Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) Alternative Coal Receiving Systems, Roane County, Tennessee

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) Alternative Coal Receiving Systems,

Roane County, Tennessee

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and

TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

TVA has decided to adopt the preferred alternative (Alternative C)

identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on

Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) Alternative Coal Receiving Systems. The

Final EIS was made available to the public on January 15, 1997. A

Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1997. Under Alternative C, TVA would construct

a new rail spur from the existing CSX Rail Yard or a direct tie in to

the Norfolk Southern (NS) line at Walnut Hill in Harriman to the

existing TVA coal delivery yard at KIF. The route would involve

crossings of the Emory River and an embayment of Watts Bar Reservoir.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold M. Draper, NEPA Specialist, Environmental Management, Tennessee

Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C, Knoxville,

Tennessee

[[Page 15958]]

37902-1499; telephone (423) 632-6889 or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The KIF receives by rail about 4 million

tons of medium sulfur coal per year. This coal is transported by

Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX Railroads to Harriman, Tennessee. At

Harriman (CSX origin), the coal is transported over a short NS spur for

transport to NS's Emory Gap rail yard and then to TVA's Caney Creek

yard. TVA then moves the coal by rail from Caney Creek yard to KIF, a

distance of about 4 miles. While NS has directed access to Caney Creek,

CSX trains are charged a switching fee, now approximating $2 million

annually for use of the NS spur. This switching fee contributes to

higher fuel costs at KIF when compared to the fuel costs at other TVA

fossil plants. In order to enhance the competitiveness of the KIF plant

and to provide more economical access to lower sulfur coals, which will

be required to meet new air quality regulations, TVA investigated

alternative methods of coal delivery to the plant.

TVA provided public notice of its intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement on alternatives for coal delivery to KIF

on May 22, 1995. A public meeting on the proposal was held on June 29,

1995. TVA released a draft EIS on May 15, 1996, and held a public

meeting to receive comments on the document on June 11, 1996. After

considering all comments, TVA revised the EIS appropriately. The Final

EIS was distributed to commenting agencies and the public on January

15, 1997.

Alternatives Considered

In order to reduce the fuel costs for KIF, direct rail delivery was

evaluated because it would eliminate rail line switching fees, reduce

operation and maintenance costs, and increase competition between the

rail carriers. Alternatives initially considered included construction

of an overland conveyor, a new barge unloading facility, and a coal

slurry pipeline. Also, increased truck deliveries were considered.

However, all of these were rejected because they were not feasible from

an economic or engineering standpoint. A longer 13-mile rail line from

Oliver Springs was also rejected on economic and other grounds. Three

alternatives were formulated that represented economically feasible

options. These were no action and two alternatives that involved

construction of a new rail spur.

Under Alternative A, No Action, conditions and impacts resulting

from the existing coal delivery system would not change. However, this

route, which passes through downtown Harriman, blocks several street

crossings and impacts the ability of the city and county governments to

provide emergency services during portions of the day. There are also

ongoing noise impacts resulting from 30-car rail trips to the plant

about six times per day.

Under Alternative B, Rail Spur Route No. 1, new rail spurs would

originate at the CSX Harriman Yard or near the NS line at Walnut Hill.

From north to south, the route would cross Bullard Branch and Quarry

Branch (CSX spur only), pass south of the Fiske Road community, pass

through the Harriman Industrial Park, cross the Emory River, and extend

overland about three miles to the plant. Proceeding south from the

Emory River, the route would cross Swan Pond Circle Road, cross an

unnamed stream, pass under existing transmission lines, cross Swan Pond

embayment on a causeway, cross Swan Pond Circle Road, cross Swan Pond

Road, cross Swan Pond Creek, and link up with the existing rail line.

Implementation of Alternative B would result in a rail spur

approximately 4.5 miles in length. From an infrastructure standpoint,

trains would bypass downtown Harriman; however, in order to avoid two

road crossings in a short distance, Swan Pond Road and Swan Pond Circle

would need to be relocated near their junction, creating one crossing.

Bridges would need to be constructed across the Emory River and two

small creeks; and there would be a new causeway across Swan Pond

embayment. Other traffic impacts would be that one existing and two new

crossings would be blocked to allow trains to pass; however, because

the roads are less-used then the ones crossed by the current route,

fewer vehicles would be impacted. Under this alternative, there would

be 24,730 fewer vehicle crossings of the rail route per day than under

the No Action alternative.

Trains following the new rail line would increase noise levels in

the Fiske Road community of Harriman. However, the largest potential

noise increase in this community over existing levels is 0.4 decibels

(dBA). The quieter Swan Pond Circle Road community south of the Emory

River would also be impacted by operation of a new rail line. Noises in

this community would result from crossing bridges, road crossing bells,

train whistles, and wheel squeal due to track curvature. In this area,

the largest potential noise increase would be 2.0 dBA over existing

levels. In order to reduce this impact, welded rail would be used

rather than jointed rail in the Swan Pond Circle area.

Construction of the rail spur in Alternative B would result in the

loss of 7 acres of prime farmland and a 5-acre beaver-created wetland.

However, to the extent practicable, TVA would locate the rail spur

above the 750-foot contour in the Swan Pond embayment area to avoid

wetland involvement. With strict adherence to Best Management Practices

during construction of the proposed rail spur, no significant impacts

to water quality, floodplains, wildlife, recreation, or endangered

species are expected. However, because the rail construction would take

place in a karst geology area, there is some risk of sinkhole

subsidence. This would be minimized by proper geotechnical

investigations. Approximately 43 views from residences would be

affected. There would be a 31 percent reduction in locomotive emissions

as compared to the No Action alternative. An archaeological survey of

the proposed route identified four sites that were eligible or

potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places that could be impacted by the proposed route. TVA would continue

consultation with the State Historic Preservation officer prior to

construction to define measures to avoid or reduce adverse effects to

these sites. Although most of the area is sparsely populated, it

appears that compared to the No Action alternative, fewer minority

population groups would be affected; however, slightly more low income

individuals would be affected.

Under Alternative C, Rail Spur Route No. 2, the route would not

cross Swan Pond embayment after crossing under transmission lines, but

would proceed south along the east side of Swan Pond, cross Swan Pond

Circle Road, cross the narrow embayment fronting the KIF ash stack on a

causeway, and run parallel with Swan Pond Road and the existing rail

line to the plant rail yard. Implementation of Alternative C would

result in construction of a rail spur 4.75 miles in length. Under this

alternative, there would be 28,600 fewer vehicle crossing of the rail

route per day than under the No Action alternative. Construction along

the Alternative C route would not result in loss of prime farmland and

would only involve minor wetland crossings. Approximately 37

residential views would be affected. There would be slightly higher

impacts on low-income individuals than Alternative B. Other impacts

would be similar to those of Alternative B.

TVA Decision

The Final EIS identified Alternative C, Rail Spur Route No. 2, as

the preferred alternative. The northern end

[[Page 15959]]

of this rail spur route includes options to link to both the CSX yard

and the NS rail line. Of the two action alternatives, Alternative C

avoids the most wetland and prime farmland impacts. It also involves

fewer intersections, fewer vehicles affected at railroad crossings,

fewer terrestrial ecology impacts, and fewer aesthetic impacts on

neighboring residents. In comparison to the No Action alternative, a

new rail delivery option would reduce the fuel costs of KIF through

increased competition between rail carriers for coal deliveries,

reduced operation and maintenance costs for TVA, and the elimination of

switching fees currently associated with CSX deliveries. All of these

benefits would help to provide TVA's customers with electricity at the

lowest possible rate.

In choosing its preferred alternative, TVA carefully considered and

addressed all comments submitted on the Draft EIS. In addition, TVA has

considered comments received from the Environmental Protection Agency

on the Final EIS comment responses. These additional considerations are

discussed below, along with the comment response number from the FEIS:

Comment No. 3. EPA believes that environmental

considerations associated with alternatives that were not considered in

detail due to economic reasons, including the coal slurry pipeline

alternative and the overland flexible pipe conveyor alternative, should

be discussed in the EIS along with economic and feasibility

considerations. Because the coal slurry pipeline alternative and

overland flexible pipe conveyor alternative would follow the same

routes as the other alternatives, TVA believes that many of the

environmental impacts would be the same; however, had they been

economical, there may have been some noise and air quality benefits of

these alternatives. In addition, EPA believes TVA should have been more

definitive in its statement of whether the Walnut Hill spur would have

been constructed as part of Alternative C. The analysis of

environmental impacts for each alternative considered both the route

that would originate at the CSX yard as well as the Walnut Hill

variation. As it turned out, the impacts for the route that would

originate at the CSX yard are higher than impacts for the Walnut Hill

variation for all areas except Environmental Justice. Accordingly, the

Environmental Justice analysis identifies the impact of the Walnut Hill

spur.

Comment No. 15. EPA expresses concerns about the potential

for derailment at a critical Swan Pond Circle Road intersection that

might isolate residents east of Alternative C from emergency vehicles.

The length of a unit coal train, including locomotives, is

approximately 6700 feet. One of the earlier preliminary railroad

alignment studies measured near that distance between the north and

south intersections of Swan Pond Road. TVA will design the final

centerline alignment such that the distance between crossings is

greater than 7000 feet. With this commitment the scenario no longer

exists where both crossings could be simultaneously blocked.

Comment No. 21. EPA requests that an independent entity

review spill plans to determine if the plans have been tested

previously in the field and whether they are effective. Federal and

state regulations require the development of Spill Prevention Control

and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans. These plans have to be kept at the

site and made available to state and EPA inspectors upon request. The

KIF SPCC Plan covers preventive measures required for TVA contractors

and associated temporary tanks on TVA properties. The plan also

provides for emergency response measures that have been successfully

employed in the past. TVA SPCC Plans have been supplied to EPA Region

IV along with spill incident reports, and no shortcomings have been

identified. TVA has trained response personnel at the site as well as

an emergency strike force located in strategic positions across the

valley that can respond within an hour's notice. The SPCC Plan has been

certified by a Professional Engineer and has been tested previously in

the field.

Comment Nos. 24 and 25. EPA expresses concern that the

proposed earthen fill causeway across Swan Pond embayment would

restrict water circulation and result in water quality problems in the

embayment. EPA requests that a bridge over the embayment be considered.

The earthen fill causeway proposed for crossing the Watts Bar Embayment

area for Alternate C should allow good circulation and fish passage.

Both navigational clearance considerations and drainage considerations

influence the size of the culvert through the causeway. TVA shallow

draft bridge clearance standards for the culvert in this causeway will

be adequate in accommodating small recreational vessels. As stated in

the FEIS, the standards require a minimum elevation of 6 feet

vertically above normal maximum pool Elevation 741 and a horizontal

clearance of a minimum 8 feet. Drainage considerations and sizing

indicate the necessity for a large culvert. Preliminary culvert sizing

indicates a concrete double barrel box culvert of size 13' x 36' as a

minimum. This size box culvert is in effect a small bridge. The wind,

rain, and inflows in the Watts Bar Embayment area should adequately

flush the waters through the larger culvert and, thus, allow a good

circulation in the embayment. In addition, the costs associated with

bridging are substantial, and a bridge would not be the most economical

decision.

Comment No. 31. EPA states that the frequency and

magnitude of train whistles near residential areas should be discussed.

TVA has estimated the impacts at the closest residence in a ``worst-

case'' scenario in the FEIS. Typically, there would be two train trips

per day during daylight hours past a given point, with the train

whistles lasting several seconds.

Comments No. 42-44. EPA requests that Environmental

Justice mitigation be provided for low-income populations affected by

the Walnut Hill spur. All mitigation commitments to reduce noise and to

ensure safety of the rail would apply throughout the route of the

proposed rail line. TVA does not feel that special mitigation at this

site is necessary for the following reasons. Under Alternative C (with

Walnut Hill spur), virtually all of the minority population is located

in Census Tract 308, Block Group 3. This block group also has a poverty

rate of 30.1 percent, much higher than the 21 percent in the rest of

the impact area. However, most of the residents of this block group are

far enough removed from the rail site that the impacts range from

minimal to essentially nonexistent. Within this block group, the rail

will run through a largely unpopulated area between Fiske Road and the

Emory River. The population of the block group is on the other side of

Fiske Road extending toward the north for some distance. This

consideration essentially eliminates impacts to minority populations

and reduces the low-income population to a share not much higher than

the county and state rates. If the proposed Walnut Hill spur is not

built, all the coal would go the CSX Harriman Yard. The additional area

impacted in transporting coal to the CSX Harriman Yard is about 10.6

percent minority, with a poverty rate of 26.9 percent. The overall

impact area for the new rail line combined with the area between Walnut

Hill and the CSX Harriman Yard has a 6.5 percent minority population,

well below the state average of 17 percent but well above the county

average of 3.8 percent. The poverty rate is well above both the state

and county rates. However, the

[[Page 15960]]

route through the additional area to the CSX Harriman Yard would be on

existing rail, not new rail, and would add routine transient traffic to

an existing facility. EPA also requests data on how many of the

affected people are low-income minorities. With the proposed Walnut

Hill spur, the project impact area has approximately 53 persons (2.3

percent of the total population) who are both minority and low-income.

Without the Walnut Hill spur (the coal goes to the CSX Harriman Yard),

the impact area would have approximately 109 persons (2.8 percent of

the total population) who are low-income minorities. TVA does not

believe that these impacts are disproportionately high.

After carefully considering EPA comments, TVA has decided to

implement Alternative C as identified in its Final EIS.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Because Alternative A, No Action, would result in no change in

existing conditions, it could be characterized as the environmentally

preferable alternative. However, Alternative A does not accomplish the

goal of reducing fuel costs. Further, none of the action alternatives

would be environmentally destructive and none would likely result in

significant environmental impacts. Of the action alternatives,

Alternative C is environmentally preferable due to fewer impacts to

wetlands and prime farmlands.

Environmental Consequences and Commitments

In choosing Alternative C, all practical means to avoid or minimize

environmental harm have been adopted. These measures are listed below:

To minimize noise impacts in the rural Swan Pond Circle

community, the radius of track curvature would be kept as high as

possible to minimize wheel-squeal. Noise will also be reduced by the

use of welded rail in the Swan Pond community area. Also, all

construction equipment will be equipped with noise attenuating devices,

such as mufflers and insulated engine housings.

On-site open burning will not be conducted when an air

stagnation advisory or a special dispersion statement issued by the

National Weather Service is in effect for the area. Where necessary, a

water wagon will be used to control dust associated with construction

activities.

Should a potentially adverse water pollution incident

occur in association with construction, state regulators and upstream

and downstream water supply operators will be notified. During

construction, Best Management Practices for silt control will be

utilized, including straw dikes, filter fabric, and where necessary,

retention basins.

Sinkhole subsidence or collapse will be avoided by

appropriate planning and design based on sound geotechnical

investigations. Proper spill prevention procedures will be put in place

to prevent contamination of groundwater from fuels, oils, and solvents

during construction.

Appropriate hydraulic analyses will be performed to ensure

that the project is consistent with local floodplain regulations.

Direct impacts to riparian zone forests at the Emory River

bridge crossing will be minimized by crossing the river at a 90-degree

angle.

Wetlands will be avoided in the Swan Pond embayment by

keeping all construction for the rail spur above the 750-foot elevation

except at stream crossings.

Phase II and III archaeological surveys will be conducted

during the Spring of 1997 to determine the significance of the four

archaeological sites in the corridor, and to allow any needed data

recovery from the sites.

TVA will design the final centerline alignment such that

the distance between road crossings is greater than 7000 feet.

Dated: March 10, 1997.

Gregory M. Vincent,

Vice President, Fuel Supply and Engineering Fossil and Hydro Power.

[FR Doc. 97-8513 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-01-M