Nippon Paper Industries Usa Company Biomass Cogeneration Project, Port Angeles, Washington
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DOE/EA-1858 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NIPPON PAPER INDUSTRIES USA COMPANY BIOMASS COGENERATION PROJECT, PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Golden Field Office JUNE 2011 DOE/EA-1858 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NIPPON PAPER INDUSTRIES USA COMPANY BIOMASS COGENERATION PROJECT, PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Golden Field Office JUNE 2011 COVER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy TITLE: Final Environmental Assessment for Nippon Paper Industries USA Company Biomass Cogeneration Project, Port Angeles, Washington (DOE/EA-1858) CONTACT: For more information about this Environmental Assessment (EA), please contact Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, EE-4A Washington, D.C. 20585 ATTN: Dr. Jane Summerson Telephone: (202) 340-9629 Fax: (202) 586-8177 ABSTRACT: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided Federal funding to the Washington Department of Commerce under the State Energy Program (SEP). Washington selected a Nippon Paper Industries USA Company (Nippon) project for a $600,000 grant and $1.4 million loan under the SEP. Nippon’s proposed project is to construct and operate a new biomass-fueled cogeneration facility that would produce both heat and power at its existing paper mill in Port Angeles, Clallam County, Washington. DOE has prepared this Environmental Assessment to help it decide whether to authorize Washington’s proposed use of the SEP Federal funding for Nippon’s proposal. The new facility would include a new boiler that would replace an existing oil and biomass-fired boiler. The new boiler would be larger, requiring about twice as much biomass fuel as the current boiler, and would produce sufficient steam to supply paper mill demands and to operate a 20-megawatt steam turbine generator. Electricity from the turbine generator would be sold to an electrical utility. The new facility would be constructed on mill property that is currently paved or covered with buildings. Under the proposed project, two existing buildings would be demolished and new construction would include a boiler building, an adjacent turbine generator building, and a building for the storage of biomass fuel. The new boiler would include air pollution control equipment with best available control technology. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction, operation, and decommissioning of the biomass cogeneration project and the alternative of not implementing this project (the No-Action Alternative), under the assumption that the project would not go forward without the SEP funding. The EA also analyzes, as a subcategory under the No-Action Alternative, a project alternative that would involve replacing the existing biomass boiler with a new, similar-sized, more efficient biomass boiler sized to meet the mill’s steam needs, but that would not include cogeneration of electricity. AVAILABILITY: This EA is available for review on the DOE Golden Field Office Reading Room Website at http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/Reading_Room.aspx and the DOE NEPA Website at http://nepa.energy.gov/DOE_NEPA_documents.html. DOE/EA-1858 iii June 2011 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ARMP Archaeological Resources Management Plan BACT best available control technology Btu British thermal unit CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DAHP Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation dBA decibel on an A-weighted scale, used to approximate the human ear’s response to sound DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources DOE U.S. Department of Energy (also called the Department) EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential JARPA Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application MOA Memorandum of Agreement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOA Notice of Availability NOC Notice of Construction NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service ORCAA Olympic Region Clean Air Agency PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less RCW Revised Code of Washington SEP State Energy Program SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SR State Route U.S.C. United States Code WAC Washington Administrative Code DOE/EA-1858 iv June 2011 Contents CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................................1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................2 1.3 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................4 1.3.1 DOE’s Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................4 1.3.2 State of Washington’s Purpose and Need ......................................................................4 1.4 Public and Agency Involvement ........................................................................................5 1.4.1 City of Port Angeles and Nippon Paper Industries Public Involvement .......................5 1.4.2 DOE Actions ..................................................................................................................7 1.4.2.1 State Historic Preservation Officer ............................................................................8 1.4.2.2 Tribal Governments ...................................................................................................9 1.4.3 Draft Environmental Assessment ................................................................................10 1.5 Draft EA Comments and Responses ................................................................................10 1.5.1 Comments Resulting in Revisions to the EA ...............................................................10 1.5.2 Comments not Generating EA Changes but Warranting Discussion ..........................12 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................16 2.1 DOE's Proposed Action ....................................................................................................16 2.2 Proposed Project ...............................................................................................................16 2.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................19 2.2.2 Operations ....................................................................................................................20 2.2.3 Decommissioning ........................................................................................................21 2.3 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................21 2.3.1 DOE Action Alternative ..............................................................................................21 2.3.2 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................22 2.3.3 Alternatives Considered by the Project Proponent ......................................................23 2.4 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications .............................................................................24 2.5 Project Proponent-Committed Mitigation Measures ........................................................25 2.5.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................25 2.5.2 Water Resources ..........................................................................................................25 2.5.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................26 2.5.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................26 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...........................27 3.1 Proposed Project ...............................................................................................................27 3.1.1 Considerations Not Carried Forward for Further Analysis ..........................................27 3.1.1.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................................27 3.1.1.2 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................27 3.1.1.3 Water Resources – Groundwater .............................................................................28 3.1.1.4 Intentional Destructive Acts ....................................................................................28 3.1.2 Considerations Carried Forward for Further Analysis .................................................28