[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