposures and spills, as well as informing the proper authorities of any 

incidents. 

The proposed action is not anticipated to impact any public or recreational uses of the 

land. Furthermore, the offsite impacts of the Proposed Action (e.g. surface water 

withdrawals from the Savannah River and air emissions from facilities operations) are not 

anticipated to have any impact on recreation activities offsite of the proposed project 

area. The proposed project would not appreciably diminish recreation opportunities or

the quality of recreation activities in the vicinity of the project area. 

Therefore, given the small size of risks and additional exposures, DOE expects the 

overall impact to human health from the proposed action to be negligible. 

4.8.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, risks from accidents, as well as to air emissions

throughout the construction process would not occur. The continued operation of the DArea coal plant would result in continued emissions from the plant throughout its 

serviceable life. As discussed in Section 4.3.2, the continued use of this plant without

upgrades is unlikely. DOE expects any emissions released would be similar to current 

levels or less, with the addition of efficiency upgrades. DOE expects that overall impacts

to human health as a result of the No Action Alternative would be negligible. 

4.9 Cumulative Impacts 

CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7) require an analysis of 

the cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who 

undertakes these other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant, actions. This cumulative impacts section of the EA addresses 

only the cumulative effects arising from considering the proposed action in combination 

with other ongoing actions at SRS. 

SRS is continuing to down-size and streamline its new mission of waste management, 

environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning of facilities that 

are no longer needed for SRS’s traditional defense activities. While old facilities are

being decommissioned, newer and more modern facilities are being developed. 

Maximum Achievable Control Technologies would continue to get more advanced and 

further restrict emissions allowances from energy producing facilities. 

In light of these developments, the proposed action contributes an incrementally and 

cumulatively beneficial impact to both the actions of SRS and, in context, to current and 

44 
future regulatory actions governing air emissions (see nonattainment discussion in section 

4.3.1.3). 

4.10 Mitigation Measures 

All future actions proposed as part of this project would employ the following mitigation

measures to ensure that environmental impacts from construction and operation of the 

project are minimized to the greatest extent reasonable. Adherence to the following 

mitigation measures, in conjunction with adherence to all applicable and appropriate 

local, State, and Federal regulations and permits, should ensure that the construction and 

operation of the biomass cogeneration facility and heating plants at SRS have no 

significant adverse impacts to the human environment. 

4.10.1 Soil 

• Minimize the amount of vegetative clearing during construction activities to 

protect the soil cover and minimize erosion risks. 

• Incorporate and maintain BMPs vigorously into all project plans; BMPs at 

construction activity sites typically consist of various erosion and sediment

control measures such as silt fences, straw bales, and other temporary measures to 

be placed in ditches and along portions of the site perimeter to control erosion 

during construction activities. These temporary erosion prevention measurements 

should be maintained in place until the site vegetation is firmly established and

soil has stabilized. Regular inspections of the erosion and sediment control 

measures should be performed after any storm event. 

• Stabilize and revegetate all disturbed areas with native plant vegetation after 

commencement of construction activities. Proper seed selection would result in 

native plants with deep root systems, which would increase local times of 

stormwater concentration and reduce site outflows. 

• Store and maintain all fuels in a designated equipment staging area to reduce the 

potential for soil contamination. Designate a person(s) as being responsible for 

equipment fueling who closely monitors the fueling operation, and have an 

emergency spill kit containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or 

rake, and other cleanup items, readily available onsite in the event of an 

accidental spill. 

4.10.2 Water Resources 

• Place BMPs along portions of the site perimeter to control erosion during all 

construction and demolition activities. Under all circumstances, sediment runoff 

from the site should be captured and prevented from entering area surface water 

bodies, especially the wetlands and UTR tributaries to the northwest of the site. 

45 
• Ensure that no excavations would occur within the vicinity of the area aquifer or 

contaminated plume throughout the construction process at the cogeneration 

facility site.

4.10.3 Air Quality 

• Implement reasonable measures, such as applying water to exposed surfaces or 

stockpiles of dirt, when windy or dry conditions promote problematic fugitive 

dust emissions. Adhering to these BMPs would minimize any fugitive dust 

emissions. 

• Minimize the amount of TDF burned in the cogeneration facility in order to 

minimize potential harmful air emissions. 

4.10.4 Biological Resources 

• Restore any area of undeveloped land as closely as possible to its original 

condition through soil stabilization BMPs and revegetation with native plants. 

4.10.5 Waste Management 

• Recycle or reuse as many materials as possible during the construction and 

operation phases of the project in order to minimize the amount of waste

generated by the plant and facility. No hazardous waste would be generated as a 

result of the proposed action and therefore none would require disposal. 

4.10.6 Transportation and Traffic 

• Give advance notice to SRS employees and community, and install well-marked 

road signs, informing of road construction and/or road closures with respect to 

paving and upgrading of the secondary road. 

• Avoid construction deliveries during the morning/evening shift changes, 

especially at the SC Highway 125 entrance security point. 

4.11 Evaluation of Terrorism-Related Impacts 

DOE does not believe that the presence of the new biomass cogeneration facility and 

heating plants would increase the probability of a terrorist attack on SRS or that these 

plants and facility would be a more attractive target for such an attack than the existing 

facilities. Therefore, the potential for the proposed and alternative actions considered in 

this EA to result in terrorism-related activity or impacts at SRS would be negligible. 

4.12 Accident Analysis 

46 
The proposed action replaces the existing D-Area Power Plant and the K-Area Heating 

Plant with new plants. Both the proposed plants and facility, and the existing plants 

utilize similar equipment, chemicals, chemical storage tanks, and combustible fuel 

sources. The proposed action does not introduce any new accident potentials compared 

to the no action case, and, in fact, reduces the quantities of each chemicals used and in 

storage as compared to the present situation. 

The maximum reasonable foreseeable accident associated from the proposed action 

would be the accidental or malicious release of the stored chemicals used to treat steam 

makeup water, exhaust gas, river water and cooling tower water. The bounding credible 

releases are considered to be 1) fire, which results in the boiling, volatilization, and 

airborne release of chemical tank contents, and 2) spill, which includes an immediate 

airborne release from splashing of tank contents and longer term airborne re-suspension 

of spilled chemicals. The chemicals of interest are: sodium hydroxide solution, sulfite 

solution, biocide chemical, anti-scale, urea, and sulfuric acid. These chemicals are 

commonly used in steam plant operations and would be stored in approved chemical 

storage tanks located within the building structure. One other foreseeable accident 

evaluated was the possibility of fuel fire, however this accident would be managed by 

using the fire suppression systems that would be installed at the fuel storage areas. 

Where Acute Exposure Guide Levels (AEGL), Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG), or Temporary Emergency Exposure Level (TEEL) threshold 

quantities are not available, Permissible Exposure Limit/Time Weighted Average values

are used for risk level determinations. There are three levels of ERPGs: 

• ERPG-1. The maximum concentration in air below which it is believed

nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without 

experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving 

a clearly defined objectionable odor. 

• ERPG-2. The maximum concentration in air below which it is believed

nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without 

experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or 

symptoms that could impair their abilities to take protective action; and 

• ERPG-3. The maximum concentration in air below which it is believed

nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without 

experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. 

The threshold quantities were compared to ERPG levels to qualitatively evaluate the risk.

Release of the materials at risk was not evaluated as a composite, such as might be the 

case if the tank contents were to spill and become mixed. The concentrations are then 

compared to the individual threshold quantities provided in Revision 21, of AEGLs, 

ERPGs, and TEELs for chemicals of concern to determine whether the consequence risk 

to onsite areas and surrounding areas would be such that safety related controls would be 

required to prevent or mitigate a release. 

Release of the quantities of chemicals evaluated would result in concentrations well 

below the ERPG-3 limits for the onsite worker (100 meters) and ERPG-2 for the offsite

47 
public. At these concentrations DOE expects no safety related controls would be 

required to prevent or mitigate a release of the materials at risk. 

5.0 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING PROVISIONS CONSIDERED

DOE policy is to conduct its operations in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, 

and local laws and regulations, and Federal executive orders. Following is a listing of 

selected statutes, regulations, and executive orders that are applicable to the proposed and 

alternative actions considered in this EA. 

5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the NEPA of 1969, as amended; the 

requirements of the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 

1500-1508); and DOE Regulations (10 CFR Part 1021), and DOE Order 451.1B. NEPA, 

as amended, requires “all agencies of the Federal Government” to prepare a detailed 

statement on the environmental effects of proposed “major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment”. This EA has been written to comply 

with NEPA and analyze the potential environmental impacts for proposed construction 

and operation of the new biomass cogeneration facility and heating plants at SRS. 

5.2 Air Quality Regulations 

A SCDHEC construction permit for emissions from new industrial facilities would be 

required from the Bureau of Air Quality before commencement of any construction 

activities on the proposed facilities. A SCDHEC Title V air emissions permit would be

required for operation of the proposed cogeneration facility, and MACT regulations 

would be addressed. Air emission permits and controls would comply with 40 CFR 

61-62 Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards. Air emission permits and 

sources would comply with 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Steams and Process Heaters. 

5.3 Water Regulations 

5.3.1 Storm Water and Air Regulations 

Construction activities would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) general permit requirements for stormwater discharges from large 

construction activities, as administered by SCDHEC. Stormwater discharges of normal 

facility operation would meet the requirements for stormwater discharges from industrial 

activities. Bulk petroleum storage shall comply with the NPDES permit for Discharge to 

Surface Waters for discharges from bulk petroleum storage facilities. Bulk petroleum 

storage shall also comply with requirements of 40 CFR Part 112. 

48 
5.3.2 Savannah River Water Withdrawal Regulations 

The diameter of the intake structure in the Savannah River would meet the impingement 

velocity requirement (0.5 ft/sec) and address Clean Water Act requirements, as required 

by 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart I. 

5.3.3 Process Water Discharge Regulations 

The construction of the discharge pipe would encroach upon jurisdictional wetlands of

UTR. A Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit, which regulates discharge of 

dredge and fill materials into “waters of the United States” would be obtained from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for this work, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 323. A 

discharge pipe going into UTR would require a Construction in Navigable Waters Permit

from SCDHEC. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required along with the 

Section 404 permit. 

Discharge of process water to UTR during operation of the cogeneration facility would 

require coverage under SRS’s existing NPDES wastewater permit (SC0000175). 

5.3.4 Domestic Water Regulations 

The domestic water tie-in for the toilets, showers, and sinks would require a Public Water 

Works permit from the State of South Carolina (SCDHEC Regulation R61-58). 

5.3.5 Sanitary Sewer Regulations 

Both a Sanitary Sewer Construction Permit (SCDHEC Regulation R. 61-67) and a 

Sanitary Sewer Operation NPDES permit (SCDHEC Regulation R.61-9) would be 

needed from the State of South Carolina for construction and operation of the proposed 

facility’s sanitary waste system. 

5.4 Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

The Endangered Species Act is intended to prevent the further decline of endangered and 

threatened species and to restore these species and their habitats. The Act also promotes 

biodiversity of genes, communities, and ecosystems. None of the proposed actions 

considered in this EA would adversely impact these species of concern. 

5.5 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.) 

The National Historic Preservation Act provides that sites possessing significant national 

historic value be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. If a particular 

Federal action impacts a historic property, consultation with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation is required. This consultation usually leads to a Memorandum of 

Agreement containing mitigative actions that must be followed to minimize adverse

impacts to the historic property. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation

Officer also ensures that potentially significant sites are properly identified and 

49 
appropriate mitigation actions implemented. None of the proposed actions considered in 

this EA would adversely impact historic sites. 

5.6 Integrated Safety Management System (48 CFR 970.5223-1) 

The Integrated Safety Management System (“System”) requires that work be performed 

safely and that there is adequate protection for employees, the public, and the 

environment. The System requires that hazards of the work to be performed are 

identified and evaluated and that administrative and engineering controls are 

implemented to prevent or mitigate such hazards and any related accidents or 

unplanned releases or exposures.

5.7 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”, directs Federal agencies to establish 

procedures to ensure that the potential effects of flood hazards and floodplain 

management are considered for any action undertaken. Impacts to floodplains are to be 

avoided to the extent practicable. None of the proposed actions considered in this EA 

would be subject to flood hazards or involve floodplain management issues. 

5.8 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, requires Federal agencies to avoid 

short- and long-term adverse impacts to wetlands whenever a practicable alternative 

exists. Any proposed action that impacts wetlands would be approved by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

5.9 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, or actions on minority and low-income populations. None of the 

proposed actions considered in this EA would adversely impact these sensitive 

populations. 

5.10 Executive Order 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds) 

Executive Order 13186 requires Federal agencies to assess and mitigate the impacts of 

their actions on migratory birds and promote the conservation of migratory bird 

populations and their habitat. None of the proposed actions considered in this EA would 

adversely impact these species of concern. 

50 
6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 

The University of South Carolina’s Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, 

the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Savannah River, the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Trinity Consultants, Three 

Rivers Landfill, Energy Products of Idaho, the Babcock and Wilcox Company, WSRC, 

and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) were consulted during the 

preparation of this EA. 

51 
This page intentionally left blank 

52 
7.0 REFERENCES 

AFS (Ameresco Federal Solutions), 2007. Revised Initial Proposal DOE Savannah River 

Site Biomass Energy Center, Submitted to DOE under Contract #: 

DE-AC26-02NT41457. Ameresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

AFS (Ameresco Federal Solutions), 2008a. Final Proposal DOE Savannah River Site 

Biomass Energy Center, Submitted to DOE under Contract #: DE-AC26-02NT41457. 

Ameresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

AFS (Ameresco Federal Solutions), 2008b. Floodplain/Wetland Assessment for Biomass 

Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site. Submitted to DOE under 

Contract #: DE-AC26-02NT41457. Ameresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Bulgarino, N., 2008. Personal Communication, January 14, 2008. 

Davis, M. and D. Cornwell, 1998. Introduction to Environmental Engineering, Third 

Edition. McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts. 

DeLuca, T. H. 2001. Assessment of the USFS Soil Quality Standards and the application 

of those standards to the Pink Stone Environmental Impact Statement, A report to The 

Ecology Center, Inc. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002. Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank 

Closure, DOE/EIS-0303. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site, 

Aiken, South Carolina. http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0303/eis0303.html. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004. 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, Savannah River Site, 

Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.eh.doe.gov/NEPA/ea/EA1501/burmardbpea.pdf. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005a. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. 

Government: Renewable Energy and Biomass, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington DC. Accessed January 2006 at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/biomass/biomass.html. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005b. Savannah River Site End State Vision, 

Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.srs.gov/sro/SRS%20End%20Stat%20Vision.htm. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005c. Environmental Assessment for the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Wastewater Compliance Alternatives at the 

Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1513. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah 

River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. 

53 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006a. Federal Energy Management Program. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Biomass Program, Program page last updated 

January 25, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/biomass_basics.html. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006b. Environmental Assessment for the 

Replacement Source of Steam for A Area at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1568. 

October 2006. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 

Carolina. http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/ea-1568_final_10-2006.pdf.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2007. Environmental Assessment for the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Compliance Alternatives at the 

Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1563. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah 

River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/DOEEA1563.pdf. 

EJN (Earth Justice Network), No date provided. Tire Derived Fuel. Accessed January 

2008 at: http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/. 

Haskins, L., 2008. New Regional Landfill Begins Serving Nine South Carolina Counties. 

Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.environet.com/main.asp?page=story&id=2&month=09&paper=ga&year=1998. 

LSCOG (Lower Savannah Council of Governments), 2008. Three Rivers Solid Waste

Authority. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.lscog.org/threerivers/. 

NPS (National Park Service), 2005. Air Quality Glossary. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/glossary.cfm. 

NPS (National Park Service), 2006. Air Resources Information System (ARIS). 

Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/index.cfm;USEPA. 

Rogers, V.A., 1990. Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, 

and Allendale Counties, South Carolina, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, Aiken, South Carolina. 

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2008. 

NPDES Permitting for Point Source Discharge. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.scdhec.net/environment/water/npdespage.htm. 

Sentelle, B., 2007. GW Results and Data for R-2 Location from FGW-012D Well. 

Email communication between B. Sentelle and David Wolfe dated 9/4/07. Washington 

Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. 

54 
SRNL (Savannah River National Laboratory), 2007. Evaluation and Ranking of 

Candidate Sites for the Proposed Biomass Energy Center at Savannah River Site. 

Prepared for DOE under Contract #: DE-AC09-96SR18500. Westinghouse Savannah 

River Company, Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC 29808. 

SRS (U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Site), 2006. Summary of 

Contemporaneous Emissions – D & K Areas. 

SRARP (Savannah River Archaeological Research Program) 2008. Site Use No.

07-18-O Proposed Biomass Facility (484-D Replacement Facility). Savannah River 

Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and 

Anthropology, University of South Carolina. 

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture: Soil Resource Management), 2005b. 

National Program 202: Soil Resource Management Assessment Team Meeting. 

USDA-ARS. Accessed October 2007 at: 

http://ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Program/202/202Assessment2004/202AssessmentRepor

tFinal.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1998. Particulate Matter Controls, 

Chapter 1: Baghouse and Filters. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/cs6ch1.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): Why 

and How They Are Controlled. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2006. Landfill Methane Outreach

Program Spreadsheet. Accessed January 2008 at: 

www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/xls/lmopdatasc.xls.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007a. Currently Designated 

Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants: South Carolina. Accessed January 2008 

at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#SOUTH%20CAROLINA. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007b. National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007c. List of 156 Mandatory Class I 

Federal Areas. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007e. Particulate Matter. Accessed

January 2008 at: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007f. Basic Information: Air and 

Radiation. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html. 

55 
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007g. Health Effects: Radiation 

Protection. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html. 

USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey) 2008. USGS 02197000 Savannah River at Augusta, GA 

Real-time Surface Water Discharge Data. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=02197000&agency_cd=USGS. 

Wike, L.D, E.A. Nelson, J.J. Mayer, R.S. Riley, and W.L. Specht, 2006. SRS Ecology 

Environmental Information Document, WSRC-TR-2005-00201, Washington Savannah 

River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed January 2008 at: 

http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/WSRC-TR-2005-00201.pdf. 

 

56 
APPENDIX A

Floodplain/Wetland Assessment for Biomass Cogeneration and Heating 

Facilities at the Savannah River Site 

1-A 
This page intentionally left blank 

 

2-A 
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

This Floodplain/Wetland Assessment is prepared in compliance with 10 CFR Part 1022 

as an addendum to the Environmental Assessment for Biomass Cogeneration and Heating 

Facilities at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EA-1605). The proposed action consists of 

the construction and operation of the following biomass cogeneration and heating 

facilities: a new biomass cogeneration facility, to replace the existing D-Area 

Powerhouse; and, two new biomass heating plants at K and L-Areas, to replace the 

existing K-Area steam plant. The proposed biomass cogeneration facility would 

discharge its process water to Upper Three Runs (UTR), a tributary of the Savannah 

River. The discharge pipeline would encroach upon the forested/shrub and emergent 

wetlands adjacent to UTR, along with the creek’s associated floodplains. The operation 

of this discharge requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit. DOE is required to meet more restrictive conditions of the NPDES permit. 

Additionally, a Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers would be required to authorize the construction of the pipeline where it 

encroaches upon jurisdictional wetlands. This permit application would include the 

survey and plan to minimize impacts to the wetlands area for the discharge pipeline and 

outfall. 

2.0 EFFECT ON FLOODPLAINS OR WETLANDS 

The proposed pipeline could potentially impact a small area of forested wetlands of UTR. 

Soils within this drainage area are typically sandy and erodible. The impact to the

wetland area is due to the routing of a buried 24-inch discharge pipeline from the new 

cooling tower basin at the proposed cogeneration plant to the UTR outfall. The sampling 

station for this pipeline outfall would be located adjacent to the cooling tower basin to 

allow for optimal access and to minimize additional wetlands impacts. 

The proposed discharge pipeline would be approximately one mile long through upland 

vegetation of the site to allow for a gravity discharge before encroaching on the wetlands 

area northwest of the proposed plant location. The buried pipeline would have to cross 

the wetlands area in order to reach the discharge point in UTR. It is anticipated that less

than 0.5 acres of wetlands would be disturbed. The pipeline routing would require a 

maximum ROW width of 15 feet to allow for the construction of the new line. Process 

water, containing trace amounts of added chemicals such as amines, phosphates, sulfites 

and anti-scale treatment, would be discharged from the facility into UTR, approximately 

1 mile northwest of the plant. The discharge point would be permitted under SRS’s 

existing NPDES wastewater permit which allows for point source discharge to UTR. 

This permit would require regular monitoring and reporting. The hydric soil of the area

is classified as Pickney sand. Pickney sand, frequently flooded, has slopes less than 1 

percent and is a very poorly drained soil in the floodplain along UTR. Non-hydric soils 

of the area include Troup and Lucy sands and Blanton sand. Troup and Lucy sands, 15 to 

25 percent slopes, are well drained soils on the southeast banks of UTR and Tinker 

3-A 
Creek. They occur as intermingled areas of the Coastal Plain and Sand Hills. Most areas 

are rolling, and most are long and narrow. Blanton sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes, is a 

somewhat excessively drained soil in narrow upland swales and on low-lying ridges and 

side slopes. Because of the slope especially on Troup and Lucy sands, erosion can be a 

severe hazard on construction sites (Rogers 1990). Overstory vegetation in the wetland is 

predominantly water oak and laurel oak (Quercus nigra and Q. laurifolia), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). 

The actual routing location would be surveyed before commencement of construction 

activities and would be optimized to minimize wetland encroachment to the greatest 

extent possible. Alternative routing locations avoiding the wetlands area would require 

substantially longer runs and more costly energy consumption, as the effluent would have

to be pumped rather than gravity drained. UTR is the reasonable location for the 

discharge point for the proposed cogeneration plant, due to the high flow in the creek 

which would allow for adequate discharge dilution, and, the close proximity of the creek 

to the location of the proposed plant. 

Silt fences and other erosion control structures as needed would be installed to ensure 

there is no deposition in the downslope floodplain or wetland areas. An erosion control 

plan for this proposed activity would be developed in accordance with applicable State 

and local floodplain protection standards and followed to ensure that no additional 

impacts to wetland would occur due to erosion and sedimentation. No excavated 

materials would be deposited in wetland areas. With the implementation of all best 

management practices, to both minimize runoff from the construction site and minimize

direct encroachment on the wetlands and their associated floodplains, DOE expects the

overall impacts to wetlands and floodplains of UTR from the proposed project would be 

minimal and short term. No long-term impacts are foreseen. 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Proposed and alternative compliance actions are covered in the Environmental 

Assessment for Biomass Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site

(DOE/EA-1605) (DOE 2008). No floodplain/wetland impacts, except where noted in 

this assessment, are expected for the proposed or No Action Alternative considered 

within the scope of the EA. Where impacts are expected, appropriate mitigation plans

would be formulated and implemented to compensate for these impacts. Typical 

mitigation choices would be wetland creation, restoration or enhancement, preservation, 

or use of Wetland Mitigation Bank credits. 

4-A 
4.0 REFERENCES 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008 Environmental Assessment for Biomass

Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EA-1605). 

Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. 

Rogers, V.A., 1990. Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, 

and Allendale Counties, South Carolina, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, Aiken, South Carolina. 

5-A 
Finding of No Significant Impact 

for 

Biomass Cogeneration and Heating Facilities 

at the 

Savannah River Site 

Agency: U.S. Department of Energy 

Action: Finding of No Significant Impact 

Summary: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental

assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-1605) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed construction and operation of new biomass cogeneration and heating facilities 

located at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The draft EA was made available to the States 

of South Carolina and Georgia, and to the public, for a 30-day comment period. Based 

on the analyses in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Therefore, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required and DOE is 

issuing this finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 

Public Availability: Copies of the final EA and FONSI or further information on the 

DOE NEPA process are available from: 

Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer 

U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office 

Building 730-1B, Room 3150 

Aiken, South Carolina 29808 

Fax/telephone: 1-800-881-7292 

 e-mail: nepa@srs.gov

or drew.grainger@srs.gov 

Background: A large portion of SRS (the F, H, and S-Areas) is supplied with its energy 

and steam from a coal-fired powerhouse in D-Area, while an oil-fired steam plant in 

K-Area supplies steam energy to both K and L-Areas. The coal-fired D-Area 

powerhouse was constructed in the 1950s and the K-Area oil-fired steam plant was

installed in 1992. Both are in need of significant modifications to reliably supply energy 

for DOE’s continuing missions and to meet current environmental regulations and air 

emission restrictions. In addition they represent significant overcapacity relative to 

current and projected needs. The project described in the EA will replace the two 

existing facilities with three biomass energy plants. Specifically, DOE’s proposed action 

is the construction and operation of the following facilities: a new biomass cogeneration

facility to replace the existing D-Area powerhouse; and two new biomass heating plants 

at K and L-Areas to replace the existing K-Area steam plant. The proposed biomass

cogeneration facility and heating plants will supply energy to the F, H, K, L, and S-Areas

1 
of SRS. The proposed project will help SRS meet its energy requirements for an initial 

term of 21 years, with the potential for many years of continued operation after the initial 

term. 

The project is being proposed under the authority and terms of the DOE Biomass and 

Alternate Methane Fuel Energy Savings Performance Contract number 

DE-AC26-02-NT41457. DOE anticipates the proposed project will create significant 

energy and energy cost (dollar) savings to SRS. The savings will result from fuel

switching, reductions in line losses by placing the steam plants several miles closer to end

user facilities, and improved operations with new equipment that is sized to better match

load requirements. In addition to providing for much of SRS’s steam needs with a 

renewable energy source, the project will create benefits to the surrounding area. All 

three plants will utilize biomass obtained from the region, and will use the best available 

control technology for the reduction of air emissions. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action: The purpose of the proposed action is to supply 

large portions of SRS with reliable and efficient sources of energy. DOE needs to

generate energy to support continuing and future SRS missions through more efficient 

and environmentally preferable means. DOE needs to utilize biomass and bio-derived 

fuels as fuel sources to move towards meeting requirements set forth in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, which directs all Federal agencies to increase their 

renewable energy use, with a goal of using (1) 3 percent or more renewable energy in 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 through 2009, (2) 5 percent or more renewable energy in FY 2010 

through 2012, and (3) 7.5 percent or more renewable energy by FY 2013. 

Proposed Actions: The proposed action, the construction and operation of biomass

cogeneration and heating facilities at SRS, will consist of the following two Energy

Conservation Measures (ECMs): a new biomass cogeneration facility to replace the 

existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse; and two new biomass heating plants, one in 

K-Area and one in L-Area to replace the existing oil-fired steam plant in K-Area. The 

ECM project components are described in detail below. 

The proposed biomass cogeneration facility (EMC 1) will be located on a 30-acre site 

near the center of SRS. The facility will produce approximately 850,000,000 pounds of 

steam per year which will be exported to the 200-Area users and will meet all of the 

thermal energy steam requirements of the F, H, and S-Areas of SRS. The facility will 

also produce from 6 to 15 megawatts of electricity which will be connected and 

distributed to the SRS electrical distribution system for use onsite. Electricity output will 

vary based on the quantity of excess steam available after the steam load requirements are 

met. 

Biomass fuel will be burned in the new facility to produce steam and power. The 

biomass will consist of primarily low-value wood residues and wood waste by-products

with a small percentage of biomass-derived fuel (BDF) and oil delivered from the local 

Aiken and Augusta area. Biomass sources may include low-value forest products, forest 

residues and wood processing waste by-products, agricultural crops, construction waste, 

and alcohol fuels. Wood is the most common form of biomass and is available from

2 
several waste sources. This material includes by-products from manufacturers such as 

furniture mills, saw mills, paper mills and other wood product manufacturers; low-value 

forest products, such as small trees and top wood, and defective or deformed trees; forest 

residues, such as dead wood and hazardous wildland fire fuels and landscaping waste. 

Woodwaste is typically in the form of sawdust, woodchips, pellets, and wood scraps such 

as crates and pallets, and is regularly used as an energy source for heating and power 

generation. There are numerous sources of biomass available within 100 miles of SRS 

and the fuel will be procured through purchases from local biomass suppliers. Many of 

the local suppliers obtain a portion of their biomass through timber sales from SRS. 

BDF will make up to 30 percent of the heat input source for the cogeneration facility.

The BDF will consist of tire-derived fuel (TDF) from scrap tires brought to transfer 

stations and landfills. The maximum permitted amount of BDF processed in the 

proposed facility will be approximately 1.1 million British thermal units (mbtu)/year or 

43,000 tons of tires/year. In addition, each biomass boiler will be capable of burning fuel 

oil in the event the biomass feed system fails. As fuel oil is used, the biomass

consumption will decrease. Five percent of the fuel input for the proposed cogeneration

facility could be fuel oil. This consumption will vary as it will be a backup fuel only. 

The biomass fuel delivery trucks will enter SRS using an existing primary road to the 

plant entrance. A deceleration lane will be added for trucks to enter the cogeneration 

facility as part of this project. Once onsite, the trucks will be unloaded using a truck 

dumper. A fire suppression system will be part of the cogeneration biomass fuel storage 

area. The trucks will exit behind the cogeneration facility where a new traffic light will 

be installed. The current graveled road will be paved to support the biomass truck 

deliveries. Peak truck traffic will be an 8 hour operation with 7 to 8 trucks per hour, 5 

days per week. 

The proposed cogeneration facility will include two 120,000 pounds per hour (pph)

(210,000 mbtu/hr input) boilers and one 20 megawatt turbine. Each boiler will have full 

capacity fuel-oil burners that will serve as a back-up in case the biomass fuel system is

inoperable. The proposed facility will have a footprint of approximately 20,000 square 

feet (sf), with an additional 2,200 sf administration building in front of the facility, a 

detached garage, and biomass fuel yard covering approximately 12 acres. The 

development on the site will include four main components: 1) the fuel handling yard, 2) 

the steam/combustion system, 3) the water treatment system, and 4) the turbine and 

electrical system. The 850 pounds per square inch (psi) steam produced by the steam 

plants will pass through a single extraction turbine. Steam required by SRS will then be 

transferred to an existing steam distribution system, and the remaining steam will flow 

through the other stage of the turbine for additional power generation. The 

combustion/steam system will include the components from the fuel feeder to the exhaust 

stack and the steam auxiliaries. 

A bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) combustion technology is proposed for this project. 

BFB technology uses high pressure air to fluidize a 2-3 foot bed of sand (inert material) 

in suspension. The fuel source is fed into the system through air spouts and dropped onto 

3 
the bed. The system operates using air to reduce the bed temperature and to minimize 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. BFB technology is preferable to the circulating 

fluidized bed (CFB) for biomass fuels due to its ability to better tolerate various fuel 

types, as well as larger variations in both fuel mixture density and moisture content. 

BFBs have the advantage of reduced air emissions due to a more stringently controlled 

temperature in the combustion process. The BFB boiler will produce steam at 850 psi, 

825° F. The steam will pass through a condensing steam turbine when generating 

electricity, or, if the turbine is down, through a pressure reducing valve (PRV) station 

which will reduce the pressure to 385 psi. The 385 psi steam will be distributed to the 

existing system via the interconnection to the existing steam header located just across an

existing road from the new plant. 

Each boiler will include a flue gas handling system, which will consist of an induced 

draft (ID) fan to pull the boiler flue gas through the economizer, and then through a

multiple cone dust collector. The ID fan will exhaust into a fabric filter baghouse and 

then to an integral exhaust stack. The baghouse will capture particulate matter from the 

flue gas with removal efficiencies of 99.9+ percent. Because of the lower bed 

temperature of a BFB, a baghouse will be used instead of an electrostatic precipitator

(ESP). The baghouse will be more effective in capturing sulfur and mercury components

and has minimal energy requirements compared to the ESP. The flue gas will then exit 

through a stack adjacent to the ID fan and baghouse, to be located just outside of the new 

facility. The flue gas from the boiler will be treated in the combustion system using 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology to reduce nitrogen oxides. Urea 

will be injected into the furnace typically above the over-fire air ports, reacting with the

oxides to form innocuous nitrogen and hydrogen. 

Cooling process water for the facility will be drawn from the Savannah River. New more 

efficient pumps will be installed in the 681-3G Pumphouse to provide the water to the

biomass cogeneration facility. A new pipeline will be installed from the proposed facility

site to the nearest water main pump house in C-Area, a distance of approximately 1.5 

miles. Of this distance, the pipeline will follow an existing right-of-way (ROW) for one 

mile and will then branch off for 0.5 miles through forested land. Industrial wastewater 

from the facility will be discharged via a discharge system to Upper Three Runs (UTR). 

The ash and other waste generated during facility operations will be disposed of at the 

nearby permitted Three Rivers Regional Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. A new 

electrical feeder line will be constructed to tie the facility into the SRS electrical grid

system at the 251-F substation. 

Construction of the cogeneration facility is scheduled to begin in September 2008, and 

will continue for 2.5 years. A peak number of 200 construction workers will be required 

during the construction period. The facility will be online near the end of 2010, and will 

operate 24 hours per day for an initial term of 21 years, though the serviceable life of the 

facility will be over 30 years. Approximately 20 employees will be required for

operation of the facility. 

4 
ECM 2 will consist of two new biomass heating plants; one will service K-Area and the 

other will service L-Area. The new K-Area plant will be adjacent to the existing oil-fired 

steam plant within the fenced area. The L-Area plant will be located on the footprint of 

Building 183-4L which was removed during site decommissioning and demolition. Both

plants will consist of a combustion and steam system. The plants will each be capable of

producing 10,500 pounds per hour (pph) of steam. Additionally, both the K and L-Area 

biomass heating plants will only burn clean biomass and no BDF. The biomass fuel 

(wood materials) will be stored at the fuel yard adjacent to the proposed cogeneration

facility (ECM 1), and will be trucked to the K and L-Area plants up to a maximum of one 

trip per day to both sites. The fuel will be loaded onto a walking floor-bed truck at the 

fuel yard and then parked at the metering bin for each steam plant. Each of the new 

plants will be installed in a new enclosed metal building with an adjacent covered shelter 

to house the fuel storage and delivery equipment. A fire suppression system will be part 

of each of the fuel storage areas. The total footprint of construction will be 3 acres for

each steam plant, for a total of 6 acres. The total construction period for both plants will 

be approximately 18 months. Once operational, both plants will only produce steam, and 

will distribute the produced steam within their respective service areas (K and L). The 

pipeline connecting K-Area and L-Area will no longer be needed and will be capped and 

left in place. The plants at the K and L locations will each have less than 1400 gallons a

day of steam blow down water at peak per plant. This water will drain to the existing

sanitary sewer system in K-Area and to permitted outfall L-07 in L-Area. 

Each of the two biomass plants will use up to 2,500 tons per year of biomass (5,000 tons 

total for both plants). The plants are scheduled to operate during the colder months of 

November through April. Each of the biomass plants will also be equipped with fuel oil 

burners for fuel oil combustion during system startup and backup. Up to about 5 percent 

of the plants’ total fuel input could be fuel oil. Steam feed water will be supplied from 

the river water system in L-Area and from the well water system in K-Area. 

No Action Alternatives: Under the No Action Alternative, DOE will continue to 

operate the coal-fired D-Area powerhouse, which produces both steam and electricity for

onsite consumption, and the oil-fired K-Area steam plant, which produces only steam. 

These facilities are past their design life and are in need of significant modifications and

upgrades to bring them into compliance with current environmental standards and 

permitting requirements. The existing D-Area powerhouse currently burns almost 

160,000 tons of coal annually and will continue to use coal at a similar rate under the No

Action Alternative. In FY 2007, 6,569 truckloads of coal were delivered to the D-Area 

powerhouse, totaling 153,954 tons of coal. On average, 26 truckloads were delivered to 

the site each day and the average weight of coal delivered per truckload was 23.4 tons. 

The D-Area powerhouse is close to the Savannah River and is located several miles from 

its end users (F, H, and S-Areas) and must distribute steam through a large distribution 

pipeline to these areas, losing valuable energy in the process. In addition to steam, the 

powerhouse also produces approximately 20 megawatts of electricity on average that is 

consumed by DOE facilities onsite. Electricity output is based on the quantity of excess 

steam available after the steam load requirements are met. The D-Area powerhouse 

5 
withdraws an average of 50 million gallons of water per day from the Savannah River.

Water that is used for steam plant feedwater is treated at the 483-D water plant.

Untreated raw water, which is used for condenser cooling passes directly through the 

condenser and is discharged directly through the powerhouse’s outfall. The primary 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted outfall for the

facility, D-01, discharges an average of 40.2 million gallons/day. Discharge limits are in 

effect for temperature, temperature difference between river water intake and discharge, 

residual chlorine, pH, total suspended solids, oil/grease, and manganese. The D-Area

powerhouse employs 60 people and is operated by a contractor. 

The existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant is maintained by SRS personnel, but no 

employees are permanently assigned to the facility. The K-Area steam plant consists of 

two boilers, one 30,000 pph and one 60,000 pph; the 30,000 pph steam plant has been 

and will continue to be the primary boiler. The K-Area steam plant serves both K and 

L-Area users, and a 2.5 mile pipeline delivers steam to the L-Area from K-Area. The 

steam that travels in this distribution pipeline also loses valuable energy before reaching

L-Area. The source for process water for the K-Area plant will continue to be from the

well water system in K-Area. 

Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated: For this project, two alternative locations

were evaluated for the proposed biomass cogeneration facility, but were dismissed from 

further analysis. Alternative Site 1 is in close proximity to the main steam header, SC 

Highway 125, and a 115 kilovolts electrical system. Drawbacks to this location include 

the distance of the site from the F-Area production wells and the Central Sanitary 

Wastewater Treatment Facility (CSWTF). The major drawback to this site is the distance 

to the 200-Area end-users. This site is the closest of the evaluated locations to the 

existing powerhouse site. Therefore, compared to the other locations, more steam line 

would have to stay in service if this site were to be used. The cost of operating and 

maintaining this additional line would be considerable. The energy loss from 

transporting the steam across this distance would also be considerable. To compensate 

for this energy loss, more fuel would be needed. For these reasons, Alternative Site 1 

was dismissed from further evaluation. 

Alternative Site 2 is close to the 200-Area end-users and groundwater production wells. 

However, it is far from the highway, CSWTF, and the steam main. Because of the 

distance from a main SRS thoroughfare, this site location would create access difficulties 

for construction activities and fuel delivery. Further, the site is in close proximity to a 

remediated nuclear waste operations site. However, the key drawback of this site is that 

it is in close proximity to the H-Area meteorological tower and therefore would interfere

with the tower’s operation. For these reasons, Alternative Site 2 was dismissed from 

further evaluation. 

DOE also considered alternatives related to water sources, the discharge of industrial

effluent, and the cooling of process water, but did not evaluate them in the EA. 

6 
The biomass cogeneration facility would require process water for steam and cooling

tower makeup and for backwash and regeneration cycles associated with the facility’s 

water treatment system. Expected water flow demand could peak at 2,000 gallons per 

minute. Alternative sources of process water identified but not evaluated in the EA 

included: (a) treated effluent from CSWTF, (b) groundwater from existing F-Area 

production wells or new production wells installed at the preferred facility site, and (c) 

the SRS domestic water system. DOE determined that the CSWTF was not a viable 

water source because the volume of treated effluent would not be sufficient to meet

facility needs. Although the site’s groundwater resource could easily accommodate 

projected water demand, DOE determined the use of existing or new production wells 

would not be cost effective. From this analysis, DOE has determined the SRS domestic

water system has sufficient capacity to support the proposed action, but its use for this 

purpose would not be economical. The biomass cogeneration facility will draw its water 

from the existing river water system. If, at some point in the future, the river water

system is no longer available due to insufficient river flows, the above water source 

alternatives will be reevaluated. 

A potential alternative to discharging industrial effluent (steam and cooling tower blow 

down) to UTR is to discharge this waste stream to CSWTF. DOE determined that the

site’s wastewater treatment facility could not accommodate the increased inflow, and this 

option was not evaluated in the EA. The use of air-cooled condensers as an alternative to 

the construction and operation of cooling towers was also identified. However, 

air-cooled condensers are space and energy intensive and will not function effectively 

during the hot and humid summer period. Therefore, DOE did not evaluate this 

alternative method for cooling process water in the EA. 

Environmental Impacts: The cogeneration facility site will be located on an old

abandoned borrow pit that appears to have had no restoration. The soil is highly 

disturbed and not characteristic of an intact series. Based on the previous use of the 

proposed site, the potential for the construction and operation of the proposed action to 

impact environmental resources at SRS will be negligible. DOE also expects that the 

potential for the utility line right-of-way construction to impact environmental resources

at SRS will be negligible. DOE expects that environmental impacts from the 

construction and operation of the plants at K and L-Areas to be similar to those for the 

proposed facility site. As these two areas currently house facilities, the land and soils are 

already disturbed and compacted. DOE expects that the potential for the utility line 

right-of-way construction in K and L-Areas to impact environmental resources at SRS to 

be negligible. DOE expects no adverse water quality impacts from the construction and 

operation of the proposed actions. The substantial decrease in Savannah River water 

withdrawal rates will be beneficial. 

DOE expects that air emissions resulting from construction-related activities (e.g., 

equipment emissions, fugitive dust) at the three sites will be short-lived and minimal. 

They will not require permitting by the State. Overall emissions will change with the

shift from a coal-fired power plant to a biomass cogeneration facility. DOE expects the 

overall emission levels will decrease, but the emissions of some criteria pollutants will 

increase. SRS currently operates via a Title V-Part 70 Operating Permit. A new 

7 
operation permit will be obtained to include the new emissions from the cogeneration

facility. Actions that will aid in decreasing the overall impacts of air emissions include 

limiting when the facility will be operating, and utilizing abatement technologies to help

decrease emission levels at the source. The proposed facility’s abatement measures 

include a fabric filter baghouse to reduce particulate matter (PM), and selective

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce nitrogen oxide formation. Baghouse filters 

work to curb PM emissions by trapping particulate matter in a fabric bag, similar to the

way a vacuum cleaner operates. The filters are cleaned by blowing air through in the 

reverse direction and collecting the PM. This process effectively removes up to 99.9+ 

percent of particulate matter. The SNCR method effectively reduces NOx emissions via a 

process of urea injection. Urea will be injected into the steam boiler at temperatures high 

enough to result in a chemical reaction between water and urea that forms ammonia 

which in turn reacts with NOx and oxygen to form nitrogen and water. In addition, 

limestone will be injected into the flue gas and, via sorption reactions, reduce NOx and 

sulfur compounds. Multicyclone technology will be implemented at the K and L-Area 

plants to aid in decreasing air emissions. This technology reduces the temperature of 

combustion by dilution of the combustion products with excess fuel, air, flue gas, or 

steam. The resulting chemical reactions prevent the majority of the nitrogen from

becoming ionized and forming NOx. Replacement of the existing facilities with biomass 

fueled facilities will substantially reduce greenhouse gas (e.g., water vapor, carbon 

dioxide, methane, ozone) emissions and minimize environmental compliance issues

while more reliably providing steam for SRS missions and decreasing the SRS carbon 

footprint. 

The potential for these activities to significantly impact the human environment (e.g., 

air, aquatic, terrestrial, and biotic resources) will be negligible. The potential for 

the proposed and alternative actions evaluated in the EA to significantly impact 

archaeological or cultural resources at SRS will be negligible. None of the proposed 

actions evaluated in the EA will be expected to have a measurable impact on migratory

avian species. DOE expects overall impacts to both vegetation and wildlife to be 

long-term and minor for the proposed actions. There will be no effect on the population 

status of any threatened and endangered species within the proposed project areas or on a

site wide level. 

The potential for the proposed actions evaluated in the EA to result in terrorism-related

activity or impacts at SRS are expected be negligible. The potential for the proposed 

actions evaluated in the EA to result in accidents from operation activities at SRS are 

expected to be negligible. Impacts to worker health and safety will be negligible due to

the use of appropriate safety practices, personal protective clothing and equipment, and 

the provision of a safe and healthful workplace as required by Federal regulations. 

Workforce requirements and project costs of implementation of the proposed projects 

will be minimal when compared to the total SRS budget and employment

(approximately $1.15 billion per year and 10,000 personnel, respectively). The 

socioeconomic impact(s) of the proposed projects on the human environment will be 

negligible. Based on the information and analysis presented in the EA, DOE has

determined that the proposed construction and operation of the new biomass cogeneration 

8 
facility and heating plants at SRS will not cause disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations in the 

SRS region of interest. Infrastructure impacts from the proposed actions will be

negligible as the new facility and plants will be smaller than the existing powerhouse and 

therefore require less infrastructure resources. 

Cumulative Impacts: Construction-related activities of implementation of the proposed 

projects will be short-lived and the potential for any resulting air emissions to interact 

with other SRS pollutant sources or have a cumulative impact on criteria air pollutants

will be negligible. SRS could be in an area declared nonattainment for PM10, PM2.5, and 

ozone at some future date. When an area is designated nonattainment for any of the 

criteria pollutants, the affected State must draft a plan known as a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to improve air quality and outline the control measures the State will take in 

order to meet National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These air pollution control 

measures include a process called Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR)

permitting. NA NSR applies to new major sources or major modifications at existing

sources for pollutants where the source location is not in attainment with NAAQS. All 

NA NSR permits require that the proposed air pollution source install the Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), pollution controls, emission offsets, and an 

opportunity for public involvement. LAER is the most stringent emission limitation 

derived from either of the following: the most stringent emission limitation contained in 

the SIP for a similar source, or the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice 

by a similar source. Also, sources must obtain emissions reductions from existing 

sources located in the vicinity of the source NA NSR source. The emission reductions, 

generally called “offsets” must offset the emissions increase from the new source or 

major source modification to ensure reasonable progress toward meeting the NAAQS. 

The emission reductions must also provide a net air quality benefit. DOE expects that 

there will be a decrease of approximately 100,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide 

emissions by switching from coal combustion to biomass combustion and that the 

potential cumulative impacts of the actions evaluated in the EA on the human 

environment will be minimal. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings: This is a Floodplain Statement of Findings prepared 

in accordance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1022. A floodplain and 

wetlands assessment was incorporated in the EA. With the implementation of all best 

management practices, to both minimize runoff from the construction site and minimize

direct encroachment on the wetlands and their associated floodplains, DOE expects the

overall impacts to wetlands and floodplains of UTR from the proposed project will be

minimal and short term. No long-term impacts are foreseen. DOE will allow 15 days of 

public review after publication of this statement of findings before implementing 

construction of the proposed biomass cogeneration facility and two new biomass heating 

plants at K and L-Areas.

Determination: Based upon the information and analyses in the EA (DOE/EA-1605), 

DOE has determined that the proposed construction and operation of the new biomass

cogeneration facilities and heating plants at SRS do not constitute a major Federal action 

9