W9123621R4002 ATT 10 HSAAP Thermal Final EA_March 2020.pdf

Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR INSTALLING AND OPERATING

A THERMAL TREATMENT FACILITY

HOLSTON ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, TN

Prepared for

Commander, Holston Army Ammunition Plant Kingsport, TN

Prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

With technical assistance from

Tetra Tech, Inc.

March 2020

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Assessment

Holston Army Ammunition Plant, TN March 2020 i

CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ..........................................................................................1-3

1.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ..............................................................................1-3

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE .......................................................................................1-3

1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................1-3

SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..........2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................2-1

2.2 SCREENING CRITERIA .........................................................................................2-1

2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ..................2-1

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................2-2

2.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................................................2-2

2.4.2 Alternative 2: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with

FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) .......2-2

2.4.3 Alternative 3: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with

FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at Location 1 .........................................2-4

2.4.4 Alternative 4: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with

FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at Location 1 .........................................2-4 SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ..................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................3-1

3.2 LAND USE .............................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ............................3-2

3.2.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) .....................................................................3-2

3.2.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 .........................................................................................................3-2

3.2.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 .........................................................................................................3-3

3.3 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ...........................................................3-3

3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................3-3

3.3.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ............................3-3

3.3.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) .....................................................................3-3

3.3.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 .........................................................................................................3-4

3.3.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 .........................................................................................................3-4

3.4 AIR QUALITY .........................................................................................................3-4

3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................3-4

3.4.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ............................3-8

3.4.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) .....................................................................3-8

3.4.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-12

3.5 NOISE .................................................................................................................. 3-13 ii

3.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-13

3.5.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-14

3.5.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-14

3.5.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-16

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................... 3-16

3.6.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-16

3.6.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-17

3.6.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-17

3.6.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-18

3.6.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-18

3.7 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 3-19

3.7.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-19

3.7.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-19

3.7.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-19

3.7.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-21

3.7.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-22

3.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 3-22

3.8.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-22

3.8.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-24

3.8.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-24

3.8.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-26

3.8.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-27

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 3-27

3.9.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-27

3.9.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-28

3.9.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-28

3.9.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-29

3.9.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-29

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................ 3-30

3.10.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-30

3.10.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-35

3.10.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-35 iii

3.10.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-37

3.10.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-38

3.11 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................ 3-38

3.11.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-38

3.11.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-39

3.11.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-39

3.11.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-39

3.11.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-39

3.12 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................ 3-40

3.12.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-40

3.12.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-40

3.12.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-41

3.12.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-41

3.12.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-42

3.13 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS ............................................................. 3-42

3.13.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-42

3.13.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-42

3.13.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-42

3.13.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-43

3.13.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-43

3.14 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE..................................................................... 3-43

3.14.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-43

3.14.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .......................... 3-44

3.14.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at

Location 1 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 3-44

3.14.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-45

3.14.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at

Location 1 ....................................................................................................... 3-45

3.15 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................... 3-45

SECTION 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................4-1

4.1 FINDINGS ..............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES .....................................................................................4-3

4.3 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................4-3

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................5-1 SECTION 6.0 PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................................................6-1 SECTION 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................7-1 SECTION 8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ......................................................................................8-1 SECTION 9.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................9-1 iv

TABLES

Table 2-1. Screening Criteria for the Proposed Action to Install a Thermal Treatment Facility at HSAAP ........................................................................................................ 2-1

Table 3-1. Air Quality Standards and Monitored Data near HSAAP .................................. 3-5 Table 3-2. Facility-wide Emissions at HSAAP Area B ....................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3. Major Modification Thresholds for Existing PSD Sources ................................. 3-7 Table 3-4. Annual Air Emissions Compared to De Minimis Thresholds ............................. 3-9 Table 3-5. GHG Emissions from the Proposed Action..................................................... 3-11 Table 3-6. Effects of Potential Climate Stressors on Facility Operations ......................... 3-11 Table 3-7. Common Sounds and Their Levels ................................................................ 3-13 Table 3-8. Estimated Background Noise Levels .............................................................. 3-14 Table 3-9. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction ...................................... 3-15 Table 3-10. Estimated Area (acres) Cleared under Each Alternative ................................ 3-24 Table 3-11. Population Trends .......................................................................................... 3-30 Table 3-12. Labor Force and Unemployment .................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-13. Income, 2013–2017 5-Year Estimates ........................................................... 3-31 Table 3-14. Housing Data, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates .................................................. 3-32 Table 3-15. Minority and Low-Income Population Data ..................................................... 3-35 Table 3-16. IMPLAN Model Output—Annual Construction Economic Impacts .................. 3-36 Table 3-17. Existing AADT and LOS on Nearby Roadways .............................................. 3-38 Table 3-18. HSAAP Projects with Potential Cumulative Effects ........................................ 3-46 Table 4-1. Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences ....... 4-1 Table 4-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures and BMPs .................................................... 4-4

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Installation Location. ........................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2-1. Location 1. ....................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2. Location 2. ....................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-3. Location 3. ....................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 3-1. Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-2. Census Tracts ................................................................................................ 3-34

1-1

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army is planning to pursue the installation of a thermal treatment facility at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP) Area B. HSAAP is an approximately 6,000-acre facility located west of downtown Kingsport, TN (see Figure 1-1). It is a U.S. Army government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility and part of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command (JMC). BAE Systems Ordnance Systems Inc. (BAE OSI) has operated the installation since 1999.

Thermal treatment of explosives-contaminated wastes and waste explosives currently occurs through open burning at the HSAAP open burning grounds (OBG). The OBG consists of three areas, pans where waste explosives are burned, cages where lightweight explosives-contaminated combustibles are burned, and piles where larger, heavier items contaminated with explosives are burned. The pans are covered under the HSAAP Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subpart X permit (TNHW-148) and Area B Clean Air Act Title V Air permit (568188). The cages and piles are only covered under the HSAAP Area B Title V permit. As the HSAAP operating contractor, BAE OSI operates the OBG under these permits.

In 2014 HSAAP began a four-phased approach to evaluate alternatives to open burning. The goal of this approach was to utilize phases 1 and 2 to determine if any alternatives to open burning of HSAAP waste explosives or explosives-contaminated waste existed. Under the Title V and RCRA subpart X permits, open burning is permitted if no other safe means exists. If phases 1 and 2 identified alternative technologies applicable to HSAAP waste, then phases 3 (Design) and 4 (Construction) would pursue implementation. The first phase was a waste identification and quantification effort to determine how open burning alternative technologies should be evaluated in terms of throughput and size. The second phase was the actual evaluation of open burning alternative technologies in relation to HSAAP-specific wastes and the feasibility of their implementation at HSAAP. The second phase concluded in April 2019 by releasing to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) the March 2019 Final Report:

Thermal/Non-Thermal Solutions to Open Burning Holston Army Ammunition Plant detailing the specific technology evaluations.

As required by the Title V permit, alternative technologies based on the phase 2 effort and a plan for implementation were disclosed to TDEC. The Army and BAE OSI identified that a flashing furnace (FF) type technology was to be implemented to cover cage and pile waste streams. The Army and BAE OSI also identified the moving bed reactor (MBR), as discussed in the March 2019 Final Report provided to TDEC, as a promising technology for the waste explosives; however, additional information was required to determine if implementation of the MBR could be achieved at HSAAP. While both technologies have been implemented successfully in other locations, each unit must be specifically designed to meet Army safety standards for operations with HSAAP material and within the constraints of the installation. Therefore, the Army has moved forward with plans to implement the FF and attain the necessary information to determine if implementation of the MBR could be achieved at HSAAP.

The Army has prepared this EA in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Title 42 of the United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321 et seq.); Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500–1508); Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR part 651); and AMC policy.

1-3

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed action is to install and operate a technologically proven thermal treatment facility at HSAAP. The proposed action is needed to reduce open burning of waste explosives and explosives-contaminated waste at HSAAP in accordance with the plant’s Title V and RCRA subpart X permit.

1.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions during the decision-making process. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through well-informed decision-making. NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to implement and oversee federal policy in that process.

Accordingly, the CEQ issued its regulations to implement the procedural provisions of NEPA. The Army has supplemented the CEQ NEPA regulations by promulgating its own NEPA regulations.

As part of this environmental assessment (EA), the Army considered applicable federal, state, and local regulations during analysis of the proposed action’s impacts to individual environmental and social resources. The Army considered the following legislation:

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470aa et seq.)

Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401)

Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1543)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., as amended)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901)

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE

The Army must decide whether the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the selected alternatives analyzed in the EA will support a finding of no significant impact (FNSI) or will require publishing in the Federal Register a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Army will publish an NOI if the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the selected alternatives analyzed remain significant even after all reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented.

1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Army invites and strongly encourages public participation in the NEPA process.

Consideration of the views of and additional information from all interested parties promotes open communication and enables better decision-making. The Army specifically urges all agencies, organizations, and members of the public with a potential interest in the proposed action— including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups—to participate in the decision-making process.

Regulations in 32 CFR part 651 guide opportunities for public participation with respect to this EA and decision-making on the proposed action. The Army will make this EA, along with a draft FNSI, available to the public for 30 days, publishing a notice of availability of the EA in a newspaper local to HSAAP and on the HSAAP Facebook page. Interested parties will be able to review the documents by accessing them on the official home page of the JMC (Holston Army Ammunition Plant) at https://www.jmc.army.mil/installations.aspx?id=HolstonProgress. At the end of the 30-day public review period, the Army will consider all comments on the EA and/or the draft FNSI that individuals, agencies, and organizations have submitted. Then, as appropriate, the Army will

1-4 either execute a final FNSI and proceed with implementing the proposed action or publish an NOI to prepare an EIS.

2-1

SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to install and operate a thermal treatment facility at HSAAP. The proposed action is needed to reduce open burning of waste explosives and explosives-contaminated waste at HSAAP in accordance with the plant’s Title V and RCRA subpart X permit. Installing the facility would also require installation of air pollution controls, installation and/or maintenance of security fencing, new road segments, existing road network improvements, demolition of a railroad spur, building demolition, and installation of associated utilities such as electric, natural gas, steam, wastewater (industrial and sanitary), filter water, and compressed air. The Army established screening criteria (section 2.2) to develop reasonable alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need for the proposed action.

2.2 SCREENING CRITERIA

The Army and BAE OSI conducted a rigorous screening process for selecting alternatives for implementing the proposed action. For an alternative to be considered viable, it had to meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action as well as satisfy the screening criteria in Table 2- 1.

Table 2-1. Screening Criteria for the Proposed Action to Install a Thermal Treatment Facility at HSAAP

Site Safety Arcs The thermal treatment facility must be located outside all site safety arcs and prevent its own operational arcs from impacting any nonfederal land or existing HSAAP facilities in accordance with all HSAAP, Army, and Department of Defense regulations.

Designated Manufacturing Areas The thermal treatment facility must be located outside all operational areas designated for current or future manufacturing areas.

The Army considered all technologies for alternative treatments to open burning. All technologies that were considered are included in the March 2019 Final Report: Thermal/Non-Thermal Solutions to Open Burning Holston Army Ammunition Plant. This document details the evaluation of the technologies considered for HSAAP. Based on this evaluation, the Army selected a technology best suited for the contaminated waste streams—a flashing furnace—and documented it in the 26 February 2019 Memorandum for Distribution; Subject: Alternatives to Open Burning (OB) at Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP). A second technology for the waste explosives was identified for further investigation. While the MBR is the preferred technology, the other three potential candidates for destruction of explosives—static detonation chamber, contained burn chamber, and rotary kiln—are still being considered. As such, the technologies being considered for the waste explosives are referred to collectively as the “Explosives Treatment Technology” (ETT). Because all four technologies are thermal in nature and treat the waste similarly, the environmental impacts from any of the ETTs are considered equivalent. The FF is not under consideration as a primary technology to address the waste explosives, but primarily would be used for cage and pile waste streams. Because of the nature of the materials being addressed through the proposed facility and risks associated with their treatment, other technologies are not being considered by the Army at this time.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Based on the screening criteria, the alternatives in this evaluation are related to the potential locations for each facility. Only location 1 was considered feasible for the ETT because of the site

2-2 safety arcs that are anticipated to be generated from the facility. Location 2 is physically large enough to place the ETT, but the site safety arcs would cover the only ingress and egress to the active HSAAP magazines and landfill. Location 3 is both physically too small for the ETT and site safety arcs at the location would extend into the adjacent production area. All other HSAAP areas outside of the alternatives considered and described below did not meet the screening criteria documented in Table 2-1.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

CEQ regulations require analysis of a No Action Alternative to provide a benchmark against which decision makers can compare the magnitude of potential environmental effects caused by the proposed action and alternatives. The No Action Alternative within this EA assumes that the Army would continue its ongoing mission at HSAAP, including open burning for the treatment of explosives-contaminated wastes and waste explosives. No thermal treatment technologies would be implemented, and no facilities constructed. This would put HSAAP out of compliance with the HSAAP Title V and RCRA subpart X permit conditions to comply with the prohibition of open burning in accordance with Tennessee air regulations when safe alternatives to open burning for specific waste streams have been identified (HSAAP can no longer meet the exclusion list for all waste streams). Although the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, it has been carried forward as a baseline against which other alternatives are evaluated within this EA, and to meet the requirements under NEPA.

2.4.2 Alternative 2: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at Location 1 (Preferred Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative co-locates up to two FFs, ETT facilities, and associated control room and handling facilities in a remote, hilly area of HSAAP (Figure 2-1). As shown in Figure 2-1, FF sites 1 and 2 would be selected for the FF facilities with site 3 being an alternate. Similarly, ETT sites 1 and 2 are the primary sites being considered for the ETT. Each FF facility would require about 1 acre of land and the FF handling facility would require about 2 acres. The ETT and associated control room and handling facility would require about 4 acres total land area.

Location 1 is remote from traditional HSAAP operations and thus prevents any site safety arcs from conflicting with one another. Given its remote location, it also is unfavorable for expansion of HSAAP manufacturing facilities and not located close to the community. Some development has historically occurred in this area, providing flat locations targeted for portions of the thermal treatment facility. Existing roads would be used, though a small connecting road(s) would need to be constructed. Existing roads could require improvement before or after facility construction to be able to handle the construction and/or operation of the facilities. Up to five buildings that have not been used in several years would be demolished. The buildings are all of similar construction and were constructed in the early 1950s and the footprint of each is approximately 1,600 square feet. Approximately 1,200 feet of a railroad spur at location 1 would be removed.

Demolition and removal of the railroad spur would be needed to install portions of the treatment facility and/or utilities in favorable topographic areas while meeting safety siting requirements. A building survey to meet environmental and cultural resources requirements would be performed prior to building demolition. Also, the use of Location 1 is subject to an acceptable geologic investigation. Reuse of previously constructed areas would minimize vegetation and soil removal;

however, the existing flat or open areas at each of the proposed FF and ETT sites at location 1 are not large enough for the proposed facilities, or flat or open areas do not currently exist at the proposed sites.

2-4

The processes associated with each technology include materials handling, control rooms, technology units and similar post-treatment of waste streams. The air pollution control systems are considered part of the technology unit. For ETT site 1, demolition of existing structures would be required, while construction at ETT site 2 would occur in a mostly undisturbed area. The FF(s) would be constructed in previously disturbed areas where there is some existing infrastructure.

The FF sites would require installation of new gates, about 4,850 feet of new security fencing, and/or maintenance of the existing security fence to meet Army standards. To support construction, laydown areas as shown in Figure 2-1 would be sited in cleared areas along access roads.

Co-locating the FF and ETT facilities at location 1 would allow for more efficient and streamlined operations and better use of the available land. Co-location at location 1 would also minimize environmental disturbance from installation of utilities and disruption to other HSAAP manufacturing areas. Rerouting the utilities from the existing production area to the southeast to location 1 would be required. Utilities needed at location 1 would include electric, natural gas, steam, wastewater (industrial and sanitary), filtered water, and compressed air.

2.4.3 Alternative 3: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at Location 1

Alternative 3 is similar to the Preferred Alternative but sites the FF technology at location 2 (Figure 2-2) approximately one-half mile to the south. Implementation of this alternative would include disturbance as described at location 1 for the ETT. Installation of all security fencing and utilities would be required at location 1 as presented in the Preferred Alternative, in addition to location 2.

Location 2 would be used for up to two FFs and their associated processes. Location 2 has been previously disturbed and is currently flat with evergreen trees and one Quonset hut, which might require demolition. The Quonset hut was constructed in 1966 and has a footprint of about 4,000 square feet. A building survey to meet environmental and cultural resources requirements would be performed prior to building demolition. If this alternative is selected, this area would also be subject to a favorable geologic investigation. While location 2 has been previously disturbed, power is the only utility present. Therefore, the remaining utilities would have to be installed to this location. Location 2 is closer to existing operations at HSAAP, but still outside the immediate production area. Location 2 is not close to the community. Existing roads would be used, with the need for the construction of some small connecting roads.

2.4.4 Alternative 4: Construction and Operation of a Thermal Treatment Facility with FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at Location 1

Alternative 4 is similar to the Preferred Alternative but sites the FF technology at location 3 (Figure 2-3) approximately 1½ miles to the southeast. Implementation of this alternative would include disturbance as described at location 1 for the ETT. Installation of all security fencing and utilities would be required at location 1 as presented in the Preferred Alternative, in addition to location 3.

Location 3 would be used for up to two FFs and their associated processes. Location 3 has been previously disturbed and is currently flat with an existing warehouse. Part of the warehouse is used to store clean pallets for use throughout the plant while the other portion of the warehouse would be renovated for use for the FF material handling and/or control room. A building survey to meet environmental requirements would be performed prior to building renovation. The remaining portion of location 3 is primarily covered with noncompacted clean fill underlain by a former sodium nitrate pond that achieved no further action under the corrective action program. The fill was generated from other facility modernization programs and was not placed to serve any structural functions. A coal tar solid waste management unit bounds location 3 to the west and

2-5 the floodplain demarcation bounds the area to the south. Because of the proximity of the floodplain and shallow water table along with the proximity of the coal tar unit, this area would also be subject to an acceptable geologic investigation prior to selection. Other infrastructure further to the east has had stability issues because of poor soil structure.

Location 3 is in the production area. Although the safety arcs between this facility and existing operations do not conflict and therefore do not screen location 3 out of consideration, they are close to safety arcs associated with other facilities on the production area. Additional engineering might be required to minimize risk of damage to the FF(s) or adjacent production buildings in the event of an incident.

2-8

This page intentionally left blank.

3-1

SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the affected environment and environmental impacts associated with the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4, as described in section 2.4.

The Army took context and intensity into consideration in determining a potential impact’s significance, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. The intensity of a potential impact is its severity and includes consideration of beneficial and adverse effects; the level of controversy associated with a project’s impacts on human health; whether the action establishes a precedent for future actions with significant effects; the level of uncertainty about project impacts; and whether the action threatens to violate federal, state, or local law requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The severity of an environmental impact is characterized as none/negligible, minor, moderate, significant, or beneficial.

None/negligible—No measurable impacts are expected to occur.

Minor—Primarily short-term but measurable adverse impacts are expected. Impacts might have a slight impact on the resource.

Moderate—Noticeable adverse impacts that would have a measurable effect on a resource and are not short term.

Significant—Adverse impacts would be obvious, would be both short and long term, and would have serious impacts on a resource. These impacts would be considered significant unless mitigable to a less-than-significant level.

Beneficial—Impacts would benefit the resource/issue.

The Army used quantitative and qualitative analyses, as appropriate, to determine the level of impact. Based on the results of the analyses, this EA identifies whether a potential impact would be adverse or beneficial, and its severity.

CEQ regulations require that a proposed action’s cumulative impacts be addressed as part of a NEPA document. Cumulative impacts are effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of a project in combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of jurisdiction or entity. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions occurring over time. Section 3.15 discusses cumulative impacts.

3.2 LAND USE

3.2.1 Affected Environment

HSAAP land use generally is divided into the Area B production area, which encompasses approximately 700 acres (approximately 12 percent of the installation total), on which most industrial activities occur and facilities are located; and the Area B undeveloped area, which encompasses approximately 5,300 acres (approximately 88 percent of the installation total) and includes areas outside of the production area that are largely undeveloped. HSAAP is outside the Kingsport city limits, lying west and south of the city of Kingsport and east of the city of Church Hill. It is bordered by a county park and Bays Mountain Park to the south, residential and commercial properties and the Holston River to the west, U.S. Highway 11 West (U.S. 11W) to the north, and the Holston River and residential and agricultural properties to the east.

3-2

The Area B production area is industrial and dedicated to the HSAAP mission of explosives production and support facilities, has nearly 300 production facilities, and is classified as semi-improved grounds. Grounds surrounding the production facilities are primarily open fields mowed one or two times per year. Other than grass, vegetation in the area is limited to scattered mature trees and three small stands of upland hardwoods centrally located in the production area.

The Holston River physically divides the installation into two areas—an area north of the river that comprises the production area and the part of the undeveloped area along the northwestern HSAAP boundary where a former suspect yard and former Y-magazine storage area are located, and the area south of the river where a landfill, borrow pit, ammunition storage bunkers, roads leading to those facilities, and the north slopes of the Bays and Holston River mountains are located.

The former suspect area consists of approximately 165 predominantly wooded acres and was historically used to park vehicles or rail cars loaded with explosives for which there were safety concerns. Improvements within the area include an improved road, a railroad spur, fencing, and overhead power. Abutting the suspect area to the south is the Y-magazine area that consists of approximately 154 acres and contains 11 magazines once used to store production items. Other than the improved road network and magazines, the area is completely forested. The Y-magazine area is defined to the south and east by installation roads 1926-W and 1931 and the production area. Both the suspect and Y-magazine areas are used for deer hunting.

Portions of location 1 lie within both the suspect and the Y-magazine areas, and location 2 is situated within the Y-magazine area along installation road 1931 and the production area.

Location 3 is sited within the production area. The proposed locations, including FF and ETT sites, handling areas, and associated improvements, are shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. Most of the sites proposed within locations 1 and 2 were sited in previously developed areas to minimize tree removal. All proposed locations are situated north of the Holston River.

3.2.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on land use because no changes in zoning or land use on HSAAP would occur under the alternative.

3.2.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at Location 1 (Preferred Alternative)

3.2.3.1 Construction and Operation

Long-term, minor adverse effects on land use would be expected from FF and ETT facility construction and operation. Some forested areas would be converted to industrial use, and the area would no longer be available for deer hunting. The zoning of Area B would not change under the Preferred Alternative, and because of prior uses, no new land-use conflicts with surrounding properties would be created.

3.2.3.2 Mitigation Measures and BMPs

No mitigation measures or best management practices (BMPs) would be required for land use if the Preferred Alternative was implemented.

3.2.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at Location 1

3.2.4.1 Construction and Operation

Long-term, minor adverse effects on land use would be expected from FF and ETT facility construction and operation associated with Alternative 3. The discussion of effects under the

3-3

Preferred Alternative applies equally to Alternative 3.

3.2.4.2 Mitigation Measures and BMPs

No mitigation measures or BMPs would be required for land use if Alternative 3 was implemented.

3.2.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at Location 1

3.2.5.1 Construction and Operation

Long-term, minor adverse effects on land use would be expected from ETT facility construction and operation at location 1. Those effects would be similar to the effects described under the Preferred Alternative. No adverse effects would be expected from FF facility construction and operation at location 3. Those activities would occur within the developed production area.

3.2.5.2 Mitigation Measures and BMPs

No mitigation measures or BMPs would be required for land use if Alternative 4 was implemented.

3.3 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Location 1, within the suspect and Y-magazine areas, is on wooded land isolated from the production area and from surrounding off-post development. The Y-magazine area abuts the suspect area to the south. There are no visible signs of development except for roads, some utilities, and a few structures constructed to support those areas. Location 2 is also within the Y-magazine area but is less wooded and borders the western side of the production area. Although it abuts the production area, location 2 is more isolated from surrounding off-post development.

Location 3 is within the production area and is also isolated from surrounding off-post development. No off-post developed areas (residential, industrial, or commercial) have views of any of the locations being considered. Wooded areas characterize the aesthetics of location 1, while a combination of wooded areas and aboveground steam piping, industrial facilities, and abandoned buildings characterize the aesthetics of the production area in the vicinity of locations 2 and 3.

3.3.2 Impacts Associated with Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

No adverse effects on the aesthetics or visual resources would be expected from implementing the No Action Alternative. No visual changes to any location would occur under the alternative.

3.3.3 Impacts Associated with Alternative 2: FF Technology and ETT Co-Located at Location 1 (Preferred Alternative)

3.3.3.1 Construction and Operation

Short-term, minor adverse effects would be expected from construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Construction associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in short-term, minor adverse effects on aesthetics. Construction activities are generally considered unaesthetic, but they last only for a short time. The construction phase, therefore, would have a short-term adverse effect on aesthetics both because of the appearance of the area during construction activities and the noise associated with the activities (section 3.5 discusses noise effects). Replacement of forest with new construction would alter views in that immediate area, but the loss would not be within view of off-post development.

No effects on aesthetics would be expected from facility operations after the completion of construction activities. No changes to the aesthetics of the area would occur. No views from off-

3-4 post or on-post areas would be affected by site preparation or operation.

3.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures and BMPs

No mitigation measures for aesthetics would be required. BMPs for aesthetics would include normal construction site organization and cleanup during and upon completion of individual construction tasks and projects. HSAAP would set aside specific areas for construction staging, and the contractor would remove materials and equipment for specific phases of each construction project when no longer needed and stabilize and replant any disturbed ground upon the completion of each project. Section 3.5 discusses mitigation and BMPs for noise effects.

3.3.4 Impacts Associated with Alternative 3: FF Technology at Location 2 and ETT at Location 1

3.3.4.1 Construction and Operation

Short-term, minor adverse effects on aesthetics and visual resources would be expected from construction under Alternative 3. The discussion of effects under the Preferred Alternative applies equally to Alternative 3. No effects on aesthetics or visual resources would be expected from operation under Alternative 3.

3.3.4.2 Mitigation Measures and BMPs

The discussion of mitigation measures and BMPs for the Preferred Alternative in section 3.3.3.2 applies equally to Alternative 3.

3.3.5 Impacts Associated with Alternative 4: FF Technology at Location 3 and ETT at Location 1

3.3.5.1 Construction and Operation

Short-term minor adverse effects on aesthetics and visual resources would be expected from construction under Alternative 4.