[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9169]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 15, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration
Proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project Record of
Decision
AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision for BPA to purchase electrical power from
the proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: BPA has decided to purchase electrical power to be generated
by a privately-owned gas-fired combustion turbine (CT) plant in the
Frederickson Industrial Area, Pierce County, Washington. The proposed
Tenaska Washington II Generation Project (Tenaska Project) would
produce 240 average megawatts (aMW) of electrical energy and would be
developed and operated by Tenaska Washington Partners II, L.P.
(Tenaska), a developer of generation resources. BPA expects the Tenaska
Project to be in commercial operation by July 1996.
BPA has statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to
its utility, industrial and other customers in the Pacific Northwest.
The Tenaska Project is needed to meet electrical power supply
obligations of these customers. The Tenaska Project would also meet a
number of other system requirements. Included among these is firming
otherwise non-firm hydroelectric power so that it can be sold as higher
value firm power. The Tenaska Project offers an energy resource which
can provide BPA the flexibility to operate an increasingly constrained
hydro system. The Tenaska Project would also help alleviate potential
power system stability problems in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound
Area Electric Reliability Plan (PSAERP) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, DOE/EIS--0160, April 1992).
BPA's purposes for this action are to: (1) Meet contractual
obligations to supply requested, cost-effective electric power to BPA
customers, having considered potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures in its decision; (2) assure consistency with BPA's
statutory responsibilities, including the 1980 Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act),
which requires consideration of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning
Council's Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Power Plan) and Fish
and Wildlife Program; and (3) develop a competitive, long-term resource
acquisition program based on experience gained from the pilot
acquisition program that led to the Tenaska Project proposal.
To reach the decision to purchase, BPA prepared the Proposed
Tenaska Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)(DOE/EIS-
0194, January 1994). The FEIS was tiered to the Resource Programs
Environmental Impact Statement which considered the environmental
tradeoffs among the resource types available to meet BPA's need.
The FEIS evaluated all three components of the proposed Tenaska
Project: (1) The power plant, (2) the electrical transmission
interconnection with BPA's South Tacoma Switching Station, and (3) the
modifications to convert the Switching Station to a Substation. In
addition to identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the
proposed project at the proposed project site, the FEIS also evaluated
a No Action alternative. By contract, the proposed project is required
to meet all Federal, state, and local requirements. The FEIS fulfills
the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
State of Washington's legislative equivalent, the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). In the case of the Tenaska Project, the state lead
agency, Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services, has
satisfied the requirements of SEPA in part by reviewing and adopting
BPA's EIS effective March 4, 1994. BPA has determined that this
acquisition is consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council's
Power Plan. This determination was affirmed by the Northwest Power
Planning Council in its determination of July 28, 1993.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The Environmentally
Preferred Alternative is the No Action alternative. Although pursuit of
the No Action alternative would avoid environmental impacts resulting
from construction and operation of this proposed project, it would not
meet BPA's needs. It should be noted that this site will likely be
developed for industrial use because the proposed site is an industrial
park.
Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative is the Proposed
Action. Adoption of the Proposed Action will meet BPA's needs.
Mitigation Action Plan: A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP), developed
from the FEIS analysis, is attached. It addresses the protection of
soils, water quality, air quality, biological resources, historical and
cultural resources, and public health and safety. Environmental
agreements with local agencies have been made. Other mitigation
agreements will be completed prior to construction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine S. Pierce, NEPA
Compliance Officer for the Office of Energy Resources--RAE, Bonneville
Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208, telephone
(503) 230-3962. Copies of the Proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation
Project FEIS, the comments we received on this EIS, this Record of
Decision and Mitigation Action Plan, the Record of Decision for the
6(c) process, and the 1990 and 1992 Resource Programs, are available
from BPA's Public Involvement Office, P.O. Box 12999, Portland, Oregon
97212. Copies of the documents may also be obtained by calling BPA's
Public Involvement Office at (503) 230-3478 or BPA's nationwide toll-
free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. Information may also be
obtained from:
Mr. George Bell, Lower Columbia Area Manager, Suite 243, 1500 NE
Irving Street, Portland, Oregon 97232, (503) 230-4552.
Mr. Robert N. Laffel, Eugene District Manager, Alvey Substation,
86000 Franklin, Eugene, Oregon 97405, (503) 465-6952.
Mr. Wayne R. Lee, Upper Columbia Area Manager, Crescent Court
Building, Suite 500, 707 West Main, Spokane, Washington 99201, (509)
353-2518.
Ms. Carol Fleischman, Spokane District Manager, Crescent Court
Building, Suite 500, 707 West Main, Spokane, Washington 99201, (509)
353-3279.
Mr. George E. Eskridge, Montana District Manager, 800 Kensington,
Missoula, Montana 59801, (406) 329-3060.
Mr. Terence G. Esvelt, Puget Sound Area Manager, Suite 400, 201
Queen Anne Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109-1030, (206) 553-
4130.
Mr. Thomas V. Wagenhoffer, Snake River Area Manager, 1520 Kelly
Place, Walla Walla, Washington 99362, (509) 527-6226.
Ms. C. Clark Leone, Idaho Falls District Manager, 1527 Hollipark
Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401, (208) 523-2706.
Mr. James R. Normandeau, Boise District Manager, Room 450, 304 North
Eighth Street, Boise, Idaho 83702, (208) 334-9137.
For information on DOE NEPA activities, contact Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight, E-H 25, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,
20585, telephone (202) 586-4000 or 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
BPA is a self-financing Federal power marketing agency with
statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to utility,
industrial, and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. Consistent
with the 1991 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Power
Plan) and the Northwest Power Act, under Sections 6(a)(1) and 6(a)(2),
BPA has initiated a dynamic resource acquisition program to acquire new
conservation and generating resources. BPA is using four approaches:
billing credits, competitive acquisition, contingency options, and
unsolicited proposals to acquire energy for the region. The acquisition
of electrical energy from the proposed Tenaska Project represents a
portion of a larger plan to meet BPA's customers' current and future
needs for electricity.
BPA periodically prepares a Resource Program that explains how BPA
proposes to meet its expected load obligations. Within each Resource
Program, alternatives are examined which are composed of different
combinations of resource types from BPA's resource stack. BPA's
planning model relies on this resource stack in simulating resource
acquisitions and serves as a basis for BPA's resource planning
decisions.
In developing a Resource Program, BPA prepares load forecasts
jointly with the Northwest Power Planning Council. A range of forecasts
is prepared to reflect uncertainties about future load growth. A range
of load/resource balances is prepared by comparing the capability of
the existing Federal system resources to the range of projected Federal
system loads over the next 20 years. In a parallel process, BPA and the
Northwest Power Planning Council develop new resource supply forecasts
to plan acquisition of cost-effective resources as needed to meet load
growth.
The 1990 Resource Program identified actions BPA would take to
develop new resources to meet the power requirements of its customers.
The types of actions to acquire new resources included billing credit
acquisition, conservation acquisition, competitive bid from ``all
sources,'' hydro efficiency improvements, geothermal pilot project, and
a Resource Contingency Plan. As outlined in the 1990 Resource Program,
the primary reasons BPA selected this combination of resource actions
are to: manage risk appropriately; provide flexibility and diversity;
reflect existing and potential capability to develop new resources; and
maintain budget and rate impacts within bounds. In October 1992, BPA
issued the 1992 Resource Program. This program recommended the
development of new resources in addition to those outlined in the 1990
Resource Program.
Guided by the recommendations in BPA's Resource Program, BPA
commenced a pilot resource acquisition process to test various
approaches for acquiring a diverse portfolio of cost-effective,
reliable, and environmentally sound resources. The Competitive Resource
Acquisition Pilot Program was one of several methods that BPA tested to
acquire energy resources. The primary objective of the pilot program
was to provide BPA with the ability to systematically solicit,
evaluate, and select cost-effective resource proposals that are offered
for purchase. A secondary objective was for BPA to assess the benefits
and costs of using a competitive process for developing cost-effective
new energy supplies. BPA issued a Request for Proposals in 1991 for 300
aMW of firm energy. In response to this solicitation, BPA received 102
resource proposals totaling 5,209 aMW of generation and 116 aMW of
conservation. BPA evaluated the proposals based on system cost, project
feasibility (including location) and environmental criteria. Based on
the evaluation, BPA selected three generation projects and all cost-
effective conservation projects for further consideration and review
towards satisfying this 300 aMW target. The Project is one of the
generation projects chosen in this process.
On September 11, 1992, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register.
Announcement letters were mailed out, newspaper advertisements printed,
and newsletters circulated for the September 29, 1992, public scoping
meeting. Issues raised during the public scoping process were addressed
in the EIS. An EIS Implementation Plan was developed from comments and
questions submitted during the scoping period. The Implementation Plan
was approved by the DOE for preparation of the Draft EIS. Copies of the
DEIS were mailed out for review, and a Notice of Availability was
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal
Register on August 20, 1993. In addition to written comments, a public
meeting was held on September 8, 1993, to receive oral and written
comments from the interested public. These comments were also
considered in the development of the FEIS. The FEIS was published and
distributed in February 1994. The EPA's Notice of Availability was
printed in the Federal Register on February 25, 1994.
Notice of this Record of Decision will be distributed to the known
interested and affected public, and the Record of Decision will be
published in a subsequent Federal Register Notice.
II. Alternatives
A. No Action
Under the No Action alternative, BPA would not proceed with the
conversion of the South Tacoma Switching Station nor acquire the energy
output from the proposed Tenaska Project, thereby foregoing the
opportunity to reduce BPA's projected energy deficit and additional
benefits with this particular project. In that event, it is unlikely
that the proposed project would be implemented without a commitment
from another party to acquire the energy output.
B. The Proposed Action
The proposed action is the purchase by BPA of electrical power
which will be generated at a privately-owned gas-fired combustion
turbine plant in the Frederickson Industrial Area, Pierce County,
Washington. The proposed Tenaska Project would generate 240 aMW of
electrical energy and would be built and operated by Tenaska. The
proposed action also includes transmission (underground) by Tenaska and
conversion of a switching station to a substation by BPA. Electricity
generated at the proposed power plant would be supplied to BPA's South
Tacoma Substation facility for distribution through the regional power
grid.
C. Other Actions
Because the proposed action will not satisfy BPA's total need for
electrical energy, implementing the proposed action will not foreclose
consideration of other potential BPA resource actions.
Resource types potentially available to meet future load growth
include:
Conservation (commercial, residential, and industrial
sectors);
Renewables (hydropower, geothermal, biomass, wind, and
solar power);
Cogeneration;
Combustion turbines;
Nuclear power; and
Coal and clean coal.
These resource types were competitively evaluated in BPA's Resource
Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement.
III. Decision Factors and Issues
Both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives were
evaluated against the purpose of and need for action for the Tenaska
EIS (see the Summary of this Record of Decision). The other actions
which could be taken to meet BPA's need will be evaluated independently
(see page 6 of this Record of Decision). Only the Proposed Action would
satisfy BPA's need for electrical power. The No Action Alternative
would not meet this need.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The Environmentally
Preferred Alternative is the No Action alternative. Although pursuit of
the No Action alternative would avoid environmental impacts resulting
from construction and operation of this proposed project, it would not
meet BPA's needs. It should be noted that this site will likely be
developed for industrial use because the proposed site is an industrial
park.
Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative is the Proposed
Action. Adoption of the Proposed Action will meet BPA's needs.
Meeting BPA's Contractual Obligations: The Proposed Action would
help assure BPA can meet its contractual obligations to supply
requested, cost-effective electric power to its customers, having
considered potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The
No Action Alternative would not reduce potential energy deficits.
Consistency With BPA's Statutory Responsibilities: The Proposed
Action is consistent with BPA's statutory responsibilities, including
the Northwest Power Act (which requires consideration of the Northwest
Power Planning Council's Plan and its Fish and Wildlife Program). BPA
determined that this acquisition is consistent with the priorities
established in the Council's Plan and the Northwest Power Planning
Council supported this determination.
Developing a Competitive Long-Term Acquisition Program: The
development of a competitive, long-term acquisition program will be
based partly on the experience gained from the pilot acquisition
program that led to the proposed Tenaska Project. Pursuing the Proposed
Action is consistent with the objectives of the Competitive Resource
Acquisition Pilot Program. It will provide BPA the ability to
systematically evaluate and select resource proposals and to assess
using a competitive process to develop new cost-effective energy
supplies.
In addition, the Proposed Action is consistent with the preferred
alternative identified in BPA's April 1993 Record of Decision on the
Resource Programs EIS. Under the preferred alternative, BPA would rely
heavily on combustion turbines for meeting future power needs. The
Resource Programs Environmental Impact Statement discussed operating
characteristics of combustion turbines, including their ability to firm
non-firm hydropower and to provide added flexibility to the BPA system
operating in conjunction with the hydro system. The Proposed Action is
consistent with these abilities. The Proposed Action would also help
alleviate power system stability problems in the Puget Sound Area which
were discussed in BPA's PSAERP EIS. The PSAERP assumed that a minimum
of 400 MW of new resources would be built in Puget Sound Area by 2003.
The Tenaska Project would be part of this 400 MW.
As BPA embarked on its competitive acquisition process for
additional conservation and generation resources, the underlying need
for acquisition of new resources was the avoidance of electricity
deficits caused by growing customer loads. In the time period since the
DEIS was issued for comment, BPA has become involved in a major effort
(Competitiveness Project) to reassess its role, and therefore, its need
for resources. That process is still very much in development. However,
preliminary indications suggest that BPA's load growth may not be as
great as was predicted in the 1990 and 1992 Resource Programs. BPA has
examined the Tenaska Project in light of these tentative conclusions
and finds that even if preliminary projections become reality, the
Tenaska Project would still be needed and justified to meet load.
IV. Environmental Consultations, Review, and Permit Requirements
BPA reviewed the status of all Tenaska Project permits and
licenses; engaged in consultations with Tenaska and appropriate
federal, state and local agencies and interested parties to ensure the
Project satisfies federal, state, and local environmental plans and
programs and environmental mitigation plans; and ensured that all
environmental consultations and review requirements were addressed.
Development of the Tenaska Project would be consistent with
environmental policies established by NEPA and by the Washington SEPA
(SCL 1980).
The following is a discussion of the findings by environmental
topic:
1. Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
A response letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to a
request for information on state or Federally-listed rare, threatened,
or endangered species indicated that there are none in the vicinity of
the proposed power plant. No protected species were observed during the
field surveys.
Five sensitive species: The western bluebird, western gray
squirrel, mountain quail, Tacoma western pocket gopher, and the white-
top aster (Aster curtus) could be potentially impacted by the proposed
project; however, only the white-top aster was observed during the
field surveys. Anticipated impact to these species is determined to be
minor. Specific measures to address the propagation of the white-top
aster are contained within the MAP.
2. Fish and Wildlife Conservation
The proposed Tenaska Project is consistent with the Power Plan,
including its fish and wildlife components. The site is located in an
upland area with disturbed wildlife habitat. Water resources that
promote fish and wildlife habitat have not been identified at the
proposed Tenaska Project site. Industrial facilities, scattered
residential units and undeveloped areas surround the site. Upland weedy
fields make up 85 percent of the site and are rated as moderate habitat
for wildlife but rated as low habitat value for vegetation. Wooded
areas, which comprise 15 percent of the site, are rated as moderate
habit for wildlife and vegetation.
3. Heritage Conservation
No cultural resources were identified or discovered by the archival
search or the field survey. A copy of the cultural resources survey
report has been sent to the Washington State Historic Preservation
Office.
4. State, Area-Wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency
a. Land Use
The proposed Tenaska Project would alter land use at the site from
vacant to industrial use. The site is located within the Frederickson
Industrial Area, which is zoned for heavy industrial use, and the
Project is consistent with land use designations.
b. Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
The Northwest Power Planning Council was established by the
Northwest Power Act. The goal of the Council's 1991 Power Plan is to
``assure the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical
and reliable power supply'' (Council, 1991). One of the Council's
authorities is a review of the Administrator's determination under
section 6(c) review, as directed by the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C.
839d(c)(1)-839d(c)(5). Section 6(c) requires both the BPA Administrator
and the Council to determine that a project of at least 50 aMW and five
years duration is consistent with the Power Plan. BPA has conducted a
formal review pursuant to section 6(c). The BPA Administrator
determined on May 28, 1993 that the proposal to acquire up to 240 aMW
of firm energy from the Tenaska Project is consistent with the Power
Plan. The Council found on July 28, 1993 by unanimous vote that the
proposal is consistent with the Power Plan.
c. Notice to the Federal Aviation Administration
No structures exceeding 30 meters (100 feet) above ground are
planned at the Tenaska Project. No notice to the Federal Aviation
Administration is required as no structures to be constructed at the
Project are equal to or greater than 61 meters (200 feet) in height.
Two airports are in proximity (one 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) due east
and the other 5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles) due west) of the proposed
facility. A small private airstrip is located approximately 1,219
meters (4,000 feet) south of the proposed plant site. Aircraft
approaching for landing or takeoff would be sufficiently above ground
over the proposed facility site to be unaffected by hot gas emission
from the power plant stack. Aircraft approaching and taking off from
McChord Air Base (approximately 9.6 kilometers (six miles) northwest)
would not be affected by the proposed power plant's facilities and no
regulation would apply.
d. Construction-Related Permits
The Pierce County Department of Permits and Land Services regulates
development activities via Ordinance No. 90-132, Site Development
Regulations. The application for Site Development Permit for the
proposed Tenaska Project was submitted to the Department of Permits and
Land Services for review on January 11, 1994.
5. Coastal Zone Management Program Consistency
The proposed Tenaska Project is not located in the coastal zone,
nor will it affect the coastal zone.
6. Floodplains
The Tenaska Project site is not within a floodplain or area which
is susceptible to flooding.
7. Wetlands
Wetlands do not occur at the project site and therefore,
construction activities do not require permits for alteration of
wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act nor under the
Washington Shoreland Management Act.
8. Farmland
The Farmlands Protection Policy Act directs Federal Agencies to
identify and quantify adverse impacts of Federal programs on farmlands.
The Tenaska Project site is currently vacant and zoned for heavy
industrial use. The Soil Conservation Service indicated that no prime
or unique farmland exists at the site.
9. Recreation Resources
No public recreation occurs at the proposed Tenaska Project site as
it is privately owned and zoned for heavy industrial use. It is
unlikely that the proposed Project would interfere with the present use
of any recreation resource in the vicinity.
Separate from the EIS process, the National Park Service recently
provided comments to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) addressing the Park Service's concerns about impacts on Mount
Rainier National Park resources from existing levels of ozone and
nitrogen deposition. The Park Service noted the potential emissions
from the Tenaska Project could add to the nitrogen oxides deposition.
These concerns were considered by PSAPCA with respect to the issuance
of the amendment to Tenaska Project's air quality permit and were
adequately addressed in their permitting process. The U.S. Forest
Service recently provided comments to PSAPCA addressing the Forest
Service's concerns about the potential acidification and loss of water
clarity in an alpine lake (Summit Lake) within the Class II Clearwater
Wilderness (located on the northwest corner of Mount Rainier). The
Forest Service noted the potential emissions from the Tenaska Project
could add to the SO2 and NOx deposition. These concerns were
considered by PSAPCA with respect to the issuance of the amendment to
Tenaska Project's air quality permit and were adequately addressed in
their permitting process.
10. Global Warming
Several greenhouse gases would be emitted by the proposed Tenaska
Project. These may include Federally regulated criteria air pollutants
such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Emission levels of these gases by the
proposed Tenaska Project would be below the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency's threshold standards for both emissions and ambient air
quality.
11. Permit for Structures in Navigable Waters
The proposed Tenaska Project does not include work or structures
that are in, on, or over any navigable waters of the United States as
defined in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. 403.
12. Permit for Discharges into Waters of the United States
The proposed Tenaska Project is located in an upland area and there
is no proposed discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United States.
13. Permit for Right-Of-Way on Public Lands
The proposed Tenaska Project would be located on private land.
14. Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities
The proposed Tenaska Project does not include the operation,
maintenance, or retrofit of an existing Federal building, or the
construction or lease of a new Federal building.
15. Pollution Control
Tenaska has identified procedures to be used during the project
construction and operation to achieve compliance with Federal, state,
and local regulations and ordinances. These regulations and ordinances
concern the following: procurement of goods and services from the EPA
listed facilities, clean air standards, water quality standards, solid
waste disposal, hazardous waste handling and disposal, drinking water
standards, noise abatement, pesticide control, asbestos, Toxic
Substance Control Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act, and radon.
The Tenaska Project would lie in an area that is designated as a
nonattainment area with respect to ambient air quality standards for
carbon monoxide and ozone. The PSAPCA has established significant
impact threshold criteria for new pollutant sources in areas that are
out-of-compliance with ambient air quality standards. The proposed
Tenaska Project would be in compliance for emissions of carbon monoxide
and volatile organic compounds, as well as in compliance with all other
applicable air pollutant emission and ambient air quality standards.
Operation of the proposed Project would produce noise. The
predicted noise level at the nearest residence would be 46 decibels
(dBA) compared to an applicable standard of 50 dBA. The maximum
predicted noise level at the neighboring property line in an industrial
area would be 66 dBA compared to an applicable standard of 70 dBA.
Noise levels would be in compliance with local, state and federal
requirements.
Process, sanitary, and cooling system wastewaters would be routed
to the Pierce County sewage system. The wastewater stream from the
proposed Tenaska Project would be lightly polluted from cooling tower
blowdown, which contains salts and possible traces of chemicals used to
control algal growth in the cooling towers. This discharge would not
affect Pierce County's ability to meet its wastewater discharge
standards.
Water supply needs would be met with the existing available
resources from Tacoma Public Utilities. Water supply to the area would
likely be expanded, as industrial growth occurs, with the construction
of an additional trunk line from a local reservoir and possibly from
local wells.
The Clover-Chamber Creek Basin aquifer system was recently
designated as a sole-source aquifer by the EPA. The water quality of
the aquifer will be preserved by the implementation of the Preparedness
and Prevention Measures, a Contingency Plan, and a Spill Prevention
Control Countermeasure Plan in compliance with Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department regulatory requirements.
V. Mitigation
The proposed Tenaska Project already includes many features
designed to reduce environmental impacts. By incorporating
environmental protection features into the Project design and operation
plan, some impacts would be prevented. The discussion of these design
features can be found in the Tenaska FEIS under Section 5.14, ``Project
Design Features for Reducing Environmental Impacts'' and summarized in
Table 4.7-1 of the attached MAP.
All practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental
impacts have been adopted. Please see the attached MAP for details.
In addition to the requirements of the state and local reviewing
agencies which are based on existing regulations other than SEPA, the
Pierce County Environmental Official has determined that other
mitigating measures will be necessary to ensure that the proposal will
not have a significant impact on the environment. These mitigating
measures are required under the Substantive Authority of SEPA in
accordance with the guidelines contained in section 17.08.170 of the
Pierce County Code and are enumerated below.
Ground Water Mitigation Measures
1. Hazardous materials tank containment structures shall meet all
local, state, and federal (if applicable) standards for construction.
2. The applicants shall submit and comply with a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan and a Hazardous Materials Management
Plan.
3. The storm water system design must meet the water quality
standards, requirements, and best management policies specified in the
Washington State Department of Ecology's Storm Water Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin.
4. Prior to the arrival of hazardous materials on-site, a ground
water monitoring well is to be installed down-gradient of the facility
(as the site allows) and a sampling program will be developed to
include annual sampling of the monitoring well for hazardous materials
present on the site. The sampling program and its results shall be
submitted to the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
VI. Monitoring and Enforcement
The MAP for the Tenaska Project states the mitigation measures
necessary to reduce the environmental impacts identified in the FEIS.
Tenaska will provide a monthly report to BPA during the pre-
construction and construction phases, on the progress made on
mitigation actions which have been identified, as plans and agreements
are put in place and fully implemented. Tenaska will provide a report,
on a frequency and schedule to be mutually agreed to by Tenaska and
BPA, on the progress made on mitigation actions to be addressed during
the Tenaska Project operations phase.
VII. Decision
Upon consideration of the entire record, BPA has decided to
purchase electrical power from the proposed Tenaska Project.
Issued in Portland, Oregon on March 29, 1994.
Randall W. Hardy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-9169 Filed 4-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P-M