T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program - FEIS Chapters - PVD

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) EvaluationIndirect ImpactsIn the event that contaminated soil is encountered, it would likely be removed and groundwater would likelybe treated on-site from four release sites (listed in the Direct Impacts section above), thereby reducing theamount of contamination in the area. Removing the USTs would eliminate potential future sources ofcontamination. Alternative B4 is not anticipated to impact active remediation systems or groundwatermonitoring at nearby release sites.Significant Impacts: There are no sites in the Project Area, Study Area, or City of Warwick that are listed on theNPL. Therefore there are no significant impacts in the category of Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, andPollution Prevention as a result of Alternative B4.5.17.5 Short-Term Impacts from Temporary Construction ActivitiesAlternatives B2 and B4 would have no temporary construction impacts on hazardous materials and solid waste.The potential for new releases from either construction activities or from encountering a previously unidentifiedrelease is considered generally the same because each Alternative would involve construction activities of arelatively similar magnitude and duration. While it is not possible to determine the likelihood of encountering apreviously unidentified release as part of conceptual design, measures to protect workers and the environment,such as special management procedures for any hazardous, contaminated, or special wastes generated duringconstruction as part of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan would be implemented. Construction materials anddebris would require disposal at appropriately licensed off-site facilities, including landfills, recycling centers,and treatment/asphalt batch plants.5.17.6 Cumulative ImpactsNeither the No-Action Alternative nor Alternatives B2 and B4 will result in the generation of additionalhazardous materials or solid waste. Alternatives B2 and B4 would result in an overall net benefit related tohazardous materials and solid waste because RIAC would close and remediate known or previouslyunidentified USTs impacted by program elements as part of the demolition activity. Demolition debris from thestructures on acquired land would be disposed of at an appropriately licensed landfill.5.17.7 Comparison of Alternatives B2 and B4Alternatives B2 and B4 would not result in significant impacts related to hazardous materials or solid waste.There are no feasible means of avoiding areas of potential subsurface contamination or waste materials.It is anticipated that Alternatives B2 and B4 would comply with Rhode Island and federal hazardous materialsand solid waste regulations because Alternatives B2 and B4 would be designed in compliance with applicableregulatory requirements.Based on the magnitude of each potential impact, Alternative B4 would have the fewest environmentalconsequences related to OHM because there would be fewer overall required property acquisitions andproperty demolitions. Alternatives B2 would require the removal of 19 USTs and Alternative B4 would requirethe removal of seven USTs. Alternatives B2 and B4 would provide beneficial impacts due to the potentialremoval of impacted soil during construction activities. For both Alternatives, in the event that contaminatedsoil is encountered, it would likely be removed and groundwater would likely be treated on-site from theChapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-267 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH05_Environmental_Cons_JUL_2011.doc