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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) Alternative Coal Receiving Systems,

Roane County, TN

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority

ACTION: Issuance of Revised Record of Decision.

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

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

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

TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

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

identified in its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS) on Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) Alternative Coal Receiving

Systems. A Notice of Availability of the Final SEIS was published in

the Federal Register on April 2, 1999. Under Alternative D, TVA would

receive coal deliveries via the existing rail line with minor upgrades.

In addition, TVA would construct a new high-speed coal unloading/

loading system in its existing coal yard at KIF. The previously planned

new rail spur between Harriman and the existing coal delivery yard

would not be constructed. This decision to adopt Alternative D

supersedes the previous decision to build the new rail spur signed on

March 10, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on April 3, 1997

(62 FR 15957-15960).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold M. Draper, NEPA Specialist,

Environmental Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit

Hill Drive, WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 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 direct 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 necessary to meet new air quality regulations,

TVA investigated alternative methods of coal delivery to the plant in

an EIS.

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 in

Kingston, Tennessee. All comments received were given due consideration

in preparing the Final EIS. Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was

published in the Federal Register on January 31, 1997.

Subsequent to the signing of a Record of Decision and prior to the

beginning of construction, TVA received a proposal from one of the

railroads affected by the decision for a new delivery system

configuration that would avoid construction of a new rail spur. TVA

decided to more fully evaluate this new, not previously available

alternative in an SEIS. Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS was

published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1998. A public

meeting was held on January 21, 1999 in Kingston, Tennessee. Six

comment letters were received during the public comment period. The

comments were given due consideration in preparing the Final SEIS. A

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

Register on April 2, 1999.

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 initially formulated that represented economically

feasible options. These were no action and two alternatives that

involved construction of a new rail spur. In the SEIS, a fourth

alternative, which would upgrade the existing rail line and install a

new high-speed unloading and loading facility with stacking tubes to

facilitate blending of coals, was evaluated.

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 five 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 #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 the construction of

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 used less than 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

[[Page 27021]]

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. These

impacts would be mitigated by conducting data recovery excavations.

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 #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 crossings 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.

Under Alternative D, New Coal Unloader and Blender Facility, the

origin part of the coal burned at KIF would be different, resulting in

impacts from the transportation of this coal along a different route.

While eastern coal from Tennessee and Kentucky would continue to be

transported to Kingston, a blend of eastern and western Powder River

Basin coals would be burned. Trains arriving from the West or from the

East would utilize rapid discharge hopper cars. The hopper cars would

arrive as part of ``unit trains'' consisting of 90 to 120 cars. These

would be longer trains than the ones currently used under the No Action

Alternative. If coal were blended only for Kingston, implementation of

Alternative D would mean fewer passes per day. However, TVA anticipates

that coal would also be blended for two other facilities, John Sevier

Fossil and Bull Run Fossil plants. The number of train passes per day

at a given intersection would not change if blending for other plants

also takes place at KIF. A loaded train would begin unloading

operations while slowly moving at less than one mile per hour. This

alternative would involve occasional nighttime deliveries which may

increase noise heard by nearby residents. In addition, emissions from

locomotives would be increased due to the longer coal transport

distances. However, plant emissions would be greatly reduced due to the

burning of western coal. In addition, existing crossings at U.S. 27 and

Carlock Avenue in Harriman would be removed, decreasing delays for

traffic and emergency vehicles in the area. No additional property

would be needed, and there would be no new floodplain, wetland,

cultural resource, or environmental justice impacts, in comparison with

No Action.

TVA Decision

The Final SEIS identified Alternative D as the preferred

alternative. Alternative D avoids the construction of a rail line at a

new location, and as a result avoids wetland, cultural, navigation,

water quality, and prime farmland impacts. It also eliminates two

heavily used railroad-highway intersections, and reduces sulfur dioxide

and nitrogen oxide emissions from plant boilers. With the

implementation of Alternative D, TVA would be able to reduce fuel costs

and produce electricity at the lowest possible rate.

After carefully considering all comments, TVA has decided to

implement Alternative D.

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. Of the action alternatives, Alternative D

is substantially better from an environmental standpoint than the two

rail spur alternatives because it does not involve construction along a

new rail corridor and does not have effects on wetlands, floodplains,

water quality, and prime farmlands.

Environmental Consequences and Commitments

In evaluating Alternative D, TVA found that occasional nighttime

deliveries may increase noise levels. In addition, construction noise

may also be noticeable at night. While sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

and lead emissions would decrease in comparison with the other

alternatives, other emissions would slightly increase due to the longer

coal transport distances. In commenting on the Final SEIS, the

Environmental Protection Agency recommended that noise levels be

monitored at nearby residences and requested commitments to noise

mitigation. TVA has decided to commit to construction noise mitigation

measures, including inspection of equipment for muffler effectiveness,

limitation of high noise operations to daylight hours, minimization of

second and third shift construction activities, and notification of

nearby residents during any blasting operations. The noise impacts from

unit train unloading and locomotive movement at night would be

infrequent and have an incremental impact of only 2 to 3 decibels (dBA)

above current levels in the area. Therefore, TVA does not believe that

monitoring of noise levels or implementation of physical noise barriers

would be needed. However, TVA will reconsider train noise mitigation

measures if night deliveries become a frequent occurrence.

Dated: May 7, 1999.

Kathryn J. Jackson,

Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment.

[FR Doc. 99-12420 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P