## 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 OP ERATIONS 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 OP ERATIONS OFFICE SAVANNAH RIVER SITEThis 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 PROP OSE D ACTION AND AL TER NATIVES ....................................................4

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

2.1.1 ECM 1: Biom ass Cogeneration Facility ..........................................4 2.1.1.1 Biom ass Energy .............................................................4 2.1.1.2 Facility Components ......................................................6 2.1.2 ECM 2: Biom ass Heating Plants for K and L-Areas .......................8

2.2 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n Alterna tiv e ...........................................................9 2.3 Alterna tive s Considered but Dism issed .......................................................9

2.3.1 Alterna tive Site 1 ...........................................................................10 2.3.2 Alterna tive Site 2 ...........................................................................10 2.3.3 Other Alte rn ative s ..........................................................................10

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

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

3.1.1 Proposed Biom ass Cogeneration Facility Site ...............................12 3.1.2 K and L-Areas ................................................................................12

3.2 W a ter Reso urces ........................................................................................12

3.2.1 Surface W a t e r .................................................................................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 W e tlands and Floodplains ..............................................................14

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

3.3.1 Crite ria Pollutants ..........................................................................15 3.3.1.1 Particulate Matter (PM ) ...............................................15 3.3.1.2 Ozone (O 3 ) ...................................................................15 3.3.2 Class I and II Areas ........................................................................16 3.3.3 Current Em issions ..........................................................................17

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

3.4.1 Vegetation ......................................................................................18 3.4.2 W ildlif e ..........................................................................................19 3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................19

3.5 Inf r astru c tu r e ..............................................................................................19

3.5.1 W a ste Managem e nt ........................................................................19 3.5.2 Utilitie s ...........................................................................................20 3.5.2.1 Energy Distribution and Use ........................................20 3.5.2.2 W a ter Distribution and Use .........................................20 3.5.3 Traffi c ............................................................................................21

3.6 Socioecono m i cs .........................................................................................21 3.7 Hum a n Health, Safety, and Environm ental Justice ...................................22 3.8 Cultura l Res ources .....................................................................................23 3.9 Noise ..........................................................................................................24 3.10 Recreation ..................................................................................................24 3.11 Land Use ....................................................................................................24

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL C ONSE QUE NCES OF T H E PR OPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................24

4.1 Soil and Construction-Related Im pacts .....................................................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 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................26

4.2 W a ter Quality Im pacts ...............................................................................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 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................29

4.3 Air Quality Im pacts ....................................................................................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 Nonattainm e nt ..................................32 4.3.1.4 Abatem ent Technology ................................................32 4.3.1.5 Associated Traffic ........................................................33 4.3.2 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................33

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

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ......................................................34 4.4.1.1 Vegetation ....................................................................34 4.4.1.2 W ildlif e ........................................................................35 4.4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................35 4.4.2 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................35

4.5 Inf r astru c tu r e ..............................................................................................36

4.5.1 W a ste Managem e nt ........................................................................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 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ..............................................36 4.5.2 Utilitie s ...........................................................................................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 W a ter Distribution and Use .......................38 4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction ..........................38 4.5.2.1.2.2 Operation ...............................38 4.5.2.2 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ..............................................39 4.5.3 Traffi c ............................................................................................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 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ..............................................41

4.6 Socioecono m i cs .........................................................................................41

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ......................................................41 4.6.1.1 Construction .................................................................41 4.6.1.2 Operation ......................................................................41 4.6.2 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................42

4.7 Archaeolog i cal and Cultural Resources .....................................................42 4.8 Hum a n Health, Safety, and Environm ental 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 Alterna tive 2: No Actio n ................................................................44

4.9 Cum u lative Im pacts ...................................................................................44 4.10 Mitig ation Measure s ..................................................................................45

4.10.1 Soil ...............................................................................................45 4.10.2 W a ter Reso urces ..........................................................................45 4.10.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................46 4.10.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................46 4.10.5 W a ste Managem e nt ......................................................................46 4.10.6 Transportation and Traffic ...........................................................46

4.11 Evaluation o f Terrorism -Related Im pacts ..................................................46 4.12 Accident Analysis ......................................................................................46

5.0 REGULAT O RY AND PERMITTI NG PR OVI SIONS C O NSIDERE D ...............48

5.1 National Environm ental Policy Act of 1969, as am ended .........................48 5.2 Air Quality Regulations .............................................................................48 5.3 W a ter Regulations ......................................................................................48

5.3.1 Storm W a te r and Air Regulations ..................................................48 5.3.2 Savannah River W a ter W ithdrawal Regulations ...........................49 5.3.3 Process W a ter Discharge Regulations ...........................................49 5.3.4 Dom e stic W a ter Regu lations .........................................................49 5.3.5 Sanitary Sewer Regulations ...........................................................49

5. 4 Endangered Species Act, as am ended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) ...................49 5.5 National Historic Preservation Act, as am ended (16 USC 470 et seq.) .....49 5.6 Integrated S a fety Managem e nt System (48 CFR 970.5223-1) ..................50 5.7 Executive O r der 11988 (Floodplain Managem e nt) ...................................50 5.8 Executive O r der 11990 (Protection of W e tlands) ......................................50 5.9 Executive O r der 12898 (Environm ental Justice) .......................................50 5.10 Executive O r der 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds) ...........................50

6.0 AGENCIES AND PERS ONS CONS ULTED .......................................................51

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

- v -LIST OF F I GURES Page Figure 1-1. SRS Vicinity Map ..........................................................................2

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

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 3-1. National A m bient Air Quality Stan dards ........................................................16

Table 3-2. Current Actual Em issions ................................................................................18

Table 4-1. Current and Potential Air Em issions.................................................31

APPE NDI X

Appendix A: Floodplain/Wetland Assessm ent for Biom ass Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site..................1-A

- vi -LIST OF ABBREV IATIONS/ACRONYMS

AEGL Acute Exposure Guide Levels BAQ Bureau of Air Quality BDF biom ass-derived fuel BFB bubbling fluidized bed BMPs best m a nagem e nt practices CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environm ental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon m o noxide CSW T F Central San i tary W a stewater T r eatm e nt Facility C W A Clean W a ter Act DOE U.S. Departm e nt of Energy EA environm ental assessm e n t ECM Energy Conservation Measure ERPG Em ergency Response Planning Guidelines ESP electros tatic precip itator FMB Fourm ile Branch FY Fiscal Year gpm gallons per m i nute HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutan t s HF hydrogen fluoride ID induced draft kV kilovolts kVA kilovolt-am ps LAER Lowest Achievable Em i ssion Rate MACT Maxim u m Achievable Control Technology mbtu m illion British therm a l units mgd m illion gallons per day NAAQS National A m bient Air Quality Stan dards NA NSR Nonattainm e nt New Source Review NEPA National En vironm ental Policy Act NO 2 nitrogen dioxide NO x nitrogen oxides NPDES National Po llutan t Disch a rge Elim ination Syste m O 3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety a nd Health Administration PAH polycyclic arom atic hydrocarbons Pb lead PM particula t e m a tter pph pounds per hour
ppm parts pe r m illion PRV pressure reducing valve psi pounds per square inch ROW right-of-way

- vii -SCDHEC South Carolina Departm e nt of Health and Environm ental Control sf square foot SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction SIP State Im plem entation Plan SO 2 sulfur dioxide SRARP Savannah River Archaeo logical Research Program SRNL Savannah River Na t i o na l La bor a t or y SRS Savannah River Site SW PPP Storm w ater Pollution Prevention P l an TDF tire-derived fuel TEEL Tem porary Em ergency Exposure Level tpy tons per year TRL Three River s Regional Municip a l S o lid W a ste Landf ill
μm m i crom eter USDA U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture USEPA U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency UTR Upper Three Runs VOC volatile organic com pound WSRC Washington Savannah River Com p any

- viii -This page intentionally left blank

- ix -1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Departm e nt o f Energy (DOE) prepared this environm ental as sessm ent (EA) to analyze the potential environm ental im pact s of the proposed construction and operation of new biom ass cogeneration and heating f acilities a t the Savannah River Site ( S RS) (Figure 1-1). The facilities would cons ist of two Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs); (1 ) a new biomass cogeneration facility to replace th e existing co al-fired D-Area powerhouse, and (2) tw o new biomass heating plants at K and L-Ar eas, to replace the existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant. In ad dition to analyzing the proposed action, the No Action Alterna tive was also con s idered.

1.1 Background and Proposed Action

A large portion of SRS (the F, H, and S-Ar eas) is supplied with its energy and steam from a coal-fired powerhouse in D-Area, wh ile an oil-fired steam plant in K-Area supplies steam energy to both K and L-Area s (Figure 1

- 2). The coal-fired D-Area powerhouse was constructed in the 1950s a nd the K-Area oil-fired steam plant was installed in 1992. Both are in need of significant m odifications to reliably supply energy for DOE’s continuing m i ssions and to m eet current environm en tal regulations and air

em ission restrictions. In addition they rep r e s ent sign if icant ove rca p acity relative to current and projected needs. The project de s c ribed in this EA would replace the two existing facilities with three biom ass ener gy facilities. Specifically, DOE’s proposed action is th e cons truc tion a nd operation of the following facilities: a new bio m ass cogeneratio n facility, to replace th e existing D-Area powerhouse; and two new biom ass heating p l ants at K an d L-Areas, to rep l ace the exis ting K-Area steam plant. The proposed biom ass cogeneration facility and heat ing plan ts w ould supply energy to th e F, H, K, L, and S-Areas of SRS. The propos ed project would help SRS m e et its energy requirem e nts for an initial term of 21 year s, with the p o tential f o r

m a ny years of continued o p eration af te r the initial term

. The project is being proposed under the au thority and term s of the DOE Biom ass and Alternate M e thane Fuel Energy Savings Perform a nce Contract num ber DE-AC26-02- NT41457. DOE anticipates the proposed project would create signifi cant energy and energy cost (dollar) savings to SRS. The savings would result from fuel switching, reductions in line losses by plac in g the s t eam plants seve ral m iles c l oser to end user facilities, and im proved operati ons with new equipm ent that is sized to better m a tch to the load requirem ents. In addition to provi ding for m u ch of SRS’s steam needs with a renewable energy source, the project would crea te benefits to the surrounding area. All three plants would utilize biom ass obtained fro m the region, and woul d use the best available control technology for the reduction of air em issions.

1Figure 1-1. SRS Vicinity Map

2Figure 1-2. SRS Site Map

31.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is to suppl y large portions of SR S with reliable and efficient sources of energy. DOE needs to generate ener gy to support continuing and future SRS m i ssions through m o re efficient a nd environm entally preferable m e ans. DOE needs to utilize biom ass and bio-derived fuels as a fuel source to m ove towards m e eting requirem e nts set forth in the Energy Policy A c t of 2005, Public L a w 109-58, whic h directs all Federal agencies to increase thei r renewable energy use, with a goal of us ing (1) 3 percent or m o re 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 m o re renewable energy by FY 2013.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALT E RNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action, the construction and opera tion of biomass cogeneration and heating facilities at SRS, would consist of the following two Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs): a new biom as s cogeneration facility to replace th e exis ting coal-fired D-Area powerhouse; and two new biom ass heating plan ts, one in K-Area and one in L-Area to replace the existing oil-fired steam plant in K-Area. Th e ECM project com ponents are described in detail below

.

2.1.1 ECM 1: Biomass Cogeneration Facility

The biom ass cogeneration f acility would be located on a 30-acr e site n ear the cen t er of SRS on an old abandoned borrow pit that appear s to have h a d no res t oration. The facility would produce approxim ately 850,000,000 pounds of steam per year which would be exported to the 200-A r ea users and would m eet all of the therm a l energy (steam ) requirem e nts of the F, H

, and S-Areas of SRS. The facility w ould also produce from 6 to 15 m e gawat t s (MW ) of electricity which woul d be connected and di stributed to the SRS electrical distribu tion sy stem for use onsite. Electricity output would vary based on the quantity of excess steam available after the s t eam load requ irem ents are met.

2.1.1.1 Biomass Energy

Biom ass f u el would b e burned in the new f acility to p r od uce steam and power. The biom ass would consist of prim a r ily low-value wood residues and wood waste by-products with a sm a ll percentage of biom ass-derived fuel (BDF) and oil delivered from the local Aiken and Augusta areas. Bi omass sources m a y include low-value forest products, forest residues and wood processi ng waste by-products, ag ricultural crops, construction waste, and alcohol fuels. W ood is the m o st co mmon for m of biom ass a nd is available from several wast e sources. This m a terial includes by-products from

m a nufacturers such as furnitu re m ills, saw m ills, paper m ills and other wood product

m a nufacturers; low-value forest products, su ch as s m all trees and top wood, and defective

4or deform ed trees; forest residues, such as dead wood and hazardous wildland fire f u els and landscaping waste. W oodwaste is typica lly in the form of sawdust, woodchips, pellets, and wood scraps such as crates and pa llets, and is regularly used as an energy source for heating and power generation. There are num e rous sources of biom ass available within 100 m i les of SRS and the fuel would be procured through purchases from local biom ass suppliers. Many of th e local suppliers obtain a portion of their biom ass through tim ber sales from SRS. In th e future, SRS m a y evaluate the potential of incre a sing the quantity of onsite biom ass f u el while m i nim i zing im pacts to current f o rest products m a nagem e nt. If feasible, the forest product m i x m a y be m odified to increase the availability of s m all wood suit able 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 fu el through establishing and monitoring of experim e ntal a nd de monstration sites. Th is poten tia l incre a se in the quantity of onsite biomass would allow the proposed biom ass cogeneration facility to

m a xi m i ze the use of onsite biom ass sources. Any such proposed changes to the SRS Natural Res ources M a n a gem e nt Plan to in crease the quantity of onsite biom ass would undergo the appropriate NEPA review.

The m a jority of all bioenergy (64 percent) generated in the U.S. is derived from wood products (D OE 2005a). Bioenergy, in turn, is the largest source of domestic renewable energy. Of all energy consum ed in the U.S ., approxim a tely 6 per cent currently com e s from renewable energy sources (DOE 2005a). Bioenergy had an installed capacity of 9,733 m e gawatts (MW) in the U.S. in 2002, which a m ounted to 47 percent of all renewable energy consum ed ( DOE 2006a). Hydroelectric ( 45 percent), geotherm al (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 biom ass would m a ke up 70-100 percent of the fuel source for the cogeneration facility. Up to 400,000 tons a year of bi om a ss would be processed in the proposed cogeneration facility. The cl ean biom ass would consist of:

• Forest Logging Residues : Material not typically harvested or rem o ved from logging sites in comm e r cial hardw ood a nd softwood operations; and, m a terial resulting from forest m a nagem e nt operati ons such as precommercial thinning and

rem oval of dead and dying trees, and in the reduction of hazardous wildland fire fuel s;

• Low

- Value Forest Pro ducts : Typically sm all trees and top wood, and defective or deform ed trees norm a lly used for pul p and composite m a terial m a nufa c turing, but usually of such low value as to m a ke their c o st f o r tran s porta tion m a rgina l;

• Wood Waste Residues : Bark and woody m a terials th at are generate d in prim ary wood-using m ills when roundwood products are converted to other products. Exam ples a r e slabs, edgings, trimm i ngs, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, pulp screenings, bark residues and other wood waste;

• Urban Wood Waste : T h e portion of the waste str eam that can include d i scard e d wood products, whole trees, pruned branches or stum ps generated during street and park maintenance. The prim ary cons tituents of urban wood waste are used

5lum b er, trim, shipping pallets, trees, branches, and other wood debris from construction and dem o lition clearing and grubbin g activ ities.

BDF would m a ke up to 30 percent o f the heat in put source for the cog e n e ration facility. The BDF would consist of tire-derived fuel (TDF) com i ng from scrap tires brought to transfer stations and to landfills. Th e m a xi m u m perm itted amount of BDF processed in the propos ed facility would be approxi m a tely 1.1 m illion British therm a l units (m btu)/year or 43,000 tons of tires/year.

In addition, each b i om ass boiler wo uld be ca pable of burning fuel oil in the ev ent the biom ass fee d system fai l s. As fuel oil is used, the biom ass consum ption would decrease. Five percen t of the fuel input for the proposed cogeneratio n facility co uld be fuel oil. This consumption would vary, as it would be a backup fuel only.

The delivery trucks would enter SRS using an existing prim ary road to the plant entran ce. A deceleration lane would be added for trucks to enter the co generation facility as part of this project. Once onsite, the trucks would be unloaded using a tr uck dum p er. A fire suppression system would be part of the c ogeneration fuel storage area. The trucks would exit behind the coge nera tion f acility whe r e a new tra ffic light would be installed. The current graveled road would be paved to support the biom ass truc k deliveries. Peak truck traffic would be an 8 hour operation with 7 to 8 truc ks per hour, 5 days per week.

2.1.1.2 Facility Components

The proposed cogeneration facility woul d include two 120,000 pounds per hour (pph) (210,000 mbtu/hr input) boilers and one 20 mega watt turbine. Each boiler would have full capacity fuel-oil b u rners th at would serve as a back-up in case the biom ass fuel system is inoperable. The proposed facility would have a footprint of approxim a tel y 20,000 square feet (sf), with an additional 2,200 sf adm i nistration build ing in front of the plant, a d e tached garag e , and fuel yard covering approxim a tely 12-acres.

The developm ent on the site would include f our m a in com p onents: 1 ) the fuel hand ling yard, 2) the steam /com bustion system, 3) the water tr eatm e nt sys t em , and 4) the tu rbine and electrical system . The 850 pounds per squa re inch (psi) steam produced by the steam plants would pass through a single extraction tu rbine. Steam required by SRS would then be tran sferred to an ex isting s t eam distri bution system , and the rem a ining steam would flow through the other s t age of the tu rbine for addition a l po wer generation.

The com bustion/steam system woul d include th e com ponents from the fuel feeder to the exhaust s t ac k and the s t eam auxilia ries. A bu bbling f l uid i zed bed (BFB) com bustion technology is proposed for this project. BFB technology uses high pressure air to fluidize a 2-3 foot bed of sand (inert m a terial) in su spension. The fuel source is fed into the system through air spouts and dropped onto th e bed. The system operates using air to reduce the bed tem p erature and m i ni m i ze nitrogen oxide (NOx) em issions. BFB technology is preferable to the circulating fluidized be d (CFB) for bioma ss fuels due to its ability to better to ler a te v a riou s f u el type s, as well as larger var i ations in both f u el

6m i xture density and m o isture content. BFBs have the advantage of reduced air em issions due to a m o re stringently controlled te m p erature in the com b ustion pro c es s.

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 (P RV) stati on which would reduce the pressure to 385 psi. The 385 psi steam would be distri buted to the existing system via the interconnection to the existing steam header lo cated just across an ex isting road from the new plant.

Each boiler would include a flue gas handling system , which would consist of an induced draft (ID) f a n to pull the boiler flue ga s through the econom i zer , and then through a multiple con e dust collector. The ID fan w ould exhaust in to a fabric filter baghouse and then to an integral exhaust stack. The ba ghouse would capture pa rticulate m a tter from the flue gas with rem oval efficien cies of 99.9 + percen t. Because o f the lower bed
tem p erature of a BFB, a baghouse would be used instead of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The baghouse would be m o re effec tive in capturing sulfur and m e rcury

com ponents and has m i nim a l energy requirem e nts com p ared 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 th e com bustion system using selective non-catalytic reduc tion (SNCR) technology to redu ce nitrogen oxides. Urea would be injected into the furnace typically abo v e the over-fire air ports, reacting with the oxides to for m innocuous nitrogen and hydrogen.

Cooling process water for the facility would be drawn from the Savannah River. New more efficient pum ps would be installed in the 681-3G Pumphouse to provide the water to the biom ass cogeneration facility. A ne w pipeline w ould be ins t alled f r om the proposed facility site to the nearest wate r m a in pum p hous e in C-Area, a distance of approxim a tely 1.5 m iles. Of this distan ce, the pipeline would foll ow an existing right-of-way (ROW ) for a m ile and would then branch off for 0.5 m iles through forested land. Industrial wastewater from the facility would be discharged via a discharge system to Upper Three Runs (UTR). The ash a nd other waste generated during facility operations would be disposed of at th e nearby perm itted Three Rivers Regiona l Municip a l Solid W a ste Landf ill (TRL). A new electrica l f eeder 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 num ber of 200 construction w o rkers would be required during the construction period. The f acility would be online near the end of 2010, and would operate 24 hours per day for an initial term of 21 years, though the servic eable lif e of the f acility would be over 30 years. A pproxim a tely 20 em ployees would be required for operation of the facility.

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

ECM 2 would consist of two new biom ass heat ing plants; one would service K-Area and the other would service L-Area. Th e new K-Area plant wo uld be adjacent to th e ex isting oil-f i red ste a m plant within the f e n ced area. T h e L-Area plant would be located on the footprint of Building 183-4L which was removed during site decomm issioning and dem o lition. Both plants would cons ist of a com bustion and steam system. The stea m plants would each be capable of produci ng 10,500 pph of st eam

. Additionally, both th e K and L-Area biom ass heating plants would only burn clean biom ass and no BDF. The biom ass fue l (wood m a terials) would be stored at th e fuel y a rd ad jacen t to the p r op osed cogeneration facility (E CM 1), and would be trucked to the K and L-Area plants up to a

m a xi m u m 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 m e tering bin for each steam plant.

Each of the new plants would be installed in a new enclosed m e tal building with an adjacen t co vered shelter to house the fuel sto r age and d e livery equipm ent. A fire suppression system would be part of each of the fuel storag e areas. The to tal footp r in t of construction would be 3 acres for each plant, f o r a tota l of 6 acres. The to tal cons tru c tion period for both plants would be approxim a tely 18 m onths. Once operational, both plants would only produce steam , and would distri bute the p r oduced s t e a m within their respective s e rvice 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 h a ve less than 1 400 gallon s a day of steam blow down water at peak per plant. T h is water w ould drain to the ex is tin g sanitary se wer system in K-Area an d to
perm itted ou tf all L-07 in L-Area.

Each of the two biom ass plants would use up to 2,500 tons per year of biom ass (5,000 tons total for both plants). The plants are scheduled to operate during the colder m o nths of Nove m b e r through A p ril. Each of the plan ts would also be equipped with fuel oil burners for fuel oil com b ustion during system startup and backup. Up to about 5 percent of the plants’ total fuel input could be fuel oil. B o iler feed water would be supplied from the r i ver water system in L-Area and f r om the well water sy ste m in K-Area.

During the evalua tion o f water sources f o r the K and L plants, dom estic wate r, well water, river water sources, a nd 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 co ndensat e as a water source is not a v i able altern a tive. Based on the location of the K-Area st eam plant near the well wa ter and the condition of the process wells in K-Area, well water was determined to be the m o st reliable sourc e f o r steam plant feedwater. The river water sys t em is not located near the new plant and was not considered to be cost eff ective as a steam plan t feedwater s ource. In L-Area, the riv e r water sys t em would be used becau se it is lo cated in clos e proxim ity to the new bio m ass heating plant and the condition of th e process w a ter we lls is sim ilar to the K-Area wells. Dom e stic water was also con s id ered bu t th e 4-in ch w a ter line th at feeds L

- Area origin ates f r o m K-Area and is inade quate to supply both the dom e stic water needs of L-Area facilities and th e ne w biom as s heating plant.

82.2 Alternativ e 2: No Actio n Alternative

Under the N o Action Alternative, DOE would c ontinue to o p erate th e coal-fired D-Area powerhouse, which produces bot h steam and electricity for onsite consumption, and the oil-fired K-Area steam plant, which produces o n ly steam . These facilities are past their design life and are in need of significant m odi fications and upgrades to bring them into

com p liance with curr ent environm ental standards and perm itting requir e ments.

The existing D-Area powerhouse currently burns alm o st 160,000 tons of coal annually and would continue to use coal at a sim ilar rate under the N o Action Alternative. In FY 2007, 6,569 truckloads of coal w e re deliver ed to the D-Area powerhouse, totaling 153,954 tons of coal. On average, 26 truckloa ds were delivered to the site each day and the average weight of coal deli vered per truckload was 23.4 tons.

The D-Area powerhouse is close to the Savanna h River and is located several m iles fro m its end users (F, H, and S-Areas) and m u st distribute steam through a large distribution pipeline to these areas, losing valuable energy in the process. In addition to steam , the powerhouse also produces approxim a tely 20 M W of electricity on average that is

consum ed by DOE facilities onsite. Electric ity output is based on the quantity of excess
steam available after the steam load requirem e nts are m e t.

The D-Area powerhouse withdraws an average of 50 m illion gallons of water per day f r om the Savannah Rive r. W a ter th at is used f o r ste a m plant f eedwater is trea ted a t the 483-D water plant. Untreated raw water, wh ich is used for condenser cooling passes directly through the condenser, is discharged directly through th e powerhouse’s outf a ll. The prim ary National Pollutan t Discharg e Elim ination System (NPDES) perm itted outfall for the facility, D-01, discharges an average of 40.2 million gallons /day. Discharge lim its are in effect for temperatu r e, temperature difference between river water intake and discharg e, r e sidua l chlorine, pH, tota l suspen ded solids, oil/g rease, and

m a nganese.

The D-Area powerhouse em ploys 60 people and is operated by a contractor. The existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant is m a intained by SRS personnel, but no e m ployees are
perm anently 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 m ile pipeline delivers
steam to the L-Area from K-Area. The steam that travels in this distribution pipeline also loses v a luab le en ergy b e fore reaching L-Area. The sou r ce for process water for the K-Area plant would continue to be fro m the well water sys t e m in K-Area.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

9The Council on Environm ental Quality (CEQ ) regulations for i m plem enting Na tional Environm ental Policy Act (NEPA) require th at Federal agencies explo r e and objectively evaluate all reason able alternatives to a proposed action and to briefly discuss the rationale f o r elim inatin g any alte r n ative s that are not co nsidered in detail. For this projec t, two alte rnative location s wer e consid ered for the biom ass cogeneration plant, but were dism issed from further analysis. Th es e alternatives are d e scribed below and represent the full range of alternatives considered for this action.

2.3.1 Alternativ e Site 1

Alternative Site 1 is in clos e proxim ity to the m a in steam header, SC Highway 125, and a 115 kilovolts (kV) electrical system . Drawback s to this location incl ude the distance of the site from the F-Area production wells and the Central Sanitary W a stewater Treatm ent Facility (CS W TF). The m a jor drawback to this site is the di stance to the 200-Area end-users (S RNL 2007). This site is the closes t of the considered lo cations to the existing powerhouse site. Therefore, com p ared to the other locations, m o re steam line would have to stay in se rvic e if this s ite w a s us ed. The cost of operati ng and m a intaining this additional line would be considerable. Th e energy loss from transporting the steam across this distance is also considerable (AFS 2007; SRNL 2007). To com p ensa te for this energy loss, m o re fuel would be needed (AFS 2007). For these reasons, Alternative Site 1 was dism issed from further evaluation.

2.3.2 Alternativ e Site 2

Alternative Site 2 is close to the 200-Ar ea end-users and groundwater production wells. However, it is far from the highway, CSWTF, and the steam m a in (SRNL 2007). Because of the distance from a m a i n SRS t horoughfare, th is site location would create access d i fficulties for co nstruction activ ities and fu el deliv ery. Further, the site is in close proxim ity to a rem e diated nuclear waste ope rations site (AFS 2007). However, the key drawback of this site is that it is in cl ose prox im ity to the H- Area m e teorologica l tow e r and therefo r e would in terfere with the to wer’s operation (SRNL 2007). For these reasons, Alternative Site 2 was di sm i ssed from further evaluation.

2.3.3 Other Alternatives

DOE also considered alternatives related to water sources, the di scharge of industrial effluent, and the cooling of process water, bu t did not ev aluate th em in this EA. The biom ass cogeneration facility would require process water for steam and cooling tower

m a keup and for backwash and reg e neration cycles asso ciated with the plant’s water
treatm ent system . Expe cted water flow de m a nd could peak at 2,000 gallons per m i nute. Alterna tive sources of process wate r identif ied 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 dom e stic water system . DOE determ ined that the CSW T F wa s not a viable water so urce b ecaus e the volum e of t r eated effluent would not be suffi cient to m eet facility needs. Although the site’s groun dwater reso urce could easil y acco mmodate projected water dem a nd, DOE

10determ ined the use of existing or new production wells would not be cost effective. From this ana l ysis , DOE has determ ined the SRS dom e stic wate r system has suff icient capa c ity to support the proposed action, but its use for this purpose would not be econom ical. The biom ass cogeneration facility would draw its water f r om the existing r i v e r wate r sys t em

. If, at som e point in the future, the river water system is no longer available due to insufficient river flows, the above w a ter so urce alternatives woul d be reconsidered.

A potential alternative to disc harging industrial effluent (s team and cooling tower blow down) to U T R is to discharge this waste st re a m to CSW T F. DOE determ ined th at the site’s wastewater treatm e nt f acility could not accomm odate the increased inflow, and this option was not considered in the E A . The us e of air-cooled condenser s as an alternative to the construction and operation of cooli ng towers was also identified. However, air-cooled condensers are space and energy inte n s ive, and would not function effectiv ely during the hot and hum i d su mme r period. Therefore, DOE did not evaluate this alternative m e thod for c ooling process water in this EA.

3.0 AFFE CTE D ENVIRONMENT

SRS occupies approximately 300 square m ile s of land adjacent to the Savannah River, prim arily in Aiken and Barnwell Cou n ties in S outh Carolina. It is located approxim a tely 25 m iles southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 20 m iles south of Aiken, in west-central South Carolina (Figure 1-1). SRS was establ ished in the early 1950s by the U.S. Atom i c Energy Comm ission, DOE’s predeces s or agency. Until the early 1990s, the prim ary SRS

m i ssion was the production of special radioact ive isotopes to s upport national defense
program s. More recently, the SRS m i ssion ha s evolved into nuclear m a terial leg acy

m a nage m e nt , waste m a nagem e nt, environm enta l restoration, and decontam ination and decomm issioning of fa cilities that are no l onger needed f o r SRS’s traditional defense activities (DOE 2002). SRS continues to s upport the nuclear wea pons stockpile through its tritium missions.

3.1 Soils and Physiography

SRS is located on the Aiken Plateau of th e Atlantic Coastal Pl ain, approxim a tely 100

m iles west of the Atlantic Ocean. Approxim a te ly 25 m iles north of SRS is the Fall L i ne, the geographical separation between Piedm ont and the Coastal Plain. Northwest o f the Piedm ont are the Appalachian Mountains. Th e physiography of SRS is com p rised of two

m a jor physiographic components: the Aiken Plateau and the alluvial terraces of the Savannah River. The Aiken Plateau is a di ssected, sandy plain si tu ated between the Savannah and Congaree Rivers on the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Its sandy sedim e nts dom inate the S R S landscap e and range in elevation from 250 to 400 feet above m ean sea level. The alluvial terraces of the Savannah River occur below 250 feet m ean s ea level. Seve n soil associations are repres ented with SRS (Rogers 1990). Generally, sandy soils occupy the uplands and ridges and are less fertile th an the loam y-clayey soils of th e stream terraces and flo odplains (Rogers 1990)

113.1.1 Proposed Biomass Cogeneration F a cility Site

The biom ass cogeneration facility site encom p a sses a variety of soil t ypes. These include the Blanton, Troup, Udorthents, Ailey, Dothan , Norfolk, a nd Vaucluse – Ailey Se ries. Blanton and Troup soils are well-drained sandy loam s for m ed in m a rine and wind deposits along the Coastal Plain. They are highly perm eable and found on slopes ranging from 0-45 percen t. Dothan soils are deeply form ed, well-drained a nd slowly perm eable. They are also form ed from m a rine deposit s along the Coastal Pl ain on slopes ranging from 0-12 percent. The Norfolk soil series consist of loam y sands that are m oderatel y perm eable and considered to ha ve n e glig ible to m e dium leve ls of surface runoff. Slopes range from 0-10 percent. Ailey and Vauclu se – Ailey soils are well drained clayey loam s. They are typically located o n slopes between 6-15 percent and considered to have a high to very high surface runoff potential, be well-drained and have slow per m eability

. Udorthents are soils that have been excav ated, disturbed and c onstructed upon (Rogers 1990).

3.1.2 K and L-Areas

Soils at K and L-Areas are pre dom inately classified as Udorth ents and urban land due to the developed nature of the area. Since thes e proposed sites are within developed areas, no further soil descrip tions are necessary.

3.2 Water Reso urces

3.2.1 Surface Wa ter

3.2.1.1 Savannah River

The Savannah River flows through the Southeastern U.S., form ing the border betw een South Carolina and Georgia. It is a pproxim a tely 350 m iles long with two m a jor tributaries, the Tugaloo and the Chattooga Rive rs. The river begins in Lake Hartwell and flows as freshwater un til it reaches the City of Savannah, wh ere it be gins to b e tidally influenced, and widens into an estuary before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The Savannah River form s the southern border of SRS.

Total f l ows of the r i ver near the p r o j ect si te ran g e f r om 1.8 m illion ga llons per m i nute (gpm ) to 4.5 m illion gpm ; with averages of approxim a tely 3.8 m illion gpm ( U SGS 2008). Water is withdrawn from the Savannah Rive r at the 681-5G Pum phouse for dedicated use at the D-Ar ea powerho use with in SRS at an average ra te of 50 m illio n gallons pe r day (m gd). In 2006, water withdrawals for use at the powerhouse ranged from 24,000 gpm (34.5 m gd) (Novem b er) to 41,000 gpm (59 m g d) (August). Process water is discharged back into the river at an average rate of 28,000 gpm

. Di scharge lim its are in effect for
tem p erature, tem p erature difference between river water intake and discharge, residual chlor i ne, pH, tota l suspe nded solids, oil/g reas e, a nd m a nganese.

12Savannah River water for the new biom ass cogeneration facility would be supplied from the 681-3G Pum phouse. The 681-3G Pum phouse currently supplies sm all quantities of river water to the River Water System that r uns throughout S R S to m a intain the level of L Lake. New m o re efficient pum ps would be installed in the pum phous e to provide the water to the biom ass fa cility. 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 m o st prom inent natural surface water fe atures n ear the project site are UTR and Fourm ile Branch (FMB) tr ibuta r ies to the Sava n n ah River. Both of thes e stream s flow past the proposed biomass cogeneration facilit y site to the Savannah River. UTR, which is the larg est stream on SRS discharging into the Savannah River, is the only SRS stream that has its headwaters located outside of SR S. Average flow rates in th ese two stream s range from 50,664.7 gpm to 109,848.2 gpm (FMB a nd UTR, respectively) (DOE 2002). Surface drainage from the proposed biom ass cogeneration plant site is to the UTR watershed.

The South Carolina D e partm e nt of Health and Environm ental Control (SCDHEC) regulates the physical properties and concentrat ions of pollutant constituents in effluents and receiving surface waters at S R S via the NPDES program . In the pa st, th e concentrations of selected pollutant constituen ts (e.g., iron and pH) in both UTR and FMB have exceeded applicable water qualit y criteria on rare occasions. These exceedances, however, were natu rally occurrin g (e.g., h i g h m e tals co ntent in so ils or natural biological processes) and not attributable to s ite-related activit ies (DOE 2007).

K and L-Areas

K and L-Ar eas are located near the center of SRS. Surface water from these areas drains to the Savan n ah River. L Lake is a 1000- acre man-m a de surface water impoundm e nt. In the past decade, several of the contam in ants lis ted abo v e have ex ceeded USEPA benchm ark criteria in storm w ater outfalls to b o th Pen Branch and Steel Creek water bodies. Specifically, selected stormwater out falls to these two tributaries have had elevated levels of cadmium , copper, m a nga nese, iron, and zinc (DOE 2007). SRS has im ple m ented contro l m easures to m itigate id entified sou r ces of nonpoint pollution within these drainage areas.

3.2.2 Groundw at er

Groundwater beneath S R S is found in the Flor idan Aquifer System . Groundwater within this aquifer typically travels south toward the Savannah River. The Savannah River and other surface water bod ies within SRS are al l considered to be “gaining streams” or stream s that receive groundwater discharge. The flow of groundwater within the proposed project area is typically ho rizon t al, bu t m a y occasionally flow vertically du e to changes in hydraulic pressure and discharge.

13A lim ited review of groundwater data from a well located north of the proposed project area (FGW

- 012D) indicates the presence of no contam inants above applicable m a ximum
contam inant levels (Sentelle 2007). South of F and E-Areas , and directly east of the proposed biom ass facility site, is a known contam inated groundwater plum e located approxim a tely 60 feet below grade. Sin ce it can be assum e d that groundwater is discharging to surface wate r, this plum e is reaching the FMB tributary (SRNL 2007; DOE 2007). Production wells would not be cons idered a viable water source for the biom ass cogeneration facility. The preferre d water source for the biomass cogeneration f

acility and the L-Are a 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 o r shr ub lands and em ergent wetlands in the imm e diate 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 ar e not located within the 100 -year floodplain (DOE 2007). Although the proposed biom ass cogeneration faci lity would have a discharge pipe to UTR which would cross floodplain and wetla nds, this structure would not impact floodplain hydrology or asso ciated w e tland resources (AFC 2008, Appendix A).

3.3 Air Quality

Air quality is described by the concentrati on of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The significan ce of a pollutan t con cen tra t ion is de term ined by com p aring the c oncentr ation in the atm o sphere to applicable na tion a l or St ate am bient air quality standards. Th ese standard s represent the m a xi m u m allowable a tmospheric concentrations that m a y occur and still protect public health and welfar e with a reasonable margin of safety.

The U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA) regula t es air pollu tants for wh ich standards for safe levels of exposure have been set via the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA): ozone (O 3 ), carbon m o noxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N O 2 ), particu l ate m a tter (PM), particulate m a tter 10 microns (PM 10 ) or less, particulate m a tter 2.5 m i crons (PM 2. 5 ) or less, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and lead (Pb). Thes e 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 Am endm ent s of 1990. These substances in clud e hazardou s air po llu tan t s (HAPs), and toxic air pollutants such as m e tals, nitr ogen oxides, and volatile organic com pounds (VOCs).

For each criteria pollu tant, the m a xi mum con centration abo v e which adverse effects on hum a n health m a y occur is called a Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (See Table 3-1). Currently bo th Aiken and Barnwell Countie s in South Carolina, w h ere SRS is loca ted, are in attainm e nt f o r all cr ite ria pollutants (i.e., pollutant concentrations are below NAAQS thresholds) (USEPA 2007a). However, PM 2. 5, PM 10 and O 3 are

14discussed b e low because of the possibility th at th e Central Savannah River Area could be declared nonattainm e nt for these criteria pollutants (see nonattainm e nt discussion at section 4.3.1.3).

3.3.1 Criter ia Pollutants

3.3.1.1

3.3.1.2 Particula t e Matter (P M)

PM is a m i xture of sm all solid and liquid part icles that are suspended in the atm o sphere. Sm oke and fly ash contain PM in a wide range of sizes, fr om 0.05 to 200 m i crometer (μm ) in dia m eter. As a basis of comparis on, the width of a hum a n hair ranges between 20 and 100 μm . PM is released through factory and utility sm okestacks, vehicle exhaust, wood burning, construction activity, agriculture, and natural sources like volcanoes. PM also can form in the atmosphere when oxidized sulfur or nitrogen re acts to form aerosol particles. S u ch aerosols are called secondary fine particles, adding to P M levels in the
atm o sphere (USEPA 2007e). PM is regu lated based on its size, with PM 2. 5 regulated
separa tely f r o m PM 10 . PM 2. 5 particles, which can be carried much farther and higher than large r par tic les (like P M 10 ), a r e more lik ely to carry he avy m e tals and cancer-causing organic com pounds into the alveoli, the deepes t and m o st susceptible part of the lungs, and thus are m o re string ently regu lated (Dav is and Cornwell 1998). In addition to b e ing regulated through particle size, PM is also sa m p led as total PM (the sum of various-sized particle s).

Oz one (O 3 )

O 3 is a gas com posed of three oxygen atom s. It i s not usually em itted directly in to the air, but at ground-level is creat ed by a chem ical reaction between oxides of nitrogen ( NOx ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. O 3 has the same chem ical structure whether it occurs m iles above the earth or at ground-level and can be "good" or "bad," depending on its location in the atm o sphere. In the earth' s lower
atm o sphere, ground-level O 3 is con s idered "bad ." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial

em issions, gasolin e vapors, and chem ical solvents as well as natural s ources em it NOx and VOC t h at help form O 3 . Ground-level O 3 is the prim ary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O 3 to f o rm in harmf u l concentr ation s in the air. As a re sult, it is kn own as a summertim e air pollutant. Breathing O 3 can trigg e r a variety of health problem s including ch est pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, e m physe m a , and asthm a . Ground-level O 3 also can reduce lung function and inflam e the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure m a y perm anently scar lung tissue.

15Table 3-1. National A m bient Air Quality Stan dards

Source: USEPA 2007b Pollutant Primary Standards Averaging Times Oz one 0.08 parts
per m illion (ppm ) 8-hour

9 ppm (10 mg/ m 3 ) 8-hour Carbon Monoxide

3 5 p p m (40 m g / m 3 ) 1-hour

Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m 3 ) Annual (Arithm e tic Mean) Total PM 75 μg/m 3 Annual (Geom e tric Mean)

50 μg/m 3 A n n u a l ( M e a n ) Particula t e Matter ( PM 10 ) 150 μg/m 3 2 4

- h o u r 15.0 μg/m 3 A n n u a l ( M e a n ) Particula t e Matter ( PM 2. 5 ) 35 μg/m 3 2 4

- h o u r 0.03 ppm Annual (Mean) 0.14 ppm 24-hour Sulfur Oxid es

------- 3-hour Lead 1.5 μg/m 3 Q u a r t e r l y Average

3.3.2 Class I and II Areas

Federal Ma ndatory Cla ss I Are a s, a s def i ned in the CAA, are the f o llo wing that w e re in existence as of August 7, 1977: national pa rks over 6,000 acres ( 2,428 ha), national wilderness areas and national m e morial parks over 5,000 acr es (2,023 ha), and international parks. There are no Class I Areas near the proposed project site. The closes t Cla s s I are a s a r e the Cape R o m a in W ilderness Area in Sou t h C a rolina, and the Cohotta, Okefenokee, and W o lf Island W ilderness Areas in G e orgia (USEPA 2007c).

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

som e what less stringent protec tion from air pollution dam a ge than a Class I area, except in specified cases (NPS 2005). The closest C l ass II areas include the Congaree S w a m p National Park and the Ninety Six National Historic Site in South Carolina and the Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area and Ocm u l g ee National Monum ent in Georgia (NP S 2006; USEPA 2007c).

3.3.3 Current Emiss i ons

The current D-Area powerhouse burns prim arily coal, and som e fuel oil and propane, while th e K-Area s t eam plant uses f u el oil. Tab l e 3-2 belo w summ arizes air em issions from the current operations of the D-Area powerhouse and K- Area plant. SRS operates via two Title V Major Source Perm its issued by the South Carolina Departm e nt of Health and Enviro nm ental Control Burea u of Air Quality (S CDHEC BAQ): Perm it No. TV-0080-0041 which applies to the m a jority of SRS including K and L-Areas, and Perm it No. TV-0080-0044 which ap plies to th e D-Area Powerhouse facility. A Title V Major Sourc e Perm it is granted to a f

acility tha t has the po tentia l to em it m o re than 100 tons per year (tpy) of any of the six criteria pollutants, or more than 10 tpy of any single HAP or m o r e than 25 tpy of any combina tion of HAPs. The D-Area powerhouse and KArea plant currently and historically have b een in f u ll com p liance with their air quality operating perm its and have had no reported violations. The current site permi t for t h e K-Area plant is valid through March 2008. However, SCDHEC will not renew this
perm it until later in 2008 when the new replac em ent source of steam for A-Area (D OE 2006b), which is currently under construction, com e s online. The renewal application was subm itted to SCDHEC on Se ptem ber 18, 2007. The D-Area Title V perm it was reissued by SCDHEC effective July 1, 2007 through January 12, 2012.

W i nd directions at SRS are v a riable, and th ere is no p r eva iling wind a t the site (D OE 2002). According to data collected in the 1990’s, winds are m o st frequently from t h e southwest (9.7 percent of the tim e). Gene rally, atm o spheric conditions at SR S are catego r ized as unstab l e (56 percent of tim e) . The average wind speed for a m easured 5-year period was 8.5 m iles per hour (DOE 2002).

17Table 3-2. Current Actual Em issions

Source: SRS 2006 Pollutant Emissions (tpy)

D

- A r e a K

- A r e a
Total PM 4 9 5

. 1 6 0

. 6 2

PM 10 4 2 9

. 5 2 0

. 1 9

PM 2. 5 3 4 5

. 8 7 0

. 0 5

SO 2 5 0 7 6

. 5 9 1 3

. 3 3

Sulfuric Acid 5 7

. 2 7 0

. 6 6
CO 4 8

. 1 7 0

. 9 4

NO x 2 9 4 8

. 4 1 4

. 5 1

VOC 3

. 9 2 0

. 0 4 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 1 4

. 2 5 0

. 0 0 Lead (Pb) 0

. 0 2 0

. 0 0

3.4 Biologica l Resources

3.4.1 Vegetation

SRS contains over 1,300 plant spec ies that live within a variet y of habitat types (W ike et al. 2006). The two most prom inent habita t types found within the proposed biom ass cogenera tio n f acility site as well a s K and L-Areas are d e veloped la nds and f o reste d lands. Both K and L- Areas are developed, while the proposed biomass cogeneration f

acility site is curren tly u ndeveloped with so m e existing d i r t r o ads. Land within SRS tha t has been developed typi cally still ha s som e vegetative cov e r such as grasses and scrubshrub vegetation.

The proposed biom ass cogeneratio n facility site has no mature trees and consists of a very early successional pine environm ent, perhap s as a result of a relativ ely recen t fire or selective site clearing. Dom i nant species in m a ture pine forest s of this kind in this region include longleaf ( Pinus palustris ) and loblolly pines ( P. taeda ) as th e m a jor tree sp ecies. Other tree s p ecies inclu d e oak ( Quercus spp.), cherry ( Prunus spp.), and persim mon ( Diospyros spp.). The understory regions are typical ly sparse in older forests and in newer forests, the understory regions are filled with dense blackberry ( Rubus spp.),

18fennel ( Eup a torium cap illifo lium ), and sedge ( Andropogon virginicus ) (W ike et al. 2006). Inform ation 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 m a mmals (W ike et al. 2006). Rept iles and amphibians thri ve in this region’s
tem p erate, moist clim ate and are comm onl y found throughout the m a rsh and wetland areas on a year-round basis. Birds at SRS are m i gratory, seasonal, and perm anent residen t s. White-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) and feral pigs ( Sus spp.) are common, and foxes ( Vulpes vu lp es and Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), coyotes ( Canis latrans ), and bobcats ( Lynx rufus ) have been observed at SRS as well (W ike et al. 2006).

The m a ture forests and m a rshy areas on either side of the proposed biom ass cogeneration f

acility site are pr esum ed to provid e habita t for a wide variety of wildlife. Previously developed areas such as K a nd L-Areas would have substa n t ially less wildlif e vis its.

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

SRS is ho m e to seve ral spec ies of both plants and anim als that are Federally or State-listed as threatened or end a ngered. These in clu d e: the pu rple coneflower ( Echinacea laevigata ), pondberry ( Lindera melissifolia ), red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoid es borealis ), wood stork ( Mycter ia americana ), short-nosed sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostru m ), the American swallow-tailed kite ( Elano ide s forficatu s ), gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus ), southeastern m yotis ( Myotis austroriparius ), star-nosed mole ( Condylura cristata ), and the big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii ingens and C. t. virginianus ) (W ike et al. 2006). W h ile habitat for se veral of these species is widespread on the Site, surveys have revealed that there are no threatened or endangered plant or anim al species within th e proposed biom ass facility s ite (SRNL 2007). The develop e d K and L-Areas do not provide appropriate habita t f o r the th reatened or end a ngered species that m a y occur on SRS.

3.5 Infrastruc ture

3.5.1 Waste Man agement

Most m unicipal, comm e r cial, and industrial solid waste, including construction debris, generated w ithin SRS is dispos ed of onsite in the Three R i vers Regional Municipal S o lid Waste Land fill (TRL). The TRL is located onsite on SC Highway 125. TRL is perm itted via Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation an d Recovery Act and is c o m p liant with the South Carolina Solid Waste Policy and Ma nagem e nt Act (Haskins 2008; LSCOG 2008). The landfill currently receive s approxim a tely 115,000 tons of refuse annually, or about 315 tons per day and has extensive capacity rem a ining (USEPA 2006). TRL would be used by the project for disposal of cons truction/operation-gene rated solid waste.

19There are tw o other sm aller p r iv ate landfills in Aiken County. Both are C l ass IV land fills that a r e ab le to re ceiv e m i xed construc tion a nd dem o lition waste. These lan d f ills prim arily se rve th e land f ill owners, both of whom are in the constru c tio n business, but occasion a lly take waste from outside partie s (DOE 2002). No hazardous waste would be generated by the proposed action.

3.5.2 Utilitie s

3.5.2.1

3.5.2.2 Energy Distribution and Use

The electrical distribution system at SRS suppl ies power to facilities specializing in the stabiliz ation of nucle ar m a terials f o r long -te r m storage or disposal. Po wer is also being supplied to f acilities un der going decomm issioning and deactiv ation onsite. Many of these facilities m a y contain hazardous wa ste requiring disposition, before full decomm issioning. To distribute the electrical power across S R S, th ere are approxim a t ely 114 m iles of 13.8 kV overhead lines and 18 m iles of underground distribution cable (SRS 2005b).

Steam is cur r ently gene r a ted and dis t ribu ted f r o m f

acilities in A, D, an d K-Areas with a facility in H-Area now in standby condition. Th e A-Area replacem ent steam facility was the subject of an EA in 2006. It is currently under cons truction and w ould replace the over capacity and outdated old A-Area steam plant (DOE 2006b). The steam generated at SRS is used directly in power generati on, processing nuclear m a terial, m oving liquid waste, operating evaporators in F and H-Areas, H-Canyon, and the Tank Farm , and
excess ste a m is distr i bu ted to a r ea b u ildings for use in heatin g system s. The D-Area coal fired steam generation plant would be decomm is sioned if DOE im ple m ents the proposed action (SRS 2005b). All steam and power ge nerated at SRS is consum ed onsite.

Water Distribution and Use

The River Process W a ter System is used to take water from the Savannah River and deliver it to facilities throughout SRS for use as cooling water. W ith m i nor exceptions, the basic components of the cooling water sy stem have re mained unchanged since their original installation in the 1950’s. The river water system originally consisted of a 50-m ile-long distribution network w ith 46-inch to 84-inch diam eter pipe and three pump stations. Of the thr ee o r igina l pum p sta tions

, tw o are still in opera tion and one is used prim arily for pum ping water from the Savannah River to m a intain the level of L Lake and, in tim es of drought, Par Pond; the other pum p station s upplies the D-Area Powerhouse.

Dom e stic water is drawn from 20-inch diam eter production wells using vertical turbine
pum p s that are installed in the aquifer a pproxim a tely 700 feet below the surface. The dom e stic water distribution system s have approxim a tely 32 m iles of intra-area distribution piping and 26 m iles of inter-are a distribution piping with five elevated storage tank s. The domestic water s y stem pr oduces and distributes al l do m e stic wate r to SRS in complianc e with State and Federal re gulations, for use in bathroom s and other

20dom e stic w a ter uses. W a ter quality is gov erned by the Secondary W a ter Qu ality Standards, such as taste, odor, or appearance . Most of the dom e stic water produced is used directly by the SRS workforce population; however, som e dom e stic water is used for equipm e n t cooling, fire protection water, and as m a ke up water to cooling towers (SRS 2005b).

The sanitary wastewater system s provide for th e collection, treatm ent, and discharge of sanitary wastewater effluent within NPDES out fall lim its for the SRS population. The sanitary sew e r facilities include a cen tral trea tm ent plant, f i ve sm aller trea tm ent plants, 58

m iles of se wer pipe and 44 lift stations. Ninety-s ix per cent of the SRS sanitary
wastewate r is tre a ted at the CSW T F. Th e rem a ining 4 percen t of the SRS sanita ry wastewater is generated and trea ted at sm aller, independent, tr eatm ent facilities lo cated at SRS (SRS 2005b).

Boiler feedwater is used to supply the boiler with wa ter for steam production. The feedwater s y stem is als o used to p r essurize and deliver dea e rated steam plant feedw a ter f r om the deaerato r and desuperhe a te r to the stea m plants. Existing s t ea m plant f e edwater services are found in K and D-Areas, for use wi th the existing steam plants. The sources and volum es of water used are discussed in Section 3.2.

3.5.3 Traffic

Four prim ary roads pro v ide offsite access to S R S. They a r e SC Highway 125, the m a in

access rou t e from the Augusta/North Augusta /Allendale region; SC Highway 19, which provides access from the Aiken/New Ellent on region; SC Highway 39, which provides access from the W illis ton region ; and SC Highway 64, which provid e s access from the Barnwell region. More than 130 m iles of prim ary roads, 1,100 m iles of secondary roads, and 33 m iles of railroads crisscross SRS, and approxim a tely 20,000 vehicle trips a day occur on these SRS roadways with people commuting to and from work as well as traveling am ong SRS sites to perform task s (DOE 2005b). The prim ar y 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 onsit e on SRS Road 1-A, SC Highway 19, SC Highway 125, and US Highway 278 at SRS access points (DOE 2002).

The current volum e of traffic is 8 vehicles per hour for the secondary road and 542 vehicles per hour for the prim ary road near th e proposed site for the cogeneration facility. The existing design m a xim u m capacities for these roads are 1,000 a nd 1,500 vehicles per hour, respectively. Thus, these roads are currently operating at 0.8 percent and approxim a tely 36 percent of capaci ty , respec tive l y. The vast m a jority (75 percen t) of the traffic occu rs on thes e s ite roads du ring th e m o rning and evening shift changes (DOE 2004).

3.6 Socioecono mics

21The socioeconom i c region of influence for the proposed action is a six county area around SRS where the m a jority of construc tion and site workers reside and where supporting services and infrastr ucture are found. The six co unties are Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, and Ba m b erg Counties in South Carolina, and Colum b ia and Richmond Counties in Georgia (D OE 2002).

The 2006 population within this six-coun ty area was approxim a tely 503,000. The

m a jority of the SRS worker population reside s within the following counties: Aiken (30 percent), Colum b ia (21 percen t), an d Richm ond (39 percent). The av erage of the s i x counties’ percent growth was approxim a te ly 14.8 percent from 1990 to 2006. Columbia County, and to a lesser extent Aiken County, c ontributed to m o st of t h e growth due to

m i gration from surrounding counties and Stat es. Over the sam e period, Ba m b erg and Barnwell Counties experienced net em igration (S TATS Indiana 2008).

The total civilian labor force for the regi on of influence was approxim a tely 243,000 in 2006 with average unemploym ent rate of appr oxim a tely 8.1 percent. Com p aratively, the

unem p loyment rate was 4.6 percent in both the United States and Georgia, and 6.5
percen t in S outh Caro lina. All cou n ties in the region of influence have unem p loym ent rates greater than both the United S t ates a nd Georgia, except for Columbia County with 4.1 percent. Aiken County had 6.5 percen t of its population unem p loyed, Allendale County had 11.5 percent, Barnwell County ha d 9.9 percent, Ba m b er g County had 10.2 percent, and Richm ond County had 6.2 percent (STATS Indiana 2008).

Total em ploym e nt by sector ranges from a pproxim ately 300 people in m i ning to 56,000 in Government and Governm e nt enterprises. The average p e r cap ita personal income in 2005 was $25,092 for the six counties. For the sam e year, the per cap ita personal incom e was $34,685 for the United States, $28,427 for South Carolina, and $31,088 for Geor gia (STATS Indiana 2008).

SRS currently em ploys approxim a tely 10,000 people (DOE 2007). The existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse em pl oys 60 peopl e. The existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant is not m a nned but m a intained by SRS e m ployees.

3.7 Human He alth, Safety and Environmental Ju stice

Prim ary concerns to hu m a n health within SR S include exp o sure to air pollution including both sm okestack and radiological em issions . As discussed in Section 3.3, various

em issions can cause breathing problem s , throat and eye irritation, can cer, birth defects, and dam a ge to imm une , neurological, repr oductive, and respirat ory system s (USEPA, 2007f). National and State am bient air qu ality standards represent the m a xim u m allowable atmospheric c oncentr ation s that m a y occur and s t ill p r ote c t p ublic he alth and welfare with a reasonable m a rgin of safet y. I n addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations sp ecify appropriate protective m easures for all em ployees.

22Radiological exposure can cause a variety of health impacts including cancer (the prim ary health effect), genetic m u tation, bur ns, radiation poisoning or sickness (US E PA 2007g). Natural background radiation can come from cosm ic, terrestrial, and internal body sources. Other common sources of exposur e to radiation includ e m e dical practices, weapons test fallout, consum er and industr ial products (such as cellular phones), and nuclear facilities. Becau se of this, radiological health concer ns m u st be evaluated within the con t ex t of all sources of exposure. Dose s of rad i ation are expr essed as m illirem ; the ef

f

ective do ses which include the dose f r om exis ting interna l leve l and the dose attributable to sources exte rnal to the body (DOE 2002). E xposure to radiation in the SRS area is approxim a tely 357 m i llirem per year. The amount of radiation exposure attributable to SRS is only 0.1 percent of the total annual av erage environm ental radiation dose f o r peo p le with in 5 0 m iles of SRS. Othe r nuclea r f acilities lo cated within 50 m iles of SRS (e.g., Energy Solutions and Plant Vogtle nuclear generating station) are also

m i nor sources of radiati on exposure (DOE 2002).

Executive O r der 12898, Federal Actions to Address Envi ron m ental Justice in Mino r ity Populations and Low Incom e Populations

, requires all Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse hum an health or environmental effects of their program s and policies on m i norities and low-incom e populations and comm unities. The neares t residen tial areas to SRS ha ve significant low-incom e and m i nority populations (DOE 2002).

3.8 Cultural Resources

Through a cooperative agreem ent with DOE , the Savannah River Archaeological Research P r ogram (SRARP) of the South Carolina In stitu te of Archaeolog y and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, provides services required by Federal law for the protection and managem e nt of archaeo lo gical and cu ltural resou r ces on SRS. To facilitate m a nagem e nt of these resources, the SR ARP defined three arch aeological zones for SRS based on an area’s poten tial for contai ning sites of historical or archaeological significance (DOE 1995). Zone 1 represents areas with the greates t potential for having significant resources; Zone 2 possesses areas with m oderate potential; and Zone 3
repres ents areas of low archaeo logical significance.

The proposed project area (Figure 1-2) of a pproxim a tely 165 acres for the construction of a new biomass cogeneration facility and suppor ting infrastructure has been surveyed for prehistoric and historic arch aeological resources. Approxim a tely 30 acres of previously vegeta ted la nd would be cleared in order to con s truc t the biom ass cogeneration f a cility. Five archaeological sites containing histor ic m a terials and six archaeological sites contain i ng prehis toric m a terials h a ve been lo c a ted within the 165 -ac r e s ite use area. Additiona l archaeo logic a l tes ting is curren tly u nderway at these sites to assess their research potential to contri bute to understanding the preh istoric and historic period occupation on SRS. The proposed discharge pipeline ROW, water intake pipeline ROW

, as well as overhead transm ission line ROW would be reviewed fo r cultu ral res ource s prior to proposed construction. Prior to any activity with pote ntial im pa ct to the sites in these areas, a consultation proc e ss would be in itiated with the South Carolina Historic

23Preserva tion Off i ce to f o rm ally determ ine the National Register o f Historic Place elig ibility o f specific s ites, and to dete rm ine neces sary and approp ria t e m itiga tion

m easures (SRARP 2008).

The proposed construction footprints for the K and L-Area biom ass heating plants w ould be 3 acres each. These proposed plants woul d be constructed in developed areas where surveys for archaeological and cultural re sources have found no such resources.

3.9 Noise

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise can influence hum a ns or wildlife by interf er in g with normal activitie s or dim i nish ing the quality of the environm ent. Noise levels heard by hum ans are dependent on seve ral variables, including distance, ground cover, and objects or barriers between the sour ce and the receiver, as well as atm o spheric conditions. Certain land uses, facilities, and the people associated with th ese noise levels

are m o re se nsitiv e to a given lev e l of noise tha n other us es . Such “sen sitiv e re ceptors” include schools, churches, hospitals, retirem e nt hom e s, campgrounds, wilderness areas, hiking trails, and som e species of threaten ed or endangered wildlife. There are no sensitive receptors within m a ny m iles of the project area.

3.10 Recreation

The project area is con t ained entirely within SR S. Public use of the natural resou r ces at SRS is presently lim ited to controlled hunts and to various scienc e literacy program s

encom p assing elem entary through graduate school levels (DOE 2002). In addition, walking and fitness trails for SRS e m ployees are found in A and B-Areas.

3.11 Land Use

SRS occupies a roughly circul ar area of approxim a tely 300 square m iles (192,000 acres), and contains production, service, and res earch and developm ent areas. The production facilities occupy less than 10 percent of SRS; t h e rem a inder of the site is undeveloped forest or w e tland s. SRS is a large (300 sq u a re m iles) Federal facility available for wildlife m a nagem e nt and resear ch activities (DOE 2002). The proposed action is lim ited to a total footprint of between 40-50 acres of new ground disturba nce, in areas adjacent to existing developm ent. No changes to land use or land use designa tions at SRS would result from i m plem entation of the proposed action.

4.0 ENVI RONMENTAL CONSE Q UENCES OF THE PROPOSE D ACTION AND ALTE RNATIVE S

4.1 Soil and Construction-Related Impacts

4.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

244.1.1.1 Proposed Facility Site

The m a jority of i m pacts to area soils as a result of the i m plem entation of the proposed action would occur during the construction pr ocess. The conversion of previously undeveloped land, originally used as a borrow pit, for the developm ent of the new facility, access road, and pipeline would result in so il disturbance.

Constructio n equipm ent to be used during th e v a rious facets of site dev e lopm ent would include bulldozers, backhoes, earth scrapers , motor graders, heavy haul trucks, large tractors, concrete trucks, asphalt pavers, conc rete pavers, rollers, and com p actors. As with alm o st any construction pr oject involving the use of hea vy equipm e n t, there is som e risk of an acciden t al fu el or chem ical spill, and the potential contam ination of soils. To reduce the potential for soil contam ination, fu els would be stored and m a intained in a designated equipm ent staging area. A person(s) designate d as being responsible for equipm ent fueling would closely monitor th e fueling operation, and an e m ergency spill kit containing absorption pads, absorbent m a te rial, a shovel or rake , and other cleanup item s , woul d readily be availab l e on site in the event of an accidental spill. Follo wing these prec au tions, the po tential f o r a n acc identa l chem ical or fuel sp ill to occur and r e sult in advers e impacts to so ils would be negligible.

The use of construction equipm ent would also physically dist urb soils. Soil disturbance is defined as anything that causes the im pairment of physical, chem ical and biological properties and processes, such as erosion, compaction, displacem ent, rutting, bu rning, loss of organic m a tter, and m a ss movem e nt of s o il (DeLuca 2001; USDA 2005b). Heavy equipm ent results in soil com p action, reduci ng the porosity and conduc tivity of the soil. Such com p action is likely to s lig htly increas e the am ount of surface runoff in the imm e diate area. Stab ilization of th e soils would be required to pr event sedim e nt runoff im pacts to water sou r ces, possib l y degrading water quality. An eros ion/sedim e nt control plan would be developed and im plem ented.

The soils that would be disturbed during th e construction process are typically found on shallow to moderate s l opes, are slo w ly to ra pidly perm eable, and expe r i ence neg lig ible to moderate levels of surface runoff. These qua lities would im pact the am ount and speed of any runoff of disturbed sedim e nt. Any soils that are excavated on s l opes, or are less
perm eable and experience high levels of runo ff are m o re likely to be displaced and to result in sedim e nt running off into surface waters.

NPDES via the Clean W a ter Act lim its the discharge of any pollutant, inc l u d ing sedim e nts, to waters of the United States. The discharge of st ormwater runoff from
construc tion sites is regu lated v i a th e NPDES program

. Typi cally, sedim e nt erosion rates from construction sites are 10 to 20 tim es gr eater than thos e from agricultural lands , and 1,000 to 2,000 tim es greater than those from fo rest lands. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW P PP) would be develope d f o r the s ite, as r e quir e d by the NPDES
perm it. SWPPPs con t ain m easures to reduce soil erosion and prevent pollution fro m petroleum

, oil, lubricants, and other chem icals or hazardous/toxic m a terials at construction sites. Specifical ly, SWPPPs assess the characteri stics of the site such as

25nearby surf ace waters, topography , and storm w ater runof f patterns; identify potential sources of pollutants such as sedim e nt from di sturbed areas, and stor ed wastes or fuels ; and identify best m a nagem e nt practices (BMPs ) which wo ul d be used to m i nim i ze or elim inate th e potential f o r these po llutan ts to reach surface waters th rou gh storm w ater runoff.

Standard construction B M Ps, such as installi ng perim e ter silt fences , spreading straw and mulch to protect exposed ground, covering stoc kpiles of e a rth or soils, and so for t h, would m i ni m i ze runoff, erosion and im pacts to on and offsite soils during construction activ ities. Once the f acility becom e s opera tio nal, storm wa ter from the plant area would continue to be regulated, and the impacts to soils would be m i nim a l. Soils in this area have likely been disturbed and would be cleared of vegetation and turn ed into im pervious surfaces. In addition, th e cons truction of the facility woul d add 30 acres of im pervious surface to the proposed project area. The tran sfor m a tion of vegetated and previo usly unpaved land to i m pervious surfaces would result in soil disturbance, com p action and potentially displacem ent. DOE expects the o v erall im pacts to soils at th e pro posed facility site from both construction and opera tion activities to be long-term and m i nor.

4.1.1.2

4.2.1.1 K and L-Areas

DOE expects that im pacts to soils from the construction of plants at K and L-Areas to be sim ilar to those described above for the pro posed facility site. As these two areas

curren tly h ouse facilities, the lan d and soils are alread y disturbed and com p acted. Additiona l d e m o lition an d construction at these s ites would n o t likely re s u lt in m o re than

m i nor im pacts to so ils. The tota l f ootprin ts for the plants wo uld be 6 acres. DOE expects the overall impacts to soils to be long-term and m i nor.

4.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed biom ass cogeneration facility and s a tellite biom ass heating plants in K and L

- Areas would not be constructed and DOE would expect no impacts to S R S soils.

4.2 Water Quality Impacts

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Proposed Facility Site

4.2.1.1.1 Construction

General construction im pacts associated with the development of the proposed facility site cou l d affect water resources b y increas ed storm w ater runoff from the site carrying sedim e nt and contam ination loads into surfac e water du rin g tim es of heavy rain and by
contam ination from constructi on a c tiv ities inf i ltr ating a r ea soils and percolating d o wn into the groundwater. Increased storm w ater runoff from developed sites leads to

26increased erosion of exposed soils, which leads to increased s iltation in surface waterbodies. The first flush of rains af ter a long dry period would carry pollutants deposited on pavem e nt into soils and water bodies, posing a risk of contam inating water and harm ing aquatic lif e. The incorp oration of mitig ation m easures in to the des i gn ph ase of the project would reduce im pacts to water re so urces be low the leve l of significance. In particular, the wetlands and surface water tri butaries would b e protected to the m a xi mu m extent possible by the implem e nt ation of appropriate BMPs.

The construction phase of the project woul d require coverage vi a t h e NPDES gen e r a l
perm it for stormwater discharge from large c onstruction activities. SCDHEC’s Bureau of W a ter is authorized to issue NPDES perm its in the Sta t e of South Caro lina. Th e c h ief requirem e nts of the NPDES general perm it for large construction site s in South Carolina
are a storm w ater m a nagem e nt and sedim e nt control plan, construc tion Notice of Intent, the creation of a SW PPP, th e im ple m entation of BMPs, a nd a project tim eline (SCDHEC 2006). DOE expects th e overall im pacts to su rface water from the cons truction activities of the proposed facility site to be short-term and m i nor.

Throughout the construction process no excavati ons would occur within the vicinity of the area aq uifer or co ntam inated plum e. Therefore, D O E expects no im pacts 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
perm it application inc l u d ing a p l an to m i nim i ze im pacts to the wetla nds are a f o r

this outf a ll would be subm itted to the U

. S. Arm y Corps of Engineers. The discha rge p i pe would extend into UTR and a Construction in Navigable W a ters Perm it would have to be obtained from SCDHEC. W h en applying for the 404 perm it the navigable waters perm it would be on the joint application for m . A Se ction 401 Water Quality Certification is required along with the Section 404 perm it. Th e Section 401 Certific ation would also be on the joint application form with the 404 perm it application. W ith the implem e ntation of all BMPs to m i nim i ze runoff from th e construction site and m i ni m i ze direct encroachm e nt on the wetlands and their asso ciated floodplains, DOE expects the impacts to wetlands and floodplains to be localized and minor (AFS 2008b).

4.2.1.1.2 Operation

Im pacts to surface water as a result of th e im plem entation o f the proposed action w ould result from water withdrawals for use in the ne w facility and discharg es of process water. Once operational, the ne w f acility w ould be per m itted via SRS’s existin g NPDES perm it for wastewater disch a rg es. DOE expects that the facility would be in f u ll com p liance with this perm it and that c onsequently im pacts to surface water from runoff throughout the life of the project would be negligible.

The new facility would require approxim at ely 600-2,500 gpm of water to be withdrawn from the Savannah River for use as cooling wa ter, fire protection, steam m a keup water, and for water treatm ent equipm ent backwash. DOE expects water use to be closer to 800

27gpm , but c ould reach 2,500 gpm occasionall y, if all interm ittent u s ers are onlin e sim u ltaneously. Currently, SRS use s betw een 24,000 and 41,000 gpm of river water, on average, for operation s of the D-Ar ea plant. The diam eter of the existing water in take structure in the river, w h ich would be used for the proposed action, would m eet current im pinge m e nt velocity requirem e nts via the CWA. DOE expects no m e asurable effects on fish, other aquatic life, or aquatic habitat. The proposed cogeneratio n facility would decrease the am ount of river water curren tly drawn from t h e 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 effo rts to m a nage water usage within the river basin. W h en com p ared to the N o Action Alterna tive, the dec r ea se in th e water withdrawal rate represents a long-te rm, beneficial and m oderate im pact.

Process water, containin g trace am ounts of added chem icals such as am i n es, phosphates, sulf ites and anti-s cale trea tm ent, would be discharg ed f r om the f a cility into U T R, approxim a tely 1 m ile northwest of the plant. The discharge would be added to SRS’s existing NPDES wastewater perm it which allo ws for point source discharge to UTR. This perm it would require regular m on itoring and reporting (SCDHEC 2008). The NPDES perm it application f o r this n e w di scharg e has been s u bm itted to SCDHEC.

No addition a l im pacts to groundwater, wetland s , or floodplains are exp ected du ring th e operations of the proposed facility.

DOE expects that overall operational im pacts to water quality from the implem entation of the proposed action w ould not be long-term and would be negligible to m i nor. In addition, DOE expects the im pacts of the subs tantial decrease in Savannah River water withdrawal rates to be benefi cial, long-term

, and moderate.

4.2.1.2 K and L-Areas

4.2.1.2.1 Construction

DOE expects constru c tion i m pacts to surface water to be sim ilar to those described above. The required NPDES perm its would cover construction activities at K and L-Areas, as well as at the proposed new f acility site. Sim ilar BMPs would be im plem ented to en sure m itigation agains t co n t am inated ru nof f

. DOE expec t s ov erall im pacts to surface water from the constru c tio n activities at K and L-Areas to be short-term and m i nor.

Throughout the construction process, no excavati ons 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 im pacts to either wetlands or floodplains. No construction activities would occur on or within th e vicinity of any wetlands or floodplains. W ith the im ple m entation of BMPs to m i nim i ze runoff fr om the construction si te, the risk of any
contam inated runoff i m pacting wetlands is negligible.

284.2.1.2.2 Operation

Process water used at th e K and L-Area plan ts would be provided by the site well wate r system and Savannah River, re spectively. The s t eam s at th e K and L-Area plants would each have less than 1400 gallons a day of steam blow down water at peak per plan t. T h is water would drain to the exis ting sanitary sewer system in K-Area and discharge to
perm itted ou tf all L

- 07 in L-Area. D O E expect s no surf ace water im pacts, nor im pacts to wetlands or floodplains, as a result of operating the biom ass plants.

4.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action

The current D-Area powerhouse draws an averag e of 50 million gallons per day (m gd) of water from t h e Savannah River. Water that is not converted to steam is then discharged through a N P DES per m itted outfall back into th e river at an averag e rate of 40.2 mgd. This am ount varies seasonally, and in 2006, the gpm withdrawal rate for the plant ranged from a low of 24,000 gpm (34.5 mgd) in N ovember to a high 41,000 gpm (59 m g d) in August. In the worst case scenario (high withdrawals and low-river flows), this withdrawal rate represents alm o st 2.3 percent of the flow in the Savannah River. If the No Action Alterna tive was selec t e d, this im pa ct on Savannah River w a ter flows would continue.

DOE expects no additio nal im pacts to groundwater, wetlan d s , or floodplains, as a result of

the No Action Altern ative.

4.3 Air Quality Impacts

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

4.3.1.1 Construction

A construction perm it, obtained through SCDHE C’s Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ) for

em issions f r om new industrial f acilities, w ould be required before commencem ent of any
construc tion activ ities o n the propo sed f acili ty and plants. This perm it would include coverage for the projected e m issions of the proposed biomass cogeneration facility, as well as the s t eam s at K and L-Areas.

During the actual construction pro c ess, th e equ i pm ent used to construct the proposed f

acility and plants wou l d inte rm ittently em it quantities of five criteria air pollutants: carbon m onoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particula t e m a tte r (PM 10 ), and volatile organic com pounds (VOCs). In addition to tailpipe em issions from heavy equipm ent, ground surface disturbanc e during excavation and grading activities could poten tially gener a te f ugitive du st.
Fugitive du st, such as dirt stirr e d up f r om construc tion sites, c a n af f

ect both environm ental and public health. The type and severity of the effects depend in large part on the size and nature of the dust particles. Th e types of effects th at can occur to hum a ns

29include inhalation of fin e particles that ca n then accum u late in the res p iratory sys t em causing v a rious respiratory p r oblem s in cluding persistent coughs, wheezing, eye irritations, and physical discom fort. Construction personnel would im plem ent appropriate m itigation m easures, such as appl ying water to exposed surfaces or sto c kpiles of dirt, when windy or dry conditions prom ote problem a tic fugitive dust em issions. Adhering to m itigation m easures and BMPs would redu ce the adve rse im pacts f r o m f ugitive dus t em issions. DOE expects th e over a ll im pacts f r om f

ugitive dust em issions would be temporary in durati on and of m i nor intensity.

Exhaust em issions from equipm ent used in c onstruction, coup led with likely fugitive d u st

em issions, could cause m i nor, short-term degr adation of local air quality. DOE expects the overall im pacts to air quality from th e construction of the p r oposed bio m ass cogenera tio n f acility and plants to be short-term and m i nor.

4.3.1.2 Operation

Overall em issions would change with th e sh ift from a coal-f ired power p l ant to a b i o m ass cogeneration facility. DOE e xpects the ov erall em ission leve ls would decrease, but the

em issions of som e criter i a pollu tan t s would in cr ease. SRS curren tly op erates via a Title V-Part 70 Operating Perm it, as discusse d under Section 3.3.4. A new operation perm it would be obtained to include the new e m issions com i ng from the cogeneration plant. DOE and Am eresco Federal Solutions, the proposed plant operato r, would obtain an operating perm it for the new cogeneration facili ty and the plants in K and L-Areas.

Prim ary em i ssions from the new coge neration plant would include PM, SO 2 , CO, NO x , and VOC. Em issions that would be substantia lly decreased include sulfuric acid, HF, and lead. Table 4-1 illu strates the ch an ge in em issions as a res u lt of th e p r oposed action. Note tha t the new f acility would still em it P M , denoted as Tota l P M and PM 10 and although P M 2. 5 is m a rked with “n/a”, PM 2. 5 is still being e m itted in s m all quantities and incorpor ated into Tota l P M em ission values. The curr ent D- Area f acility does no t co llec t PM 2. 5 em ission data.

As m e ntioned above and illustrated in Table 4-1, the m a jority of pollutants that were

em itted during the oper a tion of the coal plan t would decre a se substantially. CO and VOCs – highlighted in red and underlined – are the only two po llu tants that would increase as a result of the im plementati on of the proposed action. The decrease of sulf uric a c id , HF, and le ad is a t tribu t able to th e cessation of coal com bustion a s th ese pollutants are directly as sociated with the bur ning 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 plan ts would decrease the overall air em issions rates for: PM by m o re than 400 tons a year; N O x by m o re than 2,500 tons a year; and SO 2 by m o re than 3,500 tons a year.

Using EPA’s Em ission Factor Database, the re newable fuels used for this project would reduce green house gas (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone) em issions by at least 100,000 tons a year decreasi ng the carbon footprint of SRS.

30Both ECMs would reduce energy consum pti on by elim inating over 6 m iles of stea m distribution lines (3.5 miles for EC M 1 and 2.5 m iles for ECM 2). The reduced steam distribution pipe would decrea se fuel consum ption by at least 10 percent from reduction of

in-line ste a m losses.

Table 4-1. Current and Potential Air Em issions

Pollutant CurrentActual DArea Coal Plant* (tpy) Current

Actual K-Ar ea
Plant* (tpy) Current

Actual Total Max. (tpy) Proposed

Cogeneration Plant (tpy) Proposed Potential

K & L Plants (tpy) Proposed

Potential Action

Total (tpy) Potential Emis sions Change (tpy)

Total PM 4 9 5

. 1 6 0

. 6 2 495.78 4 2

. 4 9 7

. 0 6 4 9

. 5 5

- 4 4 6

. 2 3

PM 10 4 2 9

. 5 2 0

. 1 9 429.71 3 7

. 3 4 7

. 0 6 4 4

. 4 0

- 3 8 5

. 3 1

PM 2. 5 3 4 5

. 8 7 0

. 0 5 345.92 n / a n / a n / a n / a
SO 2 5 0 7 6

. 5 9 1 3

. 3 3 5089.92 4 5

. 9 9 0

. 8 8 4 6

. 8 7

- 5 0 4 3

. 0 5

Sulfuric Acid 5 7

. 2 7 0

. 6 6 57.92 n / a n / a n / a - 5 7

. 9 2

CO 4 8

. 1 7 0

. 9 4 49.10 2 3 9

. 1 5 9

. 5 3 248.67 199.57

NO x 2 9 4 8

. 4 1 4

. 5 1 2952.92 2 7 5

. 9 4 1 4

. 1 1 2 9 0

. 0 5

- 2 6 6 2

. 8 6

VOC 3

. 9 2 0

. 0 4 3.96 3 1

. 2 7 0

. 6 0 31.87 27.91

HF 1 4

. 2 5 0

. 0 0 14.25 n / a n / a n / a - 1 4

. 2 5

Pb 0

. 0 2 0

. 0 0 0.02 n / a n / a n / a - 0

. 0 2

*Maxim um annual em issions b/w 2003-6 Source: Bulgarino, 2008

The net change in em ission levels and types m a rks an overall decrease in em ission levels for the energy generated at SRS. While the levels of CO and VOC would increas e, they are still ex pected to b e within th e perm itted a m ounts allowed as a result of the construction and operating perm it. However, the threshold required to trigger a Title V Major Source perm it is a total increase of 100 tpy of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a Title V Major Source perm it would be requir e d f o r operatio n of the biom ass cogeneration f

acility.

31Chapter 2 (Section 2.1.1) discusses the br eakdown of combustion com ponents for the biom ass cogeneration facility. Primary em issions resulting from burning this type of fuel include PM, oxides of sulfur and nitroge n, and VOCs from wood products, and VOCs, chlorine, polycyclic arom atic hydrocarbons (PAHs ), and several m e tals from TDF. The most common volatile organic compound e m itt ed from TDF com b ustion is benzene, which is classified as a known hum a n carcinogen. Commo n PAHs i n clude benzo(a ) pyr ene, butadie ne, and styr ene; a nd co mmon metals em itted are zinc, a r se nic, lead, m e rcury, and chrom i um VI (EJN No da te). Chlorine com pounds that undergo

com bustion for m dioxins and furans. See Se ction 3.3 for a description of the potential hum a n health im pacts of these com pounds.

The new biom ass cogeneration f acility would be perm itted to burn up to 30 percent T D F; in this case at least 70 percen t of fuel would be wood-based and up to 30 percent could be TDF. Lim i ting the amounts of T D F that ar e burned at any given location lim i ts the projected em issions of potentially h azardous co mpounds to levels that are not anticipated to pose a threat to hum an or ecosystem health.

4.3.1.3

4.3.1.4 Consequences of Nonattainment

SRS could be in an area declared nonattainm e nt for PM 10 , PM 2. 5 , and ozone at som e future date (see Section 3.3, Air Quality ). W h en an area is d e signated no nattainm e nt for any of the criteria pollutants, the affected State m u st draft a plan k nown as a State Im ple m entation Plan (S IP) to im prove air quality and outline the control m e asures the State will ta ke in o r der to m eet National Air Q u ality Stand a rds (NAAQS). These air pollution control m easures include a proce ss called Nonattainm ent New Source Review (NA NSR) perm itting.

NA NSR applies to new m a jor sources or m a jor m odifications at existing sources for pollutants where the sou r ce loc a tion is not in attainm e nt with NAAQS. All NA NSR
perm its require that the proposed air polluti on source install the Lowest Achievable Em ission Rate (LAER), pollution controls, em ission offsets, and an opportunity for public involvem e nt. LAER is the most stri ngent em ission lim itation derived from either of the following: the most stringent e m ission lim itation contained in th e SIP f o r a sim ilar
source, o r th e m o st strin g ent em issio n lim ita tion achieved in practice by a sim ilar source. Also, sources m u st obtain em issions reductio ns f r om existing sourc e s loc a ted in the vicin ity of the sou r ce NA NSR source. The em ission reductions, generally called “offsets”, must offset the em issions increa se from the ne w source or m a jor source modification to ensure reasonable progress tow a rd m eeting the NAAQS. The e m i ssion reductions must also pr ovide a ne t a i r qua lity b e nef it.

Abatement Technology

Actions that would aid in decreasing the ove rall impacts of air em issions include lim iting when the plant would be operating, and utilizing abatem ent technologies to help decrease

em ission levels at the source. The proposed plant’s abatem ent m easures include a fabric

32f ilter bagho use to redu ce PM, and selective n on-catalytic reduc tion ( S NCR) to r e duce nitrog en oxide form ation (AFS 2007). Baghou se filters wo rk to cu rb P M em issions by trapping particulate m a tter in a fabric bag, si m i lar to the way a vacuum cleaner operates. The filters are cleaned b y blowing air th rough in the revers e direction and collectin g the PM. This process effectively rem oves up to 99.9+ percent of particulate m a tter (USEPA 1998).

The SNCR m e thod effectively reduces NO x emissions via a process of injec tion. Urea would be injected into the steam boiler at temperatures high enough to result in a chem ical reaction between water and urea that f o r m s ammonia, which in turn reac ts w ith NO x and oxygen to form nitrogen and water. In add ition, lim estone would be injected into the flue gas and, via sorption reactions, reduce NO x and sulfur compounds (USEPA 1999).

Multicyclone technology would be im ple m ente d at the K and L-Area plants to aid in decreasing air em issions. This technology reduces the temperature of com bustion by dilution of the com bustion products with exce ss fuel, air, flue gas, or steam

. The resulting ch em ical reactions prev ent the m a jo rity of the nitrogen from becom i ng ionized and for m ing NO x (USEPA 1999).

4.3.1.5 Associated Traffic

In order to provide the new biom ass cogene ration facility and heating plants with sufficient levels of biom ass fuel, there would be trucks traveling in and out of both the
cogenera tio n f acility a nd the K and L-Area plants. Ma jor air em issions f r om these vehicles include PM, NO x , CO, and VOC. These vehicles would represent a sm all
percen tage increas e in the current traffic le vels during both constr uction and operation of the proposed facility. DOE expects that the ad dition a l vehicular em issions would result in negligible im pacts to air quality.

DOE anticipates that o v erall im pacts to ai r quality from the im plem entation of the proposed action would be long-term, regional, and m i nor due to the increase in CO and VOCs. In addition, however, im pa cts to air quality would also be long-term

, regional, and m odera tely beneficial due to the decrease in sulfuric acid, NO x, HF, and lead

em issions.

4.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No Action Alterna tive, no operational changes w ould occur at either the D-Area powerhouse or at the K-Area plant. T h ese facilities would continue to run on coal, fuel oil, and propane, respectively. Thes e fuels would continue to be delivered to the site. However, both the D-Area powerhouse and K-Area pl ant are reaching the end of their serviceable life and would require signi ficant upgrades in order to not only m eet

em issions standards, but to rem a in functiona l and reliable in the f o re seeable f u ture. Therefore D O E expects that if the No Acti on Alternative was im plem ent e d, the existing facilities would either receive needed upgrades, or be required to go offline. Though the

33continued release of fossil fuel-related em issi ons into the atmosphere can be expected to have air quality im pacts ranging from local to global, a m easurable change of these

em issions is not expected to occur in this in stance. Instead, since the status quo would be

m a intained under the No Action Alternative, D O E expects im pacts to air quality w ould be increm ental and adverse, long -term, and m i nor to m oderate.

4.4 Biologica l Resources

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

4.4.1.1 Vegetation

Construction preparation at the proposed co generation facility site w ould require the

rem oval of shrubs, immature tr ees, and grasses. Approximate ly 30 acres of previously vegeta ted la nd would be cleared in order to con s truc t the biom ass cogeneration f acility. A total of 0.5 linear m iles of previously undeve loped forested land woul d be cleared of its existing m a ture trees to allow f o r th e installa tion of the buried 12-inch river water intake pipeline and its asso ciated ROW

. The upl and ROW portion of this pipeline would be between 50-75 feet wide, and would be m a in ta ined by reg u lar m o wing and veg e tation

rem oval. No herbicides would be used. Ov erstory vegetation in th e proposed river water intake pipeline ROW in cludes loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ), slash pine ( P. elliottii ), longleaf pine ( P. pa lustris ), sweetgum ( Liquidambar s t yrac iflua ), and water oak ( Quercus nigra)

. There would also be a new over head and underg round electrical feeder installed from the new plant to the F-Area Substa tion. The feeder would follow the existing secondary road and route through the prim ary road and into F-Area. Th e over head feeder line R O W would be approxim a tely 1.3 m iles long by 50 f eet wide and would require tree clearing on the existing secondary road and within F- Area. A total of about 0.6 linear m iles of

m i ni m a lly developed land would be cleared of trees to acco mmodate the new over head electrical feeder. A portion of the n e w feed er line ROW would be located adjacent to an existing feeder line ROW. The underground s ections of the feeder line ROW would be approxim a tely 800 and 1000 feet long and w ould be located under the proposed cogeneration facility parking area to avoid interference with 115 kV overhead electrical lines. No wetlands would be im pacted as a resu lt of the con s truc ti on 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 ), sweetgu m ( Liquidambar styrac iflua ), and water oak ( Quercus nigra)

. The threshold level of significance for vegetation im pacts is rem oval in a m ounts that would permanently alter the hab ita t in a m a nne r detr im ental to the spec ies liv ing th e r e. Construction of the proposed plant and its pipelines and feed er lines would contribute to the fragm e ntation of an existing forest habitat. The biom as s cogenera tion f acility s ite is an old abandoned borrow pit that appears to have had no restor ation. The so il is highly disturbed and not characteristic of a n inta ct ser i es. Pr ior to rem oval of the soil, th e are a

was m o st likely a Blanton sand series. The si te supports fairly sparse vegetation that

34consists of volunteer loblolly pine typically 1 to 4 m e ters in height. The seedlings are not evenly distributed on the site, and appear to be nutrient defi cient based on foliar coloration. This is not unexpected due to the pr ior history of the site. There is very little herbaceou s cover at th e site and broom sedge ( Andropogon spp.) and bahia grass ( Paspalum notatum ) have established them selves, alt hough they are also scattered. Due to the substantial am ount of undeveloped land that would rem a in at SRS, DOE expects these adverse im pacts to be localized and th at terrestrial productiv ity not be adversely affected. The proposed facility would have a discharge pipe that would go to UTR and would cross wetlands but would not im pact floodplain hydrology or associated wetland resources (A ppendix A).

4.4.1.2

4.4.1.3 Wildlife

Any wildlife that uses the propos ed 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 lim iting any wildlife habitat. Section 3.4 discusses the potential wildlife residing or using this portion of SRS. Many of these species are mobile gene ralist spec ie s tha t use a variety of interspersed and fragm e nted habitats and range over wide areas for food and cover. Such species include sm all mammals, whitetailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), and m i gratory birds. Therefore, m a ny wildlife species would be able to avoid the dist urb a nc e by reloca ting to ad ja cent m i nimally disturbed areas. Earth-moving activities m a y result in som e unavoidable m o rtality to burrowing and less m o bile fauna . DOE expects that the ex isting rural fauna would be replaced by a m o re urban setting in the proposed developed area.

Im pacts to vegetation and wild life at K and L-Areas would be less th an those a t the proposed biom ass cogeneration fa cility site. As these ar eas have been previously developed, there is unlikely to be m o re than negligible im pacts to area vegetation and any species tha t m a y utilize the area.

DOE expects overall im pacts to both vegetation and wildlife to be long-term and minor throughout the biom ass cogeneratio n facility and plant sites.

Threatened and Endangered Species

As there is no known State or Fe deral threatened or endangered species that exist at the proposed facility site or at the previously developed K an d L-Areas nor is the habitat suitab l e for threatened o r endangered species known to occur on or near SRS, DOE has determ ined the proposed action w ould not have m o re than a negligible im pact to threatened and endang ered species. Th erefore DOE has determ ined that fo rm al consultations with State and Federal natural resource agencies would not be required for these proposed actions.

4.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action

35W ith no new construction or developm ent taking place, DOE expects no im pacts to vegetation, wildlife, or threat ened and endangered species, as a result of the No Action Alterna tive.

4.5 Infrastruc ture

4.5.1 Waste Man agement

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 som e building m a terial debris and associated rubble would be generated. This type of waste woul d be disposed of onsite at the TRL. The volum e or weight of the debr is is not known at this tim e, but woul d likely be sm al l rela tive to the yearly totals over the lif espan of the landfill. Consid ering this is a one-tim e increase in was t e dispos al the im p acts to the landfill would be negligible.

4.5.1.1.2 Operation

Waste ash resulting from the com b ustion of woody m a terials would be deposited in an approved solid waste m a nagem e nt facility. The am ount of ash generated would vary seasonally, as the two new biom as s heating plants at K and L-Areas would only be operational during the coldest winter m onths. I n a typical year they would be operating for approxim a tely 4 months; in exceptionally cold years th ey m a y be online for as m a ny as 5 m onths, from December to April if nece ssary. The total annual gen e ration of waste ash from all three sites is estim ated to be 8,000 tons, of which less than 30 tons would be

com i ng from the K and L-Area biom ass heating plants. This would rep r esent a 7 percen t increase in waste entering the TRL, based on es tim ates of current inputs. The im pact of waste generated would be m i nor ; the landf ill at its bus ies t is already expected to be receiving nearly twice the current amount of waste annuall y. Much of the m a terial being used as fuel at SRS as a result of the pr oposed action, especially the TDF, would have otherwise g one directly into a land fill. Th e amount of waste enteri n g the landfill as a result of the proposed action is approxim a tely 2- 3 percent of the original m a terial, a substantial decrease both in weight and volum e of waste.

No hazardo us waste wo uld be generated as a result of the p r oposed actio n and therefore none would require disposal. This would be a decrease from the No Action Alternative (Bulgarino 2008). DOE expects the overall impact of im plem enting the proposed action on waste managem e nt would be beneficial, lo ng-term , and moderate; the biom ass fuels being burned in the new plants would redu ce the am ount of ash (co m pared to coal)
enter i ng lan d f ills by gr e a ter than 95 percen t.

Alternative 2: No Action

36Under the No Action Alternative, th ere w ould be no additio nal waste generated beyond current levels. W ith no change in opera tions, DOE expects no impacts to waste

m a nage m e nt and none of the beneficial im pac t s discussed under the proposed action would be realized.

4.5.2 Utilitie s

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 woul d be short lapses in service and energy
transm ission as com pone nts of the project w ould require shut down while they are taken offline or added on. There would also be a short tim e during the official transition from the old D-Area plant to the new biom ass coge neration facility, and old K-Area steam s to the new K and L-Area biom ass heating plants when utilities, such as power and water, in those areas would be shut off. This would be a m i nor 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 biom ass cogeneration facility on the secondary road over a new overhead feeder line roughly two m iles in length. The proposed route of this new line would be from the prim ary F-Area entr y road parallel to circuit 2B and across the prim ary road to the site. This would term i n ate in a 2,500 k ilovolt-am p s (kVA) pad mounted transfor m e r on the site. T h e seconda ry voltage of the transform e r 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 em er gency generator be out of service at the

sam e tim e. From the 2,500 kVA pad m ounted transform e r, an unde rground feeder would serve a 4,160 volt package subs ta tion loca ted in the m a in proc ess building. This substation would be made up of feeder break ers for the two turbines, the generato r, 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 am p m a in com b ustion cham ber located ad jacen t to th e pack age substation.

Steam produced by the cogeneratio n facility would be con n ected acros s the secon d ary road f r om the f acility to the exis ting s t eam transmission line.

As a result of the proposed ac tion, steam would be generate d in both K and L-Areas and not exported from these areas. The 2.5-m ile pipeline between the areas would no longer be used, as L-Area would have its own steam from the new biom ass heating plant. By elim inating the pipe line, energy lo st in tr ansm ission betwee n areas wou l d be re tain ed. DOE anticipates that overall im pacts woul d be beneficial, long-term, and m i nor to moderate.

374.5.2.1.2 Water Distribution and Use

4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction

Throughout construction activities, there would also be short lapses in wate r service as

com ponents of the project would require shut dow n while they are ta ken offline or added on. This would be a negligible to m i nor disruption of service.

4.5.2.1.2.2 Operation

As a result of the proposed action, the Savannah River woul d be the source of process water, through a connection at the existing river water valve house in C-Area. This operational change would requ ire som e upgrades, including the installation of a new
pum p in the 681-3G Pumphouse before operation. The pipes used to tap into the m a in would be 8 to 10 inches in di am eter. The process waste wate r would be discharged to an outfall approxim a tely one m ile from the cogeneration plant on UTR.

Approxim a tely 500 feet of addition a l s t eam pipe, on above-ground pipe supports, would be required to connect into the existing dist ribution system located across the secondary road from the proposed site. A steam m e ter w ould be placed in the steam l i ne to m e asure steam flow delivered to SRS end users. In K and L-Areas, the new biom ass heating plants would be connected to the existing steam distribution lines.

As a result of the proposed action, existing dom estic water pipelines would be tapped for bathroom use and other dom e stic water need s. An addition a l 0.3 m iles 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 th e ex isting wate r trea tm ent system with minim a l m odif i cations to the chem ical in jection sy stem in the current building for the new bi om ass heating plant located at K-Area. DOE would install a new water treatm ent system for use at the new biom ass heating plant lo cated in L-Area.

The proposed action includes m a ny upgrades to the existing infrastructure, which has seen few changes since the 1950’s. Replaci ng the coal-fired pl ant and steam s would necessitate upgrading associated infrastructu re to support the new bi om as s heating plants and biom ass cogeneration facility. Whenever p o ssible, the existing infrastructure, s u ch as pipelines and feeder lines, would be used with the new pl ants and f a c ility. Howe ver, in the cas e of water tre a tm ent f acilities, the requirem e nts of the new biom ass heating plants and biom ass cogeneration facility canno t be m e t with existing inf r astructu re a n d would be replaced. The direct im pacts to util itie s would be neglig ible, s i nce the lev e l of service provided would not change; only the inf r a struc t ur e on which it is delive r ed would change. The only increase in existing site cap acities would be a new river water pump in the 681-3G Pum phouse. The operational lifes pan of steam production would increase as a result of the proposed actions.

384.5.2.2

4.5.3.1 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No Action Alterna tive, DOE anticip ates that minor to m o derate am ounts 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 m eet perm i tting thresholds. This is anticipated to be very costly, but necessary. DOE expects the overall i m pact to utilities would be adverse, long-term , and

m i nor, but continuing substantial investm e nt would be required to m a intain the systems.

4.5.3 Traffic

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

4.5.3.1.1 Construction

Construction workers would use both regional a nd loca l SR S roads to tr avel to and f r om the project site(s) throughout the duration of construction ac tivities. However, since workers would be hired from the local area, th e increa se in vehicle m iles trave l ed w ould be m i ni m i zed.

For the site of the new biom ass cogenerati on facility near F-Area, both deliveries and workers would use the site entrance. This entrance can becom e congested during peak hours (DOE 2002). A recen t study shows that this route is capable of supporting the proposed biom ass trucks without imp acting traffic flow (DOE 2004).

Som e internal worker m ovem e nt around and betw een sites would occur; this travel would be negligible considering the approxim ately 20,000 existin g daily SRS vehicle trips (DOE 2005b). Further, this level of increa se w ould not be sustained during the entire two-year construction period, as m o st worker s would not be em ployed for the entire two years. The existing road capacity would accommodate construction d e liveries and any additional construction workers associ ated with the proposed action.

DOE does not expect roads near SRS to be taxed beyond existing capacity. Given the existing lev e l of traf f i c in SRS and the f act that SRS infrastructu r e was built f o r a considerably larger sized installation capacity, these addition a l trips should not

m easurably increase accident rates.

As part of the proposed action, the road l eading to the biom ass cogeneration facility would be paved, have a deceleration lane a dded, and driveways would be developed for the K-Area and L-Area biom ass heating p l an ts. The construction equipm ent and paving of the roads and driveways m a y cause tem por ary congestion. However, DOE anticipates that these impacts would be m i nim a l nuisance im pacts. Given the n a ture of the roa d system at SRS, alternative ro utes could be used, and any impact should be short-term. DOE would m a ke advance notice to e m ployees and the community, or post road signs

39indicating construction and any road closures, which would help less e n the tran sp orta tion im pact. Avoiding construction deliveries du ring the m o rni ng and evening shift changes would help reduce the conflict with the em ployee traffic, es pecially as the SC Highway 125 entrance security point is already congested at these peak hours (DOE 2004).

DOE expects that th e o v erall im pacts of the pro posed ac tion to tr ansportation would be lim ited to short-term , and m i nor inconveniences such as longer wait tim e s at security points and the need to use alternative routes.

4.5.3.1.2 Operation

The m a jor source of traffic of the cogenera tion facility operations would be the fuel delivery trucks to the handling yard. The norm a l t r uck t r affi c for fuel deliveries would be 7 to 8 per hour for 8 hours per day for 5 days per week. T hus, a p eak total of 320 fuel delivery trucks a week, or 64 per day, would deliv er fuel to the fuel handling yard next to the new biom ass cogeneration facility (AFS 2007).

The SRS entrance used by the fuel delivery trucks could becom e congested during peak hours (DOE 2002). After delivering the fuel to the proposed cogeneration facility, the truck traffic flow would be re gulated by a new traffic light to be installed at the prim ary road. The vehicles would then proceed offsite.

In addition, on averag e one truck per week would be used to deliv er fuel to each of the K-Area and L-Area b i o m ass heatin g plants fro m Novem b er to April. Com p ared to the 320 per week peak fuel delivery trucks to the fuel handling ya rd and the 20,000 daily existing trips on SRS, the weekly fuel delive r i es f r om November to April to K-Are a and L-Area would be negligible.

Assum i ng that the trucks com p lete travel and unloading within one hour, the peak 64 daily f u el de live r y tru c ks to the f u el handli ng yard would cause the s econ d ary road to the biom ass f acility to opera te a t app r oxim a tely 3 per cent of c a pa city and the prim ary roa d to operate at approxim a tely 37 percent of capac ity during the eight ho urs of delivery. Although the fuel deliveries cons titute an increase, the roads would still be operating well below capacity.

Since the K-Area and L-Area plan ts would be unm anned, the operation of these plants should generate no add i tional traffic. The new biom ass cogeneration facility would o n ly require 20 em ployees instead of th e curren t 60 em ployed at the D-A r ea 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 prim ary and secondary roads. Given the 20,000 existing daily SRS vehicle trips and th at the current infrastructure at SRS was built for a considerab ly larger population than currently ex ists, th e trips to m a intain the proposed action should be negl igible. For the sam e reasons , additional accidents for the increased traffic should be negligib le. Over all, because th e roads would still operate considerably below capacity, DOE expects the change in on and offsite traffic would be long-term and negligible to m i nor.

404.5.3.2

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 co al-fired D-Area powerho use and the exis ting oil-fired K-Area s t eam plant would continue to operate. The secondary road would not be paved or have a deceleration lane added and the driveway s at K-Area and L-Ar ea would not be developed. The traffic light at the intersection of the sec ondary and prim ary roads would not be installed. The roads would rem a in below capacity . DOE expects the ov erall im pacts to tr ansporta tion as a resu lt o f the No Action Alte rnative to be neg ligib le.

4.6 Socioecono mics

The threshold level of signifi can ce for socioeconom i c reso urces is th e potential o f the project to result in a substant ial change in population or em ploym e nt 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 biom a ss cogeneration facility and nine m ont hs to build each of the sm aller new biom ass hea ting plants at K and L-Areas . Im plem enting the proposed action would requ ire 200 tem porary construction workers to be used for different tasks on and off throughout the entire construction period. Two hundred workers m a ke 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 em ployment at SRS, these 200 additio nal jobs wo uld represen t an increas e of 2 percent (AFS 2007). Representing less than 0.1 perc ent of the total civilian la bor force in the region of influence and 2 percent of the current em ploy ment at SRS, the proposed action would not significan tly im pact employm ent in the regio n of influence. Since the tem p orary construc tion workers would be re cr uited f r om the loca l ar e a s (with in d a ily comm uting distance of SRS), there should not be an influx of people fo r these jobs. Consequently, DOE does not expect m easurable im pacts to housing and comm unity services. The increase in job num bers, even tem p orarily, would likely stim ulate econom i c activity from increased dem a nd for goods and services, wh ich would result in be neficial, short-term, and m i nor impacts.

Operation

The two s m aller new biom ass heating plants at K and L-Areas would be run by operators at the cogen e ration facility. Since th e exis ting oil-fired K-Area steam plant is unm anned, the two new plants would not need addition a l personnel. The new biomass cogeneration facility would only require 20 em ployees in stead of the current 60 em ployed at the DArea powerhouse. This would result in a net loss of 40 jobs. Com p ar ed to the 10,000 personnel at SRS, these 20 jobs lost represent 0.2 percent job loss (DOE 2007). In

41respect to the region of influe nce, these jobs represent less than 0.01 percent of the total labor force (STATS Indiana 2008). DOE exp ects overall im pacts to jobs at SRS and within the region of influence from the im plem entation of the proposed action to be long-term and negligible to m i nor.

The projected annual cost savings of the proposed action is $26 million. W ith an estim ated $142 m illion p r oject desig n and cons truction cos t , sim p le payback would occur in less than 11 years (AFS 2008a). DOE e xpects the econom i c i m pact of the proposed action to be beneficial, long- term and m i nor for the region of influence although cost savings and cost avoidance fo r SRS would be substantial.

4.6.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the exis ting coal-fired D-Ar ea powerhouse and the existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant would con tinue to operate. Thus, the annual cost savings of the proposed action would not occu r, and current em ploym e nt levels would likely continue.

The current powerhouse is oversized and com i ng to the end of its usef ul life. It would likely require significant upgrades to be dependable and to m eet current Maximum Achievable Control Technology (M ACT) air quality requirem e nts. This is lik ely to result in adverse, long-term and increasing im pacts to the SRS budget.

4.7 Archaeological and Cultural Reso urces

The prim ary site for the construction of a new biom ass cogeneration facility and supporting infrastructure has been surveyed for prehistoric and hi storic archaeological resources. Of the approxim a tely 1 65 acre p r op osed pro j ect area, app r o x im ately 30 acres of previously vegetated land would be cleared in orde r to cons tr uct the b i o m ass cogenera tio n f acility. Five archae ologica l si te s contain i ng historic mater i als and six archaeo logic a l s ites co ntain i ng pr ehisto ric mater i als hav e been loc a ted within th e 165-acre site use area. Additional archaeo logi cal testing is currently und erway at these sites to ass e s s the i r res ear ch poten tia l to con t ribute to understanding of the prehistoric and historic period occupation on SRS. Prior to a ny activ ity with potential im pact to the s ites in this area, a consultation pr ocess would be initiated with the South Carolina Historic Preserva tion Off i ce to f o rm ally determ ine the National Registe r of Historic P l aces elig ibility o f specific s ites, and to dete rm ine neces sary and approp ria t e m itiga tion

m easures (SRARP 2008).

The proposed construction footprints for the K and L-Area biom ass heating plants w ould be 3 acres each. These proposed plants woul d be constructed in developed areas and were reviewed under previously approved site use perm its. Therefore, DOE anticipates that the potential for the proposed constructi on footprints for the K and L-Area biom as s heating p l an ts to im pact archaeo logical or cu ltural resources at SRS would be negligible.

42Utility line construction ROW s for the proposed actions would be review ed for im pact to archaeological or cultural resources at SRS.

4.8 Human He alth, Safety, and Environmental Ju stice

4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

4.8.1.1

4.8.1.2 Construction

Because of the level and durati on of air qu ality d e gradation expected du ring construction activities, D O E expects that the im pacts to human health (w orkers and the public) w ould be negligib le (See Section 4.3). Implem enting the m itigatio n m e asures and BMPs would reduce the adverse im pacts to human health from air quality. W o rkers would follow OSHA procedures, which would further reduce the im pact to hum an health. Sinc e the proposed action includes no drilling or excavations, addi tional groundwater
contam ination would not be a source of i m pacts to hum a n health (see Section 4.2).

DOE believ e s the statistic al risk of death of or injury to construction and biom ass harvesting workers as a result of the im pl em e n tation of the proposed action would be low. Give n the 20,000 existing daily SRS vehicle trips (people commuting and perform i ng job tasks) and that the current infrastructure at SRS was built for a considerably larger staff than currently exists , the risk of accid e nts from the m i nor traffic increase from the proposed action would be negligible (DOE 2005b).

Operation

The decomm issioning of the existing coal-fired D-Area powerhouse and the existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant would cause a redu c tion in the m a jority of air pollu tan t s, and an increase in CO and VOC e m issions (s ee Section 4.3.1). DOE expe cts a net overall beneficial impact to air quality a nd hu m a n health. D O E expects acciden t s fro m operations would be minim a l as long as OSHA regulations are followed. As discussed above, the risk of vehicle-relate d accidents is likely to be ne gligible due to the m i nor shift in expected traffic post-construction.

DOE does not expect the proposed action to result in any high or adverse im pacts to health and s a fety. Therefore, there are no expected disp rop o rtion a tely high and adverse hum a n health or environm ental effects on m i nority and low-incom e populations in the SRS region of influence.

Neither construction nor opera tion activities of the proposed action would be audible offsite of SRS. Onsite im pacts of noise during construction should be m i nim i zed by lim iting construction activity to daylight business hours and by using properly m a intained and m u ffled equipm ent. Hearing protectio n equipm ent would be required for sound levels that exceed Federal workplace standard s. Im plem enting the preceding steps w ould result in no noise im pacts from the proposed project.

43No changes in radiation exposure are expecte d. Therefore, there would be no associated im pact to hum a n health. OSHA procedures would continue to be followed to m i nim i ze worker exposure to hazardous substances. T h ese m a y include warning systems and alarm s to detect exposures and spills, as we ll as inform ing the proper authorities of any incidents.

The proposed action is not anticipated to im p act any public or recrea tional uses of the land. Furtherm ore, the offsite impacts of t h e Proposed Action (e.g. surface water withdrawals from the Sa vannah River and air em issions from facilities operations) are not anticipated to have any im pact on r ecreati on activities offsite of the proposed project area. The proposed project would not appr eciably dim i nish recreation opportunities or the quality o f recrea tion activ ities in the vicinity of the project area.

Therefore, given the s m all size of risks and addition a l exposures, DOE expects the overall im pact to hum an health from the proposed action to be negligible.

4.8.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, risks from accid e nts, as well as to air em issions throughout the construction proce ss would not occur. The c ontinued operation of the DArea coal plant would result in continued em issions fr om the plant throughout its serviceable life. As discussed in S ection 4.3.2, the continued use of this plant without upgrades is unlikely. DOE expects any e m issi ons released would be sim ilar to current levels or les s , with the a ddition of ef f i ciency upg rades. DOE expec t s that overa ll im pacts to hum an he alth as a result of the No Action Alternative would be negligible.

4.9 Cumulative Impacts

CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulat ions (CFR) 1508.7) requi re an analysis of the cum u lative im pacts r e sulting f r o m the incr em ental im pa ct of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably forese eable future actions, regardless of who undertakes these other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually m i nor, but collectiv ely sign ificant, act ions. This cum u lative im pacts section of the EA addresses only the cumulative effects arising from cons idering the proposed action in com b ination with other ongoing actions at SRS.

SRS is cont inuing to down-size and stream line its new m i ssion of wast e m a nage ment, environm ental re stor atio n, and deco ntam ination and decomm issioning of f

acilities that are no long er need ed for SRS’s traditional d e f e nse activities. W h ile old f a cilitie s are being decommissioned, newer and m o re mode rn facilities are being developed. Maxim u m Achievable Control Technologies w ould continue to get more advanced and further restrict em issions allowances from energy producing facilities.

In light of these developm ents, the proposed action contributes an increm entally and

cum u latively beneficial im pact to both the ac tions of SRS and, in context, to current and

44future regulatory actions governing air em issi ons (see nonattainm ent discussion in section 4.3.1.3).

4.10 Mitigation Measures

All f u ture a c tions propo sed as par t o f this p r ojec t would em ploy th e f o llo wing m itigation

m easures to ensure that environm ental im pacts from construction and operation of the project are m i ni m i zed to the greatest extent reasonable. Adherence to the following

m itigation m easures, in conjunction with adhe rence to all app lic ab le and appr opria te local, S t ate, and Federal regul ations and perm its, should ensu re that the construction and operation of the biomass cogeneration facil ity and heating plants at SRS have no significan t adverse im pacts to the hum a n environm ent.

4.10.1 Soil

• Minim i ze the am ount of vegetative clear ing during construction activities to protect the soil cover and m i nim i ze erosion risks.

• Incorporate and m a intain BMPs vigorously into all pro j ect plan s; BMPs at
construc tion activ ity sites typic a lly cons ist of various erosion and sedim e nt contro l m e asures such as silt fences, stra w bales, and other te mporary m e asures to be placed in ditches and along portions of the site perim e ter to con t ro l erosion during construction activities. These tem porary erosion prevention m easurem ents should be m a intained in place until the site vegetation is firm ly established and soil h a s s t a b ilized. Regular inspe c tions of the erosion and sedim e nt control

m easures should be perf orm e d after any storm event.

• Stabilize and revegetate all disturbed areas with native plant vegetation after

commence m ent of construction activities. Prop er seed selec tion would result in native plants with deep root system s, which would inc r ease loca l tim es of
storm w ater concentration and reduce site outflows.

• Store and mainta in a l l f u el s in a designated equipm ent staging area to reduce the potential for soil contam ination. Designate a person(s) as being responsible for equipm ent fueling who closely m onitors the fueling operation, and have an

em ergency spill k it con t ain i ng abso rption pad s , absorbent m a terial, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup item s , r eadily available onsite in the event of an acciden t al s p ill.

4.10.2 Water Reso urces

• Place BMPs along portions of the site p e rim e ter to contro l erosion d u ring all construction and de m o lition activities. U nder all circum stances, sedim e nt runoff from the site should be captured and prev ented from entering area surface water bodies, especially the wetlands and UTR tri butaries to the northwest of the site.

45• Ensure that no excavations w ould o ccur within the v i cin ity of the area aquifer or
contam inated plum e throughout the cons truction process at the cogeneration f

acility site.

4.10.3 Air Quality

• Im ple m ent reasonable measures, such as applyin g water to exposed surfaces or stockpiles o f dirt, when windy or dry conditio n s prom ote problem atic fugitive dust em issions. Adhe ring to thes e BM Ps would m i nimize any f ugitiv e dus t

em issions.

• Minim i ze the am ount of TDF burned in th e cogeneration facil ity in order to

m i ni m i ze potential harmful air em issions.

4.10.4 Biologica l 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 Man agement

• Recycle or reuse as many m a terials as possible during the construction and operation phases of the project in or der to m i ni m i ze the am ount of waste generated b y the plan t and facility. No hazardo us waste would be generated as a result of the proposed action and th erefore none would require disposal.

4.10.6 Transportation and Traffic

• Give advance notice to SRS e m ployees and community, and install well-m arked road signs, inform ing of road construction and/or road clos ures with respect to paving and upgrading of the secondary road.

• Avoid construction deliveries during th e morning/evening shift changes, especially at the SC Highway 125 entrance security point.

4.11 Evaluation of Terroris m-Related I m pacts

DOE does not believe that the presence of the new biom a ss cogeneration facility and heating plan ts would in creas e th e p r obability of a ter r or ist atta ck on SRS or tha t these plants and f acility would be a m o re attractive target for such an attack than the exis ting facilities. T h erefore, the potential for the proposed and alternative actions considered in this EA to r e sult in te rror i sm -related activ ity or impacts at S R S would be negligible.

4.12 Accident Analysis

46The proposed action rep l aces the ex isting D- Area Power P l ant and the K-Area Heating Plant with new plants. Both the proposed pl ants and facility, and the existing plants utilize s i m ilar equipm ent, chem icals, chem ical storag e tanks, a nd com bustible fuel sources. The proposed action does not introduc e any new a ccident potentials com p ared to th e no action case, and, in fact, reduces the quantities of each chem icals used an d in storage as com p ared to the present situation.

The m a xi mum reasonable foreseeable accide nt associated from the proposed action would be the acciden t al or m a liciou s release of the stored chem icals used to treat s t eam

m a keup water, exhaust gas, ri ver water and cooling tower water. The bounding credible releases are considered to be 1) fire, wh ich results in the boi ling, volatilization, and airborn e release of ch em ical tank contents, an d 2) sp ill, which inc l u d es an immediate airborne release from splashing of tank cont ents and longer term airborne re-suspension of spilled chem icals. T h e chem icals of inte rest are: sodium hydr oxide solution, sulfite solution, biocide ch emical, anti-scale, u r ea, and sulfuric acid. Thes e chem icals are commonly used in steam plant operations a nd would be stored in approved chemical storage tan k s located within the building st ructure. One other foreseeab le accident evaluated w a s the possibility of fuel fire, however this accident would be m a naged by using the fire suppression system s that woul d be installed at the fuel storage areas.

Where Ac ute Exposure Guide Levels (A EGL), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG), or Te m porary Em ergency Exposure Level (T EEL) threshold quantities are not av ailable, Perm issible E xposu r e Lim it/Tim e Weighted Average v a lues are used for risk level d e term inations . There are three levels o f ERPGs:

• ERPG-1. The m a xi m u m concentration in air below which it is believe d nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencin g other th an m ild trans i en t advers e h ealth e ffects or perceiving a clearly def i ned objectionable odor.

• ERPG-2. The m a xi m u m concentration in air below which it is believe d nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or
sym p tom s t h at could impair their abi lities to take protec tive a c tion ; and

• ERPG-3. The m a xi m u m concentration in air below which it is believe d nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing life- threatening h ealth effects. The threshold quantities were com p a r ed to ERPG levels to qualitatively evaluate th e risk. Release of the m a terials at risk was not eval u a ted as a composite, such as m i ght b e the case if th e tank conten ts were to s p ill and beco m e m i xed. The concentrations ar e then

com p ared to the individual threshold quant ities provided in Revision 21, of AEGLs, ERPGs, and TEELs for chem icals of concern to determ ine whether the consequence risk to onsite areas and surrounding areas would be such that safety related controls would be requir e d to p r event o r m itiga t e a r e le a s e. Release of the quantities of chem icals eval ua ted would result in con centr ation s well below the E R PG-3 lim its for the onsite work er (100 m e ters) and ER PG-2 for the of fsite

47public. At these concentrations DOE exp ects no safety related controls would be requir e d to p r event o r m itiga t e a r e le a s e of the m a ter i als at r i s k.

5.0 REGUL A T O RY AND PERMITTI NG PROVISIONS CONSIDE R E D

DOE policy is to conduct its operations in com p liance with all applicab le Federal, S t ate, and local laws and regulations, and Federal ex e c utive ord e r s . Following is a listin g of selected statutes, regulations, and executive orders that are a pplicable to the proposed and alte rnative a c tions considered in this EA.

5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

This EA has been prepared in complianc e with the NEPA of 1969, as am ended; the requirem e nts of the CEQ Regulations for Im ple m enting NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and DOE Regulations (10 CFR Part 1021), and DOE Order 451.1B. NEPA,

as am ended, requires “all agencies of the Federal Governm e nt” to prepare a detailed
statem ent on the enviro nm ental effects of pr oposed “m ajor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the hum an environm ent”. This EA has been written to comply with NEPA and analyze the potential enviro nm ental im pa cts for proposed construction and operation of the new biom ass cogenerati on facility and heating plants at SRS.

5.2 Air Quality Regulation s

A SCDHEC construction perm it for em issions from new industrial facilities would be requir e d f r om the Bureau of Air Quality bef o re comm encem ent of any constr uction activ ities on the propos ed facilities. A SC DHEC Title V air em issions perm it would be required for operation of the proposed coge neration facility, and MACT regulations would be addressed. Air em ission perm its and controls would co mply with 40 CFR 61-62 Air Pollution C ontrol Re gulations and Standards. Air em ission perm its and sources would com p ly with 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP for Industria l, Comm ercial, and Institutional Steam s and Process Heaters.

5.3 Water Regulations

5.3.1 Storm Water and Air Regulations

Construction activities would com p ly with the National Pollutan t Disch a rge Elim ination System (NPDES) general perm it requirem e nts for storm w ater d i sch a rges from large
construc tion activ ities, a s adm i nister ed by SCDHEC. Stormwater discharges of norm a l facility operation would m eet the requirem ents for storm w ater discharges from industrial activ ities. Bulk petro l eu m storage sh all com p ly with the NPDES perm it f o r Discharg e to Surface W a ters for disc harges from bulk petr oleum storage facilities. Bulk petroleum storage shall also com p ly with requirem ents of 40 CFR Part 112.

485.3.2 Savannah River Water Withdrawal Regulations

The diam eter of the intake structure in th e Savannah River w ould m eet the im pinge ment velocity req u irem ent (0. 5 ft/sec) and addre ss Clean W a ter Act requirem ents, as required by 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart I.

5.3.3 Process Wa ter Discharge Regulations

The construction of the discharge pipe woul d encroach upon jurisd ic tio nal wetland s of UTR. A Clean W a ter Act Section 404 wetlan ds perm it, which regulates discharge of dredge and f ill m a terials into “wate r s of the United States” would be o b tained f r o m the U.S. Ar m y Corps of Engineers for this wor k, in acco rdance with 33 CFR Part 323. A discharge pipe going into UTR would require a Construction in Navigable W a ters Perm it from SCDHEC. A Section 401 W a ter Quality Certification is required along with the Section 404 perm it.

Discharge of process w a ter to UTR during ope ration of the cogenera tion facility w ould require coverage under SRS’s existing NPDES wastewater perm it (SC0000175).

5.3.4 Domestic Water Regulations

The dom estic water tie -in f o r the toilets, shower s, and sinks would require a Public Water Works permit from the State of Sout h Carolina (S CDHEC Re gulation R61-58).

5.3.5 Sanitary Sew er Regula tions

Both a San ita ry Sewer Construc tion Pe rm it (SCDHEC Regulation R. 61-67) and a Sanitary Sewer Operation NPDES perm it (S CDHEC Regulation R.61-9) would be needed from the State of South Caro lina fo r construction and opera tion of the proposed f

acility’s s a nita ry waste system

.

5. 4 Endangered Species Act, as amen ded (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

The Endangered Spec ies Act is inten d ed to pr ev ent the further decl ine of endangered and threatened s p ecies and to res t ore th ese specie s a nd the i r hab ita ts. The A c t also promotes biodiversity of genes, communities, and ec os ystem s . None of the proposed actions considered in this EA would advers ely im pact th ese species of concern.

5.5 National Historic P reservation Act, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.)

The National Historic Preservation Act provi des that sites p o ssessing significant n a tional historic value be placed on the National Regist er of Historic P l aces. If a particular Federal action i m pacts a historic property, c onsultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is required. T h is c onsultation usually lead s to a Mem o randum of Agreem ent contain i ng m itigative a c tions that must be f o llowed to minim i ze adv e rse im pacts to the historic prope rty. Coordination with the State Historic P r ese r v a tion Officer als o ensures that po tentially s i gni ficant s ites are prop erly identified and

49appropriate m itigation actions im plem ented. No ne of the proposed actio ns considered in this EA would adversely im pact histo r ic s ite s.

5.6 Integrated Safety Man ageme nt System ( 48 CFR 970.5223-1)

The Integ r ated Safety M a nagem e nt System (“ System ”) requires that work be perform e d safely and that there is adequate protection for e m pl oyees, the public, and the environm ent. The System requires that h azards of the work to be perform e d are identified and evaluated and that adm i nistrative an d engineering controls are im ple m ented to prevent or mitigate such hazards and any related accidents or unplanned releases or exposures

.

5.7 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)

Executive O r der 11988, “Floodplain Managem e nt”, directs F e deral agencies to establish procedures to ensu re that th e po tentia l effects of floo d hazards and floodplain

m a nage m e nt are considered for any action undert aken. Im pacts to fl oodplains are to be avoided to the extent practicab le. None of the proposed acti ons considered in this EA would be subject to floo d hazards o r involve floo dplain m a nagem e nt issues.

5.8 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlan ds)

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of W e tlands ”, requires Federal agencies to avoid short- and long-term adverse im pac t s to we tlands whenever a practicable alternative exists. Any proposed action that im pacts wetl ands would be approve d by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

5.9 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Executive Order 12898 require s Federal agencies to iden tify and address disproportionately high and adverse hum an health or environm ental effects of its
program s, policies, or actions on minority and low-incom e populations. None of the proposed actions con s idered in this EA would advers ely im pact these sen s itiv e populations.

5.10 Executive Order 13186 (Protect ion of Migratory Birds)

Executive O r der 13186 requires Fed e ral agen cies to assess and m itigate the im pacts of their actions on m i gratory birds and prom ot e the conservation of m i gratory bird populations and their habitat. None of the proposed actions c onsidered in this EA would adversely impact these species of concern.

506.0 AGENCIE S AND PE RSONS CO NSUL TE D

The University of South Carolina’s Savanna h River Archaeological Res earch P r ogram , the United States Departm e nt of Agriculture Forest Service-Savannah River, the S outh Carolina Departm e nt of Health and Environm ental Contro l, Trinity Co nsultan t s, T h ree Rivers Land fill, Energy Products of Id aho, th e Babcock and W ilcox Company, W S RC, and the Savannah River National Laborator y (SRNL) were consulted during the preparation of this EA.

51This page intentionally left blank

527.0 REFE RE NCES

AFS (Am e resco Federal Solutions), 2007. Revised Initial P r oposal DOE Savannah R i ver Site Biomass Energ y Center , Subm itted to DOE under Contra ct #: DE-AC26-02NT41457. Am eresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tenness ee.

AFS (Am e r e sco Federal Solutions), 2008a. Final Proposal DOE Savannah River Site Biom ass Energy Center , Subm itted to DOE under Contract #: DE-AC26-02NT41457. Am eresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tenness ee.

AFS (Am e r e sco Federal Solutions), 2008b. Floodplain/W e tland Assessm e nt for Bi om ass Cogeneration and Heating Faciliti es at the Savannah River Site . Subm itte d to DOE under Contract # : DE-AC26-02NT41457. Am eresco Federal Solutions, Knoxville, Tenness ee.

Bulgarino, N., 2008. Personal Com m unication, January 14, 2008.

Davis, M. and D. Cornwell, 1998. Introdu ctio n to Enviro nm ental En gineer ing , Third Edition. M c Graw Hill Com p anies, Inc., Boston, Massachus etts.

DeLuca, T. H. 2001. Assessm ent of the USFS Soil Quality Standards and the application of those standards to the Pink Ston e Environmental Im pact Statem ent , A report to The Ecology Center, Inc.

DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2002. Savannah River Site High-L e vel W a ste Tank Closure , DOE/EIS-0303. Savannah River Operat ions Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa /eis/eis0303/eis0303.htm l

. DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2004. Environm ental Assessm ent f o r the Construction, Operation, and Closure of th e Burm a Road II Borrow Pit at the Savan n ah River Site , DOE/EA-1501. Savannah River Operat ions Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/NEPA/ea/EA1501/burmardbpea.pdf

. DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2005a. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Governm e nt : Renewable Energy and Biom ass , U.S. De partm e nt of Energy, Energy Inform ation Adm i nistration. Washi ngton DC. Ac cessed January 2006 at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.ren ewables/page/biom a ss/biom ass.htm l

. DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2005b. Savannah River S ite E nd State Vision, Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.srs.gov/sro/SRS% 20End%20Stat%20Vision.htm

. DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2005c. Environm ental Assessm ent f o r the National Pollutan t Discharg e Elim ination System W a st ewater Co mpliance Alternatives at the Savannah River Site , DOE/EA-1513. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

53DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2006a. Federal Energy Managem e nt Progr am

. Energy Efficiency and Rene wable Energy. Biom ass Program , Program page last updated January 25, 2006. Accessed at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bi om ass/biom ass_basics.htm l

. DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2006b. Environmental Assessm e nt for the Replacem ent Source of Steam for A Area at the Savannah River Site , DOE/EA- 1568. October 2006. Savannah River Operations Of fice, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs /envbul/ea-1568_final_10-2006.pdf.

DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2007. Environm ental Assessm ent f o r the National Pollutan t D i scharg e Elim ination System St ormwater Compliance Alternatives at the Savannah River Site , DOE/EA-1563. Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolin a. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/DOEEA1563.pdf

.
EJN (Earth Justic e Networ k), No date provided. Tire Derived Fue l. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/

.
Haskins, L., 2008. New Regional L a ndfill Begin s Servin g Nine South Carolin a Counties. Accessed January 2008 at:http://www.environet.com / m a in.asp? p age=story& id=2&m onth=09&paper=ga&year=1998

.
LSCOG (Lower Savannah Counc il of Governments), 2008. Three Riv e rs Solid W a ste 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/ai r/AQBasics/glossary.cfm

.
NPS (National Park Service), 2006. Air Resources Infor m ation System (ARIS)

. Accessed January 2008 at: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Perm its/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 Departm e nt of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, A i ken, South Carolina.

SCDHEC ( S outh Carolina Departm e nt of Health and Environm ental Control), 2008. NPDES Perm itting f o r Point Source Disc harge . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.scdhec.net/envir onm ent/water/npdespage.htm

.
Sentelle, B., 2007. GW Results and Data for R-2 Location from FGW

- 012D Well

. Em ail communication between B. Sentelle an d David W o l f e dated 9/4/07. W a shington Savannah River Com p any, Aiken, South Carolina.

54SRNL (Savannah River Na tional Laboratory), 2007. Evaluation and Ranking of Candidate Sites for the Proposed Biom a ss Energy Center at Savannah River Site

. Prepared for DOE under Contract #: DE-AC09-96SR18500. W e stinghouse Savannah River Com p any, Savannah River Na tional Laboratory. Aiken, SC 29808.

SRS (U.S. Departm e nt of Ener gy, Savannah River Site), 2006. Summ a r y of Contem pora n eous Em iss i ons – D & K Areas

.
SRARP (Savannah River Archaeol ogical Research Program ) 2008. Site Use No. 07-18-O Proposed Bio m ass Facility (484-D Replacem ent Facility). Savannah River Archaeological Research Program , South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.

USDA (United States D e partm e nt of Agriculture: Soil Resource Managem e nt), 2005b. National P r ogram 202: Soil Resource Managem e nt Assessm ent Team Meeting. USDA-ARS . Accessed October 2007 at: http://ars.usda.gov/sp2Use rFiles/Program /202/202Asse ssm ent2004/202Assessm entRepor tFinal.pdf

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 1998. Particulate Matter Controls, Chapter 1: B a ghouse and Filters . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/cs6ch1.pdf

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 1999. Nitrogen O x ides (NOx): W h y and How They Are Controlled . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf

.
USEPA ( U .S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2006. Landf ill Methane O u trea ch Program Spr eadsheet . Accessed January 2008 at:
www.epa.go v/lm op/proj/xls/lm opdata sc .xls

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2007a. Curren tly Design a t ed Nonattainm e nt Areas f o r All Criteria Pollutan t s: South Carolina . Accessed January 2008
at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/gree nbk/ancl.htm l#SOUT H%20CAROLINA

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2007b. National A m bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS ). Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.htm l

. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007c. List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.go v/visibility/class1.htm l

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2007e. Particulate Matter . Ac cessed January 2008 at: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm /

.
USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2007f. Basic Inform ation: Air and Radiation . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.htm l

.

55USEPA (U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency) 2007g. Health E ffects: Radiation Protec tion . Accessed January 2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/ understand/health_effects.htm l

. USGS (U.S. Geologic S u rvey) 2008. USGS 02197000 Savannah Ri ver at Augusta, GA Real-tim e Surface Water Dis c harge Data . Accessed January 2008 at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nw ism a n/? s ite_no=02197000&agency_cd=USGS

.

W i ke, L.D, E.A. Nelson, J.J. Mayer, R.S. Riley, and W

. L. Specht, 2006. SRS Ecology Environm ental Inform ation Document , WSRC- TR-2005-00201, W a shington Savannah River Com p any, Savann ah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed January 200 8 at: http://s ti.s r s. gov/fulltex t /WSRC-TR- 2005-00201.pdf

.

56APPE NDI X A

Floodplain/Wetland Assessment for Bi omass Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site

1-AThis page intentionally left blank

2-A1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This Floodplain/W etland Assessm e n t is prepar ed in com p liance with 10 CFR Part 1022 as an adden d um to the Environm ental Assessment for Bi om ass Cogeneration and Heating Facilities at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EA-1605). The proposed action consists of the construction and operation of the fo llow i ng biom ass cogeneration and heating facilities : a new biom ass cogeneration f acility, to replace the existing D-Area Powerhouse; and, two new biom ass heating pl ants at K and L-Areas, to replace the existing K-Area steam plant. The propos ed biom ass cogeneratio n facility would discharge its process w a ter to Upper Three R uns (UTR), a tributary of the Savannah River. The discharge pipe line would encroach upon the forested/shrub and em ergent wetlands ad jacent to UT R, along with the cr eek’s associated floodplains. The operation of

this disch a rge requ ire s a National Pollutant D i scharg e Elim ination System (NPDES)
perm it. DOE is required to m eet m o re re strictive conditions of the NPDES perm it.

Additionally, a Clean Water Act Section 404 we tlands perm it from the U.S. Ar m y Corps of Engineers would be require d to authorize the construc tion of the pipeline where it encroaches upon jurisdictional wetlands. Th is perm it applicatio n would include the survey and plan to m i nim i ze i m pacts to th e we tlands area for the d i scharge pipeline and outfall.

2.0 EFFECT ON FLOODPLAINS O R WETLANDS

The proposed pipeline could potentially im pact a sm all area of forested wetlands of UTR. Soils within this drainage area are typica lly sandy and erodible. The im pact to the wetland area is due to the routing of a bur ied 24-inch discharge pipeline from the new cooling tower basin at the pr oposed cogeneration plant to the UTR outfall. The sam p ling station for this pipeline outfall would be lo cated adjacent to the cooling tower basin to allow for optim al access and to m i nim i ze additio nal wetlands im pacts.

The proposed discharge pipeline would be approxim a tely one m ile long through upland vegeta tion o f the site to allow f o r 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 r each th e discharge point in UT R. It is an ticipated that less than 0.5 acres of wetlands would be disturbe d. The pipeline routing would require a

m a xi m u m ROW width of 15 feet to allow for the construction of the ne w line. Process water, containing trace amounts of a dded chem i cals such as a m ines, phosphates, su lfites and anti-scale treatm ent, would be discharged f r o m the f acility into UT R, approximately 1 m ile northwest of the plant. The disc harge point would be perm it ted under SRS’s existing NPDES wastewater perm it which allo ws for point source discharge to UTR. This perm it would require regular monitoring and reporting. The hydric soil of the area is classified as P i ckney sa nd. Pickney sand, frequently flooded, has slopes less than 1 percent and is a very poorly drained soil in the f l oodplain 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-ACreek. The y occur as interm ingled areas of th e Coastal Plain and Sand Hills. Mo st areas are rolling, and m o st are long and narrow. Blanton sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes, is a

som e what excessively d r ained so il 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 h azard on constru c tion sites (Rogers 1990) . Oversto r y vegetation in the wetlan d is predom inantly water oak and laurel oak ( Quercus nigra an d Q. laurifo lia ), swe e tg um ( Liquidambar styraciflua ) and loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ).

The actual routing location would be survey ed before commence m ent of construction activ ities an d would be optim ized to m i ni m i ze wetland en croachm e nt to the greatest extent poss i ble. Altern ative rou tin g loca tions avoiding the wetlands area would require substantially longer runs and m o re costly ener gy consum ption, as the effluent would have to be pum ped rather than gravity drained. U T R 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 di lution, and, the close proxim ity of the creek to the location of the proposed plant.

Silt f e nces and other e r osion contro l stru ctur es as needed would be in stalled to en sure there is no deposition in the downslope floodplai n or wetland areas. An erosion control plan for this proposed activ ity would be de veloped in accordance with applicable S t ate and local floodplain protection standards an d followed to ensure that no additional im pacts to wetland would occur due to er osion and sedim e ntation. No excavated

m a terials would be deposited in w e tland areas . W ith the im ple m ent a tion of all best

m a nage m e nt practices, to both m i nim i ze runoff from the construction site and m i nim i ze direct encroachm e nt on the wetlands and th eir associated floodplains, DOE expects the overall im pacts to wetlands and floodplains of UTR from the proposed project would be

m i ni m a l and short term . No long-term i m pacts are foreseen.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Proposed and alternative com p liance actions are covered in the Environmental Assessm ent for Biom ass Cogeneration and Heat ing Facilitie s at the Sav a nnah River Site (DOE/EA-1605) (DOE 2008). No floodplain/w e tland im pacts, except where noted in this assessm ent, are expected for the propos ed or No Action Alternative considered within th e s c ope of the EA. W h ere im pact s are expected, a ppropria te m itigation p l ans would be form ulated and im ple m e n ted to co mpensate for thes e im pacts. Typ i cal

m itigation choices would be wetlan d creation, restoration or enhancem e n t, preservation, or use of Wetland Miti gation Bank credits.

4-A4.0 REFE RE NCES

DOE (U.S. Departm e nt of Energy), 2008 Environm ental Assessm ent for Biom ass Cogeneration and Heating Facili ties at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EA-1605). Savannah River Operations Office, Sava nnah 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 Dep a rtm e nt of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, A i ken, South Carolina.

5-AFinding of No Significant Impact for Biomass Cogeneration and Heatin g Facilities at the Savannah River Site

Agency : U.S. Departm e nt of Energy

Action : Finding of No Significant Im pact

Summary: The Departm e nt of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environm ental

assessm ent (EA) (DOE/EA-1605) to analyze th e potential environm ental im pacts of the proposed construction and operati on of new biom ass cogenera tion and heating facilities located at th e Savannah River Site (SRS). Th e draft EA was m a de available to the S t ates of South Carolina and Georgia, and to the public, for a 30 -day comm e n t period. Based on the analy s es in the E A , DOE has determ ined that th e pro posed action is not a m a jor Federal action significantly a f f

ectin g the quality of the hum an environm ent within the

m eaning of the Nation a l Environ m ental Polic y Act (NEPA) of 1969. Therefore, the preparation of an environm en tal impact state m ent (EIS) is not required and DOE is issuing this f i nding of no significant impact (FONSI).

Public Availability: Copies of the final EA and FONSI or further infor m ation on the DOE NEPA process are available fro m :

Andrew R. Grainger, N E PA Compliance Officer U.S. Departm e nt of Energy, Sa vannah River Operations Office Building 730-1B, Room 3150 Aiken, South Carolina 29808 Fax/telephone: 1-800-881-7292

e-m a il: nepa@srs.gov or drew.grainger@srs.gov

Background: A large portion of SRS (the F, H, and S-Areas) is supp lied with its energy and steam from a coal-fired powerhouse in D-Area, while an oil-fired steam plant in K-Area sup p lies s t eam energy to both K and L-Areas . The coal-fired D-Area powerhouse was constructed in the 1950s a nd the K-Area oil-fired steam plant was installed in 1992. Both are in need of significant m odifications to reliably supply energy for DOE’s continuing m i ssions and to m eet current environm en tal regulations and air

em ission restrictions. In addition they rep r e s ent sign if icant ove rca p acity relative to

curren t and projected needs. The project des c ribed in th e EA will repla ce the two existing facilities with three biom ass energy plants. Specifically, DOE’s proposed action is the cons tr uction and o p eration of the f o llowing f acilities : a new biomass cogener a tio n facility to replace th e ex isting D-Area power house; and two new biom as s heating p l ants at K and L-Areas to replace the existing K-Area steam plant. The proposed biom ass cogenera tio n f acility an d heating plants will sup p ly energy to the F, H, K, L, and S-Areas

1of SRS. The proposed project will help SRS meet its energ y requirem e nts for an in itial
term of 21 years, with the potential for m a ny years of continu e d opera tion af ter th e in itia l
term

. The project is being proposed under the au thority and term s of the DOE Biom ass and Alternate Methane Fuel Energy Savi ngs Performance Contract num ber DE-AC26-02-NT41457. DOE anti cipates the proposed project will create significant energy and energy cost (dollar) savings to S R S. The s a vings will result from fuel switching, r e duction s in line loss es b y plac ing th e steam plants s e vera l m iles close r to end user facilities, and im proved ope ra tio ns with new equipm ent that is sized to better m a tch load requirem e nts. In addi tion to providing for m u ch of SRS’s steam needs with a renewable energy source, the pr oject will create benefits to the surrounding area. All three plants will utilize biom ass obt ained from the region, and will use the best available control technology for the reduction of air em issions.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action: The purpose of the propos ed action is to supply large portions of SRS with reliable and effici ent sources of energy. DOE needs to generate energy to support continuing and fu ture SRS m i ssions thr oug h m o re efficient and environ m entally preferable m e ans. DOE needs to utilize biom ass and bio-derived fuels as fuel sources to move towards m eeting req u irem ents se t f o rth 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 m o re renewable energy in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 through 2009, (2) 5 per cent or m o re renewable energy in FY 2010 through 2012, and (3) 7.5 percent or more renew a ble energy by FY 2013.

Proposed Actions : T h e proposed action, the constr uction and operation of biom as s cogenera tio n and heating f acilities at SRS, will con s is t of the f o llowing two Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs): a new biom ass cogeneration facility to replace the existing co al-fired D-Area powerho use; and tw o new biom ass heating plants, one in K-Area and one in L-Area to replace the exis ting oil-f i red steam plant in K-Area. The ECM project com ponents are described in detail below.

The proposed biom ass c ogeneration facility (E M C 1) will be located on a 30-acre s ite near th e cen ter of SRS. The facility will produ ce approxim a tely 850,000 ,000 pounds of
steam per year which will be exp o rted to the 200-Area u s ers and will m e et all o f the therm a l energy steam requirem e nts of the F, H

, and S-Are a s of SRS. The f acility will also produce from 6 t o 15 m e ga watts of electricity which will be connected and distributed to the SRS electrica l distribution system for use on site. Electricity output will vary based on the quantity of excess steam available after the steam load requirem e nts are

m e t.

Biom ass f u el will be burned in the new f acility to p r od uce steam and power. The biom ass will cons ist of prim arily lo w-valu e wo od residu es and wood waste by -prod u cts with a sm all percentage of biom ass-derived f u e l (BDF) and oil de live r ed f r om the lo cal Aiken and Augusta area. Biom ass sources m a y include low-value forest products, forest residues and wood processing wa ste by-products, agricultural crops, construction waste, and alcohol fuels. W o od is the m o st comm on for m of bi om ass and is available fro m

2several waste sources. This m a terial includ es by-products from m a nufacturers such as furniture m i lls, s a w m ills, paper m ills and oth e r wood product m a nufacturers ; low-v a lu e forest produ cts, su ch as sm a ll trees and top wood, and defective or deform ed trees; f o rest residues, su ch as dead wood and hazardous wi ldland fire fuels and lan d scaping waste. Woodwaste is typically in the form of saw dust, woodchips, pellets, and wood scraps such
as crates an d pallets, an d is regu larly used as an energy so urce for heating and power generation. There are num e rous sources of biom ass availabl e within 100 m iles of SRS and the fuel will be pro c ured th rou gh purchas es from local biom ass suppliers. Many of the local suppliers obtain a portion of their biom ass through timber sales f r om SRS.

BDF will make up to 3 0 perc ent of the heat in put sour ce f o r th e coge neration f a c ility. The BDF will cons ist of tire-derived fuel (T DF) from scrap tires b r ought to transfer stations and landfills. The m a ximum pe r m itted am ount of BDF processed in the proposed facility will be approxim a tely 1.1 m illion British therm a l units (m btu)/year or 43,000 tons of tires/year. In addition

, each bi om a ss boiler will be capable of burning fuel oil in the event the b i om ass feed system fails. As fuel oil is used, the biom a s s

consum ption will decrease. Five percen t of the fuel input for the propo sed cogeneration f

acility could be f u el oil. This consu m ption will vary as it will be a b acku p f u el only.

The biom ass f u el deliv ery truck s will enter SRS using an existing p r im ary road to the plant entran ce. A d eceleration lane will be added for trucks to enter th e cogeneration f

acility as p a rt of th is p r ojec t. Onc e ons ite, the trucks will be unloaded using a truck dum p er. A fire suppres sion system will be pa rt of the cogeneration bio m ass fuel storage area. The trucks will exit behind the cogene ration facility where a new traffic lig ht will be installed. The current graveled road will be paved to support th e biom ass truck deliveries. Peak tru c k traffic will b e an 8 hou r operation with 7 to 8 tru c ks per hour, 5 days per week.

The proposed cogeneration fa cility will in clude two 120,000 pounds per hour (pph) (210,000 mbtu/hr input) boilers and one 20 m e gawa tt turbine. Each boiler will have full capacity fuel-oil bu rners that will serve as a back-up in case the biom ass fuel system is inoperab l e. The propos ed facility will hav e a footprint of approxim a tely 20,000 sq uare feet (sf), with an additional 2,200 sf adm i nist ration building in front of the facility, a detached g a rage, and biom ass fuel yard covering approxim a te ly 12 acres. The developm ent on the site will in clude four m a in com ponents: 1) the fuel h a ndling yard , 2) the steam /com bustion system , 3) the water tr eatm e nt system , and 4) the turbine and electrical system . The 850 pounds per square inch (psi) steam produced by the ste a m plants will p a ss th rough a sing le ex traction tu rb ine. Steam required by SRS will th en be transf er

red to an exis tin g steam distributi on sys t em , and the rem a ining steam will f l ow through the other stage of the turbine f o r additional power generation. The

com bustion/steam system will inclu d e the com pone nts from the fuel feed er to the exh a ust stack and th e steam auxilia ries.

A bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) com bustion t echnology is proposed for this project. BFB technology uses high pressure air to fluidize a 2-3 foot bed of sand (inert m a terial) in suspension. The fuel source is fed into the system through air spouts and dropped onto

3the bed. The system operates using air to re duce the bed temperat ure and to m i ni mize nitrogen oxide (NOx) em issions. BFB tec hnology is preferable to the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) for biom ass f u els due to its ab ility to be tter toler a te va riou s f u el types, as w e ll as larger variations in both fuel m i xture density and moisture content. BFBs have the advantage of reduced air em i ssions due to a m o re stringently controlled
tem p erature in the com b ustion process. Th e BFB boiler will produce steam at 850 psi, 825° F. T h e steam will pass through a condensing steam turbine when generating electricity, or, if the turbine is down, th rough a pressure reducing valve (PRV) station which will reduce th e pressure to 38 5 psi. Th e 385 psi s t eam will be d i stribu ted to the existing system via the interconn ection to the ex isting s t eam header lo cated just acros s an existing road from the new plant.

Each boiler will includ e a f l ue gas handling s y stem , which will con s ist of an ind u ced draft (ID) f a n to pull the boiler flue ga s through the econom i zer , and then through a multiple co ne dust collector. The ID fan w ill exhaust into a fabric filter baghous e and then to an integral exhaust stack. The ba ghouse will capture particulate m a tter from the flue gas with rem oval efficiencies of 99.9+ percent. Because of the lower bed
tem p erature of a BFB, a baghouse will be used instead of an electros tatic precipitato r (ESP). The baghouse will be m o re effective in capturing sulfur and m e rcury com ponents and has m i nim a l energy requir e m e nts com p ared to the ESP. The f l ue gas will th en exit through a stack adjacent to the ID fan and baghous e, to be located just outside of the new f

acility. Th e f l ue gas f r om the boiler will be treated in th e com bustion system using selective non-catalytic reduc tion (SNCR) technology to redu ce nitrogen oxides. Urea will be injec t ed into th e furnace typically a bov e the over-fire air ports, re acting with the oxides to form innocuous nitrogen and hydrogen.

Cooling process water f o r the f acility will be d r a w n f r om th e Savannah R i ver. New more efficient pu mps will be installed in the 681- 3G Pum phouse to provide the water to the biom ass cogeneration facility. A new pipeline will be installed from the proposed facility site to the nearest water m a in pum p house in C-Area, a distance of approxim a tely 1.5

m iles. Of this distanc e , the p i pe line will follow an existing right-of-way (ROW ) for one

m ile and will th en bran ch off for 0.5 m iles thro ugh forested land. Indu strial was t ewater f r om the f acility will b e discharg ed via a di sch a rge sys t em to Upper Three Runs (U TR). The ash and other waste generated d u ring f acility operation s will be dis posed of at the nearby pe r m itted Thre e Rivers R e gional Mu nicipa l Solid W a ste L a ndf ill. A new elec trical f eeder line will b e cons tr ucted to tie the f acility into the S R S electric a l gr id system at the 251-F substation.

Construction of the cogeneration facility is scheduled to begin in September 2008, and will continu e for 2.5 yea r s. A peak num b er of 200 construction workers will be requ ired during the construction period. The facility will be online n ear the end of 2010, and will operate 24 hours per day for an initial term of 21 years, though the serv iceable life of the facility will be over 30 years. Approxim a tely 20 em ployees will be required for operation of the facility.

4ECM 2 will consist of two ne w bio m ass heatin g plan ts; on e will servic e K-Area an d the other will se rvice L-Are a . The new K-Area pl an t will be adjacent to the existing oil- f i red
steam plant within the f e nced area. The L-Ar e a plant will b e loc a ted on the f ootp r in t of Building 18 3-4L which was rem ove d during site decomm issi oning and dem o lition. Both plants will consist of a com bustion and steam sy stem . The plants will each be capable of producing 1 0,500 pounds per hou r (pph) of steam. Additio nally, bo th the K and L-Area biom ass heating plants will only b u rn cle a n biom ass and no BDF. The biom ass f u el (wood m a terials) will b e stored at the fuel yard adjacen t to the proposed cogeneration facility (EC M 1), and will be trucked to the K and L-Area pl ants up to a m a xi m u m of one trip pe r day to both sites

. The f u el will be load ed onto a walking f l oor

- b ed truck a t the fuel yard an d then park ed at the metering bin for each steam plant. Each of the new plants will b e ins t alled in a new enclosed m e tal b u ilding with an adjacen t covered shelter to house the fuel storage and delivery equipm en t. A fire suppression sy s t em will be part of each of the fuel storage areas. T h e total footprint of con s truction will be 3 acres for each steam plant, for a total of 6 acres. The tota l constructio n period for both plan ts will be approx imately 18 m onths. Once operationa l, both plants will on ly p r oduce s t eam, and will distribu te th e produ ced ste a m within thei r respec tive s e rvic e ar eas (K and L). The pipeline connecting K-Area and L-A r ea will no longer be needed and will be capped and left in place. The plants at the K and L location s will each h a ve less th an 1400 gallon s a day of steam blow down water at peak per pl ant. This w a ter will d r a i n to th e existing sanitary sew e r system in K-Area a nd to perm itted outf a ll L-07 in L-Area.

Each of the two biom ass plan ts will use up to 2,500 tons pe r year of biom ass (5,000 tons total for both plants). The pl ants are scheduled to operate during the colder m onths of Nove m b er through April. Each of the biom ass plants will also be equipped with fuel oil burners for fuel oil com b ustion 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 f r om the r i ver water system in L-Area and f r om the well water sy ste m in K-Area.

No Action Alternatives: Under the No Action Alternative, DOE will con tinue to operate the coal-fired D-Area powerhouse, wh ich produces both steam and electricity for onsite consumption, and the oil-fired K-Area steam plant, which produces only steam

. These facilities are pas t their design life and are in need of si gnificant modifications and upgrades to bring them into compliance w ith current environm ental standards and
perm itting requirem e nts

. The existing D-Area powerhouse currently burns alm o st 160,000 tons of coal an nually and will con tinu e to use co al at a s i m ilar rate und er th e No Action Alternative. In F Y 2007, 6,569 truckloads of coal were deliv ered to the D-Area powerhouse, totaling 153,954 tons of coal. On average, 26 truckloads were delivered to the site each day and the aver age weight of coal delivered per truckload was 23.4 tons.

The D-Area powerhouse is close to the Savanna h River and is located several m iles fro m its end users (F, H, and S-Areas) and m u st 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 m e ga watts of electricity on average that is

consum ed by DOE facilities onsite. Electric ity output is based on the quantity of excess
steam available after the steam load requ irem ents are m e t. The D-Area powerhouse

5withdraws a n aver age o f 50 m illion gallons of water p e r d a y f r om the Savannah River

. W a ter tha t is used f o r

steam plant f eedwate r is tre a ted at th e 483 -D water p l ant. Untreated raw water, which is used for c ondenser cooling passes directly through the condenser and is discharged directly thr ough the powerhouse’s outf all. The prim ar y National Po llutant Disc harge Elim ination System (NPDES) perm itted outf a ll f o r the facility, D-0 1, disch a rges an averag e of 40.2 m illion gallons /day. Dis c harge lim its are in effect for temperature, tem p er ature difference b e tween river water in tak e and disch a rge, residua l chlorine, pH, total suspen ded solids, oil/g reas e, and m a nganese. The D-Area powerhouse em ploys 60 people and is operated by a contractor.

The existing oil-fired K-Area steam plant is m a intained by SRS personnel, but no

em ployees are perm anently ass i gned to the faci lity. 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 co ntinue to be the prim ary boiler. Th e K-Area steam plant serves both K and L-Area users, and a 2.5 m ile pipeline deliv ers steam to the L-Area fro m K-Area. The
steam that travels in this distribution pipelin e als o loses valu able energy before reach ing L-Area. The source f o r

process water f o r the K

- Area plant will con tinu e to be f r om the well water system in K-Area.

Alternativ es Considered But Not Evaluated: For this pro j ect, two alternative lo c a tions were evaluated for the proposed biom ass coge neration facility, but were dism issed from f u rther ana l ysis. Altern ative Site 1 is in clos e p r oxim ity to the m a in steam header, SC Highway 125, and a 115 kilovolts electrical sy stem . Drawbacks to this location include the distance of the s ite from the F-Area production wells and th e Central San ita ry Wastewater Treatm e nt Facility (CSWTF). The m a jor drawback to th is s i te is the distance to the 200-Area end-users. This site is the clos est of the evaluated locations to the existing powerhouse site. Therefore, com p ar ed to the other locations, m o re steam line would have to stay in servic e if th is site were to be used. The cost of operating and

m a intaining this add i tional line would be considerable. The energy loss f r om transpo r ting the steam a c ross th is distance w ould also be co nsiderab le. To com p ensate for this energy loss, m o re fuel would be n eeded . For these reasons, Alternative S i te 1 was dism issed from further evaluation.

Alternative Site 2 is close to the 200-Ar ea end-users and groundwater production wells. However, it is far from the highway, CSWT F, and the steam main. Because of the distan ce from a m a in SRS thoroughfare, this site location would create access difficulties for construction activities and fuel delivery. Fu rther, th e site is in clo s e proxim ity to a

rem e diated nuclear waste operations site. Howe ver, the key drawback of this site is that it is in c l ose proxim ity to the H-Area m e teorolo g ical towe r and theref or e would inte rf ere with the tower’s operation. For these reason s, Alternative Site 2 was dism issed from further evaluation.

DOE also considered alternatives related to water sources, the di scharge of industrial effluent, and the cooling of process water, but did not evaluate them in the EA.

6The biom as s cogeneration fac ility would require process water for steam and cooling
tower m a keup and for backwash and regenerati on cyc l es associa t ed with the f a c ility’s
water treatm ent system. Expected water flow dem a nd c ould peak at 2,000 gallons per

m i nute. Alternative so urces of process water identified but not evaluated in the EA included: (a) treated efflue nt from CSWTF, (b) groundwater from existing F-Area production wells or new production wells installed at the prefe rred facility site, and (c) the SRS dom estic water system . DOE determ ined that the CSW T F was not a v i able
water sou r ce becaus e the volum e of treated effluent would not b e s u fficient to m e et facility needs. Although the site’s gr oundwater resource coul d easily accomm odate projected w a ter dem a nd, DOE determ ined th e use of existing or new production wells would not be cost effective. From this an a l ysis, DOE has determ ined th e SRS dom e stic water system has sufficient capacity to s upport the proposed action, but its use for this purpose would not be econom ical. The biom ass cogeneration facility will draw its w a ter f r om the ex isting r i ver water syste m . If , at s o m e point in the f u ture, the river water system is no longer available due to insufficient river flows, the above water source alte rnatives will be reev aluated.

A potential alternative to disc harging industrial effluent (s team and cooling tower blow down) to U T R is to discharge this waste st re a m to CSW T F. DOE determ ined th at the site’s wastewater treatm e nt f acility could not accomm odate the increased inflow, and this option was not evaluated in the EA. The use of air-cooled c ondensers as an alternative to the construction and operation of cooling to wers was also identified. Ho wever, air-cooled condensers are space an d energy in tensive and will not fun c tion effectively during the hot and hum i d su mme r period. Therefore, DOE did not evaluate this alternative m e thod for c ooli ng process water in the EA.

Environmental Impacts: The co genera tion f acility site will be loc a ted 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 p r evious use o f the proposed site, the potential for the constructi on and operation of the proposed action to im pact environm ental resources a t SRS will be negligib le. DOE also expects th at the potential for the utility line right-of

- w ay constru c tion to im pact environ m ental reso urces at SRS will be negligible. DOE expect s that enviro nm ental im pacts f r om the construction and operation of the plants at K an d L-Areas to be sim ilar to those for the proposed facility site. As these two areas cu rrently house facilities, the land and soils are already disturbed and com p acte d. DOE expects that th e p o te ntial f o r the utility line right-of-way construction in K and L-Areas to impact enviro nm ental re sources at S R S to be negligible. DOE expects no adverse wate r quality im pacts from the construc tio n and operation of the proposed actions. The substa ntial decrease in Savannah River water withdrawal r a tes will be beneficial.

DOE expec t s that air em issions resulting from construction-rela ted activities (e.g., equipm ent em issions, f ugitiv e dus t) at the thre e sites will b e shor t- live d and m i nim a l. They will n o t requ ire p e rm itting by the Sta t e. Overall em issions will change with the shif t f r om a coal-f ired p o wer plant to a biom ass cogenera tio n f acility. DOE expects the overall em ission lev e ls will de crea s e , but th e e m issions of som e criter i a pollu tants will increase. SRS currently operates via a T itle V-Part 70 Operating P e rm it. A new

7operation p e rm it will b e obta i ned to includ e th e new em issions f r om the cogene ra tion f

acility. Ac tions tha t will a i d in de c r easing the overall im pa cts of air em issions include lim iting when the facility will b e op erating, a nd utilizing abatem ent tech nologies to help decrease em ission levels at the source. The proposed f acility’s abatem ent m e a s ures include a fabric filter baghouse to reduce particulate m a tter (PM), and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce ni tro g en oxide form ation. Baghouse filters work to curb PM em issions by trapping partic u l ate m a tte r in a f a bric b a g, sim ilar to the
way a vacuum cleaner operates. The filters are cleaned b y blowing air through in the reverse direction and collecting the PM. This process effectively rem o ves up to 99.9+ percent of particulate matter. Th e SNCR method effectively reduces NO x em issions via a process of urea in jec tion

. Urea will be injec t ed into the stea m boiler at tem p eratures high enough to result in a chem ical reaction between water and urea that for m s a m monia which in tu rn reacts with NO x and oxygen to for m nitrogen and water. In addition, lim estone will be inje cted into the f l ue gas and, via sorptio n reactions, reduce NO x and sulfur com p ounds. Multicyclone technology wi ll be im plem ented at the K and L-Area plants to aid in decreasing air em issions. This technology reduces the tem p erature of

com bustion by dilution of the combustion produc ts with excess fuel, air, flue gas, or
steam . The resulting chem ical reaction s pr e v ent the major ity of the nitrogen f r o m becom i ng ionized and form ing NO x . Replacem ent of the existi ng facilities with bio m ass fueled facilities will substantially redu ce greenhouse gas (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, m e thane, ozone) em issions and m i nim i ze environm ental co mpliance is sues while m o re reliably providing steam for SRS m i ssions and decreasing the SRS carbon footprint.

The potential for these activ ities to significantly im pact the hum a n environment (e.g.,

a i r, a quatic, terre s tria l, a n d b i otic re sou r ce s) w i ll be neg lig ible

. The potential for the proposed and alternative ac tions evaluated in the EA to significantly impact archaeo logical or cultural resources at SRS wi ll be negligible. N one of the proposed action s evaluated in the EA will be expected to have a m e asurable im pact on m i grator y avian species. DOE expects ov erall im p acts to both vegetation and wildlife to be long-term and m i nor for the proposed actions. There will be no effect on the population status of any threatened and endangered spec ies within the proposed project areas or on a site wid e lev e l.

The potential for th e pro posed action s evalu a ted in the EA to resu lt in terror i sm -related activity or impacts at SRS are expected be negligible. The potential for the proposed action s eva l uated in the EA to resu lt in acc idents from operation activ ities at SRS are expected to be negligible. Im pacts to worker he alth and saf e ty will be neglig ible d u e to the use of appropriate safety practices, personal protective clothing and equipm ent, and the provision of a safe and healthful wor kplace as required by F e deral regulations. Workforce requirem e nts and project costs of implem entation of the proposed projects will be mini m a l whe n co m p ared to the total SRS budget and e m ploym ent (approxim a tely $1.15 billion per year an d 10,000 personnel, respectively). The socioecono m i c i m pact(s) of the proposed projects on th e hum a n environm ent will be negligible. Based on the inform a tion and an alysis p r ese n ted in th e EA, DOE has determ ined that the proposed construction and operation of the new biom ass cogeneration

8f acility and heating pla n ts at SRS will not cau se dispropo r tiona tely h i gh and adverse hum a n health or environm ental effects on m i nority and low incom e populations in the SRS region of interest. Infrastructure im pacts from the proposed actions will be neglig ible as the new facility and plants will b e s m aller than the existing powerhouse and therefore require less infrastructure resources.

Cumulative Impacts : Construction-related activities of implem entation of the proposed projects will be short-lived a nd the potential for any resulti ng air em issions to in ter act with other SRS pollutant sources or have a cu mulative impact on criteria air pollutants will b e neg l igible. SRS could be in an ar ea d eclared non atta inm e nt f o r PM 10 , PM 2. 5 , and
ozone at so m e future date. W h en an area is designated nonattainm e nt for any of the criteria pollutants, the affected State m u st draft a plan known as a State Im ple m entation Plan (SIP) to im prove air quality an d outlin e th e contro l measures the State will ta ke in order to m eet National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These air pollution control

m easures in clude a pro cess called Nona ttainm e nt New Source Review (NA NSR )
perm itting. NA NSR a pplies to new m a jor so urces or m a jor m odifications at ex is ting sources for pollutants w h ere the sou r ce locati on is not in a t tainm e nt with NAAQS. All NA NSR perm its require that the proposed air pollution source install the Lowest Achievable Em ission Rate (LA E R), polluti on controls, em ission offsets, and an opportunity for public involvem e nt. LAER is the m o st stringent em ission lim itation derived from either of the following: the m o st stringent em ission lim itation contained in the SIP f o r a sim ilar sour ce, or the m o st stringen t em ission lim itation ach ieved in p r a c tic e by a sim ilar source. Also, sources m u st obtain em issions reductions from existing sources loca ted in the vicinity of the s ource NA NSR source. The em ission reductions, generally called “offsets ” m u st offset the em issions increase from the new source or

m a jor source m odification to ensure reasona ble progress toward m e eting the NA AQS. The em ission reductions m u st also provide a net air quality benefit. DOE expects that there will be a decrease of approxim a tely 100,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide

em issions by switching from coal com bustion to biom a ss com bustion and that the potential cu mulative impacts of the actio n s evalu a ted in the E A on the hum a n environm ent will be m i nim a l.

Floodplain Statem ent of Findings: This is a Floodplain Stat em ent of Findings prepared in accordan ce with Title 10 Code of Fede ral Regulation s Part 1022. A floodplain and wetlands a s sessm ent was inco rpora t ed in the E A . W ith the im plem entation of all best

m a nage m e nt practices, to both m i nim i ze runoff from the construction site and m i nim i ze direct encroachm e nt on the wetlands and th eir associated floodplains, DOE expects the overall im pacts to wetlands and floodplains of UTR from the proposed project will be

m i ni m a l and short term . No long-term i m pacts are foreseen. DOE will allow 15 days of public rev i e w af ter publica tion of this statem ent of findings before im ple m e n ting construction of the proposed biom ass cogene ration facility and two new biom ass heating plants at K and L-Areas.

Determ inat ion: Based upon the infor m ation and an alyses in the EA (DOE/EA-1605), DOE has de term ined that the proposed cons truction and operation of the new biom ass cogenera tio n f acilities a nd heating p l ants a t SRS do not constitu te a m a jor Federal ac tion

9