81 FR 51960 - Ash Impoundment Closure Final Environmental Impact Statement Part I Programmatic Review and Part II Site-Specific Review of 10 Ash Impoundments
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 151 (August 5, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 151 (August 5, 2016)
| Page Range | 51960-51963 | |
| FR Document | 2016-18600 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 51960-51963] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-18600] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Ash Impoundment Closure Final Environmental Impact Statement Part I Programmatic Review and Part II Site-Specific Review of 10 Ash Impoundments AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Record of Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on [[Page 51961]] Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA's Final Ash Impoundment Closure Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Part I--Programmatic NEPA Review analyzed methods for closing impoundments that hold coal combustion residuals (CCRs) on a programmatic basis. Part II of this EIS addressed closing 10 impoundments or other wet-CCR facilities (collectively, ``impoundments'') at six of TVA's plants on a site- specific basis. TVA has decided that the environmental and other factors identified in part I for screening and evaluating closure alternatives on a site- specific basis are appropriate for use in its future decision-making processes involving the proposed closure of CCR impoundments. It also has decided to implement the preferred closure alternatives identified for each of the site-specific evaluations in part II. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final Ash Impoundment Closure EIS, Part I Programmatic NEPA Review and Part II Site Specific NEPA Reviews was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Farless, 1101 Market Street BR 4A, Chattanooga, TN 37402, 423.751.2361, [email protected]. The Final EIS, this Record of Decision (ROD) and other project documents are available on TVA's Web site https://www.tva.gov/nepa. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving more than 9 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. In addition to operating and investing its revenues in its power system, TVA provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation. TVA has coal-fired plants and CCR impoundments in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. CCRs are byproducts produced from burning coal and include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization materials. CCRs are not hazardous, but they contain small amounts of chemical substances such as arsenic, chromium and cobalt. TVA has monitored ecological conditions adjacent to its plants and conducted toxicity testing of CCR wastewater from its plants for years. None of the data show adverse impacts to human health or the environment from CCR-related contamination. During 2015, TVA produced nearly 4 million tons of CCR with approximately 2.1 million tons being synthetic gypsum,1.1 million tons being fly ash, 0.4 million tons of bottom ash and 0.3 million tons of boiler slag. Approximately 34 percent of CCRs produced was used or marketed, and the remaining CCRs are currently stored in landfills and impoundments at or near coal-fired plant sites. TVA CCR impoundments vary in size from less than 10 acres to nearly 400 acres. All of TVA's CCR facilities operate under permits issued by the States in which they are located. TVA has committed to closing its wet CCR impoundments and converting wet CCR management processes to dry processes. These actions are undertaken on a project-by-project basis, subject to technical feasibility, availability of resources and environmental review. In April 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established national criteria and schedules for the management and closure of CCR facilities. EPA purposefully structured its CCR Rule to encourage utilities to accelerate the closure of CCR impoundments because of the decrease in groundwater contamination risk and increased structural stability that results from eliminating the hydraulic pressure of ponded water. On April 18, 2016, after release of the Draft EIS, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to remand and vacate the accelerated closure incentive in a partial settlement of litigation challenging the CCR Rule. This does not affect EPA's technical determination that accelerated closure will significantly reduce structural failure and groundwater contamination risks. Because of this pending regulatory change, TVA decided not to use the April 2018 incentive closure date as a significant factor in its consideration of the reasonableness of a closure alternative. Instead, TVA took into account the 5-year timeframe that EPA set for completing impoundment closures [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 257.102(f)]. However, early closure is environmentally preferable to closure later and this still remains an important consideration in TVA's analyses. The purpose of this action is to support the implementation of TVA's goal of eliminating all wet CCR storage at its coal plants by closing CCR impoundments across the TVA system in a safe and effective manner, and to assist TVA in complying with EPA's CCR Rule. Alternatives Considered The EIS addressed closure alternatives that have reasonable prospects of providing a solution to the disposal of CCR. EPA's rule establishes two primary closure methods: (1) Closure-in-Place and (2) Closure-by-Removal. EPA observed that most facilities would be closed in place because of the difficulty and cost of Closure-by-Removal. It determined that either closure method would be equally protective of human health and the environment if completed properly. Accordingly, TVA developed three alternatives to the proposed action:Alternative A--No Action Alternative B--Closure-in-Place Alternative C--Closure-by-Removal The EIS analyzes, to the extent practicable, the impacts resulting from each of these closure alternatives and the effectiveness of best management practices and mitigation measures in reducing potential impacts. Alternative A--No Action Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would not close any of the CCR impoundments at its coal-fired power plants. This alternative is included because applicable regulations require consideration of a No Action Alternative in order to provide a baseline for potential changes to environmental resources. However, the No Action Alternative is inconsistent with TVA's goal to convert all of its wet CCR systems to dry systems, the general direction of EPA's CCR Rule and other actions required by state regulatory programs related to CCR management. Alternative B--Closure-in-Place Closure-in-Place involves dewatering the impoundment, stabilizing the CCR in place and installing a cover system. The cover system over the compacted CCR prevents precipitation and storm water runoff from reaching the CCR. Doing this reduces hydraulic pressure and thereby reduces risks of structural instability and groundwater contamination. TVA concluded that it would take less than five years to close an impoundment in place, depending on its size, the distance to the cover system borrow area, and the condition of the road network between the borrow location and impoundment being closed. Alternative C--Closure-by-Removal Closure-by-Removal involves dewatering the impoundment and [[Page 51962]] excavating CCR, transporting it to a lined, permitted landfill, reshaping the site and filling it with borrow material. The duration of Closure-by-Removal projects would depend on a number of factors including, primarily, the amount of CCR to be removed from the impoundment, logistics associated with drying out the CCR and loading it into trucks or rail cars, and the amount of borrow material that must be transported to the site to fill in the excavated hole. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Part I: Programmatic NEPA Review The EIS includes baseline information for understanding the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the closure alternatives considered by TVA. TVA carefully considered 21 resource areas related to the human and natural environments and the impacts on these resources associated with each closure alternative. Both CCR impoundment closure alternatives involve several common actions that are anticipated to result in environmental impacts. These include temporary construction-related impacts (e.g., dewatering of impoundments, noise and fugitive dust generated from construction) and those associated with the transport of borrow material needed to close the CCR impoundment. For Closure-in-Place, TVA's analyses confirm EPA's determination that dewatering and capping impoundments would reduce the potential risks of groundwater contamination and structural instability because the hydraulic pressure would be reduced. Compared to Closure-by- Removal, this alternative would have significantly less risks to workforce health and safety and those risks related to off-site transportation of CCR (crashes, derailments, road damage and other transportation-related effects). It also is less costly than Closure- by-Removal. Closure-by-Removal would result in a greater reduction in potential groundwater contamination risk than Closure-in-Place over the long term because CCR material would be excavated and moved to a permitted landfill. However, this alternative would result in notably greater impacts associated with other environmental factors and would increase the potential for impacts on worker-related and transportation-related health and safety. In addition, Closure-by-Removal can raise environmental justice concerns associated with the transportation and disposal of CCR material in off-site locations. Under both closure alternatives, actions to avoid, minimize or mitigate losses of resources, values or associated uses would be included. Recognizing the potential pathways for risk exposure related to existing CCR impoundments, TVA identified a number of factors that are important in the screening and evaluation of project alternatives. These include: The volume of CCR materials, schedule/duration of closure activities, mode and duration of transportation movements, the potential for health and environmental risks, effects on wetlands, effects on adjacent environmental resources and cost. At a programmatic level, TVA determined that Closure-in-Place would have fewer overall adverse environmental impacts than Closure-by- Removal and generally would be environmentally preferable. Part II: Site-Specific NEPA Review TVA identified 10 CCR impoundments at six of its plants that could quickly initiate and complete the closure process within the five-year time period identified in the CCR Rule. These are impoundments at its Allen, Bull Run, Kingston and John Sevier plants in Tennessee and at its Widows Creek and Colbert plants in Alabama. TVA conducted a site- specific NEPA review for each of these facilities that tiers off of the programmatic level review in part I of the Final EIS. TVA used the screening and evaluation factors discussed above to determine which closure alternatives should be considered in greater detail in its site-specific analyses. Based on these factors, Alternative B was retained for analysis at all sites. Alternative C was retained for the closures proposed at the Allen Fossil Plant and John Sevier Fossil Plant. Alternative C was determined not to be reasonable at the other locations. TVA has identified Alternative B, Closure-in-Place, as the environmentally preferred alternative in each site-specific review. It would achieve the purpose and need of the project to close the impoundments in a reasonable period while enhancing the protection of human health and the environment and avoid the adverse environmental impacts associated with Alternative C. Decision TVA has decided to use the screening and evaluation factors identified in Part I of the EIS to help frame its evaluation of future proposals to close other CCR impoundments at its coal-fired power plants. Conclusions reached from the programmatic analysis of each closure alternative should be applicable to any CCR impoundment within the TVA system regardless of the location. The evaluation of future closure activities at a specific location would tier from the analysis presented in the programmatic EIS and therefore implementation of part I will facilitate the closure of CCR impoundments in an environmentally appropriate manner. Using measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the potential impacts associated with individual CCR impoundment closures will further help to protect human health and the environment. In addition, TVA chose the preferred closure method--Alternative B--identified in the site-specific analyses in part II of the EIS for the proposed closure of the 10 impoundments. The impact analyses for each impoundment concluded that Closure-in-Place would meet the purpose for closing impoundments and enhance the protection of human health and environment. Compared to Closure-by-Removal, Closure-in-Place would have significantly fewer environmental and social impacts, could be completed more quickly, and would be substantially less costly. In its June 21, 2016 letter summarizing its review of the FEIS, EPA rated the FEIS ``LO'' (lack of objection) and said: ``Overall, EPA concurs with the TVA's preferred alternative to close identified facilities in place according to the CCR Rule.'' Public Involvement On August 27, 2015, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register announcing that it planned to prepare a programmatic EIS to address the closure of CCR impoundments at its coal-fired power plants. The NOI initiated a 30-day public scoping period, which concluded on September 30, 2015. In addition to the NOI in the Federal Register, TVA published notices regarding this effort in regional and local newspapers; issued a news release to more than 400 media outlets; and posted the news release on the TVA Web site to solicit public input. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was released to the public on December 30, 2015, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2016 (81 FR 936). Again more than 400 media outlets received notice of the Draft EIS availability. Publication in the Federal Register initiated the formal public comment period that was originally scheduled to close on February 14, 2016, but was extended until March 9, 2016 in response to several requests. [[Page 51963]] TVA accepted comments submitted through an electronic comment form on the EIS Web site, by post and email. During the comment period, TVA held 10 public meetings to discuss the Draft EIS and proposed site- specific closures with interested members of the public and to accept comments on it. TVA published notices of the public meetings in local and/or regional newspapers as well as provided information on TVA's Web site. Additionally, TVA briefed customers, business leaders and local, state and federal officials on the EIS in one-on-one meetings, a webinar and conference calls. TVA created a five minute video that was shown at meetings and posted on the web. TVA received approximately 70 comment submissions which included letters, emails, petition-style submissions, comment forms, and submissions through the project Web site. The comment submissions were signed by more than 650 individuals. Approximately 583 individuals and groups submitted comments as part of organized campaigns. These comments were received as part of emails, form letters and submissions consisting of the text and a list of names and addresses of those who supported the comments. TVA provided responses to these comments. Two organized commenting campaigns were submitted by: Sierra Club (411 individuals signed a form letter) Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (164 individuals signed a petition) In addition, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and nine other environmental advocacy groups submitted an 89-page letter with hundreds of pages of attachments commenting on the Draft EIS. This letter was also carefully reviewed and responded to by TVA. The most frequently mentioned topics included the public involvement process, the action purpose and need, range of closure alternatives, identification of the preferred alternative, need to comply with other federal and state requirements, need for full public disclosure, beneficial use of CCR and a range of environmental resource issues such as, potential impacts on groundwater, surface water, transportation, wildlife, floodplains, wetlands, air quality, socioeconomics and environmental justice, land use, safety and waste management. TVA also provided information about the Draft EIS and its preliminary conclusions to a formal session of its Regional Energy Resource Council on January 20-21, 2016. This council is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provides advice to TVA on energy resource activities. Council members represent a diverse group of stakeholders, including TVA customers, state governments, environmental advocacy groups and educational institutions. After discussion of the Draft EIS and TVA's analyses, the only additional action that the Council recommended that TVA take was to conduct a robust monitoring program at its CCR facilities. The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2016. Although not required, TVA solicited comments on the Final EIS during the mandatory 30-day waiting period after a final EIS is released. Only 11 commenters responded. Most of the comments consisted of brief statements. Four commenters had concerns about impacts from CCRs. TVA responded to similar concerns from commenters on the draft EIS. One commenter simply informed us that it was permitted to construct a municipal solid waste landfill in Tennessee near a rail line that would be able to accept coal ash, but construction had not yet commenced. Another commenter endorsed Closure-in-Place. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers observed that their approvals may be needed for some closure activities in the future. The Department of the Interior supports TVA's plans to transition to dry ash storage and concluded that TVA had responded to all of its comments in the final EIS. The two remaining commenters were the SELC with a coalition of other environmental advocacy groups and the EPA. SELC's comments largely repeated its earlier comments. They continue to argue that TVA needs to conduct additional studies before making closure decisions. Notably, no other federal, state, or local agency or government criticized the FEIS or objected to the identification of Closure-in- Place as TVA's preferred approach to closing the 10 CCR facilities that are evaluated in part II of the FEIS. As discussed above, EPA rated the FEIS ``LO'' and concurred with TVA's identification of Closure-in-Place as its preferred alternative in the site-specific reviews in part II. Mitigation Measures The reduction of environmental impacts was an important goal in TVA's process for identifying CCR impoundment closure methods. Mitigation measures, actions taken to reduce adverse impacts associated with proposed actions, include: Implementation of fugitive dust control systems; Erosion and sediment best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fences and/or or truck washes) to reduce the risk of impacts to surface waters from construction impacts; Other construction BMPs to minimize and restore areas disturbed during construction such as revegetation with native species; Implementation of supplemental groundwater mitigative measures that could include monitoring, assessment, or corrective action programs as required by the CCR Rule and state requirements. Additional measures identified in Part II, the Site Specific NEPA review include: Evaluate the use of a temporary traffic signal to minimize traffic impacts during the transport of borrow material to the Bull Run Fossil Plant. Dated: July 28, 2016. Robert M. Deacy, Sr., Senior Vice President, Generation Construction, Projects & Services, Tennessee Valley Authority. [FR Doc. 2016-18600 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
![51960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Notices
ADDRESSES: Written comments should Total Burden Hours (annually an average of 885 responses per year.1
be identified as ‘‘Paperwork Reduction including all respondents): 40.25 hours The same number of filings is expected
Act Comments, Surface Transportation (161 submissions × .25 hours estimated during each of the next 3 years).
Board: Recordations, Water Carrier per submission). Total Burden Hours (annually
Tariffs, and Agricultural Contract Total Annual ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ including all respondents): 663.75 hours
Summaries.’’ These comments should Cost (such as start-up and mailing (885 filings × .75 hour estimated time
be directed to the Office of Management costs): There are no non-hourly burden per filing).
and Budget, Office of Information and costs for this collection. The collection Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost (such
Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Chandana is filed electronically. as start-up costs and mailing costs):
L. Achanta, Surface Transportation Needs and Uses: Under 49 U.S.C. There are no non-hourly burden costs
Board Desk Officer, by email at OIRA_ 10709(d), railroads are required to file a for this collection. The collection may
SUBMISSION@OMB.EOP.GOV; by fax at summary of the nonconfidential terms be filed electronically.
(202) 395–6974; or by mail to Room of any contract for the transportation of Needs and Uses: Under 49 U.S.C.
10235, 725 17th Street NW., agricultural products. 13702(b) and 49 CFR 1312, water
Washington, DC 20503. Please also carriers that provide freight
Collection Number 2 transportation in noncontiguous
direct comments to Chris Oehrle,
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Title: Recordations (Rail and Water domestic trade (i.e., domestic, as
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423– Carrier Liens). opposed to international) shipments
0001, or to PRA@stb.dot.gov. OMB Control Number: 2140–0025. moving to or from Alaska, Hawaii, or
STB Form Number: None. the U.S. territories or possessions
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For (Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Type of Review: Extension with
further information regarding this change. Islands, American Samoa, and the
collection, contact Michael Higgins, Respondents: Parties holding liens on Northern Mariana Islands)) must file
Deputy Director, Office of Public rail equipment or water carrier vessels, tariffs, providing a list of prices and fees
Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and and carriers filing proof that a lien has that the water carrier charges to the
Compliance at (202) 245–0284 or at been removed. shipping public.
higginsm@stb.dot.gov. [Assistance for Number of Respondents: Under the PRA, a Federal agency
the hearing impaired is available Approximately 50 respondents. conducting or sponsoring a collection of
through the Federal Information Relay Frequency: On occasion. (Over the information must display a currently
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] last three years, respondents have filed valid OMB control number. A collection
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments an average of 1,831 responses per year. of information, which is defined in 44
are requested concerning: (1) The The same number of filings is expected U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
accuracy of the Board’s burden during each of the next 3 years). includes agency requirements that
estimates; (2) ways to enhance the Total Burden Hours (annually persons submit reports, keep records, or
quality, utility, and clarity of the including all respondents): 457.75 hours provide information to the agency, third
information collected; (3) ways to (1,831 submissions × .25 hours parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of
minimize the burden of the collection of estimated per response). the PRA requires, concurrent with an
information on the respondents, Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost (such agency’s submitting a collection to OMB
including the use of automated as start-up and mailing costs): There are for approval, a 30-day notice and
collection techniques or other forms of no non-hourly burden costs for this comment period through publication in
information technology when collection. The collection may be filed the Federal Register concerning each
appropriate; and (4) whether the electronically. proposed collection of information,
collection of information is necessary Needs and Uses: Under 49 U.S.C. including each proposed extension of an
for the proper performance of the 11301 and 49 CFR 1177, liens on rail existing collection of information.
functions of the Board, including equipment must be filed with the STB Dated: August 2, 2016.
whether the collection has practical in order to perfect a security interest in Brendetta S. Jones,
utility. Submitted comments will be the equipment. Subsequent Clearance Clerk.
summarized and included in the amendments, assignments of rights, or [FR Doc. 2016–18637 Filed 8–4–16; 8:45 am]
Board’s request for OMB approval. release of obligations under such BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
instruments must also be filed with the
Description of Collections
agency. This information is maintained
Collection Number 1 by the Board for public inspection.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Title: Agricultural Contract Recordation at the STB obviates the
Summaries. need for recording the liens in Ash Impoundment Closure Final
individual States. Environmental Impact Statement Part I
OMB Control Number: 2140–0024.
STB Form Number: None. Collection Number 3 Programmatic Review and Part II Site-
Type of Review: Extension with Specific Review of 10 Ash
Title: Water Carrier Tariffs. Impoundments
change. OMB Control Number: 2140–0026.
Number of Respondents: STB Form Number: None. AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.
Approximately 10 (seven Class I Type of Review: Extension with ACTION: Record of Decision.
railroads and a limited number of other
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
change.
railroads). Respondents: Water carriers that SUMMARY: This notice is provided in
Frequency: On occasion. (Over the provide freight transportation in accordance with the Council on
last three years, respondents have filed noncontiguous domestic trade.
1 In its 60-day notice, the Board inadvertently
an average of 161 agricultural contract Number of Respondents:
used an estimate of an average of 228 water carrier
summaries per year. The same number Approximately 29. tariffs filed with the Board each year. The average
of filings is expected during each of the Frequency: On occasion. (Over the number of tariffs filed is corrected here, as are the
next 3 years). last three years, respondents have filed burden hours.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Aug 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM 05AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52111/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Notices 51961
Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 toxicity testing of CCR wastewater from in a safe and effective manner, and to
CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and Tennessee its plants for years. None of the data assist TVA in complying with EPA’s
Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) procedures show adverse impacts to human health CCR Rule.
for implementing the National or the environment from CCR-related
Alternatives Considered
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). contamination.
TVA’s Final Ash Impoundment Closure During 2015, TVA produced nearly 4 The EIS addressed closure
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) million tons of CCR with approximately alternatives that have reasonable
Part I—Programmatic NEPA Review 2.1 million tons being synthetic prospects of providing a solution to the
analyzed methods for closing gypsum,1.1 million tons being fly ash, disposal of CCR. EPA’s rule establishes
impoundments that hold coal 0.4 million tons of bottom ash and 0.3 two primary closure methods: (1)
combustion residuals (CCRs) on a million tons of boiler slag. Closure-in-Place and (2) Closure-by-
programmatic basis. Part II of this EIS Approximately 34 percent of CCRs Removal. EPA observed that most
addressed closing 10 impoundments or produced was used or marketed, and the facilities would be closed in place
other wet-CCR facilities (collectively, remaining CCRs are currently stored in because of the difficulty and cost of
‘‘impoundments’’) at six of TVA’s plants landfills and impoundments at or near Closure-by-Removal. It determined that
on a site-specific basis. coal-fired plant sites. TVA CCR either closure method would be equally
TVA has decided that the impoundments vary in size from less protective of human health and the
environmental and other factors than 10 acres to nearly 400 acres. All of environment if completed properly.
identified in part I for screening and TVA’s CCR facilities operate under Accordingly, TVA developed three
evaluating closure alternatives on a site- permits issued by the States in which alternatives to the proposed action:
specific basis are appropriate for use in they are located. • Alternative A—No Action
its future decision-making processes TVA has committed to closing its wet • Alternative B—Closure-in-Place
involving the proposed closure of CCR CCR impoundments and converting wet • Alternative C—Closure-by-Removal
impoundments. It also has decided to CCR management processes to dry The EIS analyzes, to the extent
implement the preferred closure processes. These actions are undertaken practicable, the impacts resulting from
alternatives identified for each of the on a project-by-project basis, subject to each of these closure alternatives and
site-specific evaluations in part II. The technical feasibility, availability of the effectiveness of best management
Notice of Availability (NOA) of the resources and environmental review. practices and mitigation measures in
Final Ash Impoundment Closure EIS, In April 2015, the U.S. Environmental reducing potential impacts.
Part I Programmatic NEPA Review and Protection Agency (EPA) established
national criteria and schedules for the Alternative A—No Action
Part II Site Specific NEPA Reviews was
published in the Federal Register on management and closure of CCR Under the No Action Alternative,
June 10, 2016. facilities. EPA purposefully structured TVA would not close any of the CCR
its CCR Rule to encourage utilities to impoundments at its coal-fired power
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
accelerate the closure of CCR plants. This alternative is included
Ashley Farless, 1101 Market Street BR
impoundments because of the decrease because applicable regulations require
4A, Chattanooga, TN 37402,
in groundwater contamination risk and consideration of a No Action Alternative
423.751.2361, CCR@TVA.gov. The Final
increased structural stability that results in order to provide a baseline for
EIS, this Record of Decision (ROD) and from eliminating the hydraulic pressure
other project documents are available on potential changes to environmental
of ponded water. resources. However, the No Action
TVA’s Web site https://www.tva.gov/ On April 18, 2016, after release of the
nepa. Alternative is inconsistent with TVA’s
Draft EIS, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit goal to convert all of its wet CCR
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA is a Court of Appeals to remand and vacate systems to dry systems, the general
corporate agency of the United States the accelerated closure incentive in a direction of EPA’s CCR Rule and other
that provides electricity for business partial settlement of litigation actions required by state regulatory
customers and local power distributors challenging the CCR Rule. This does not programs related to CCR management.
serving more than 9 million people in affect EPA’s technical determination
parts of seven southeastern states. TVA that accelerated closure will Alternative B—Closure-in-Place
receives no taxpayer funding, deriving significantly reduce structural failure Closure-in-Place involves dewatering
virtually all of its revenues from sales of and groundwater contamination risks. the impoundment, stabilizing the CCR
electricity. In addition to operating and Because of this pending regulatory in place and installing a cover system.
investing its revenues in its power change, TVA decided not to use the The cover system over the compacted
system, TVA provides flood control, April 2018 incentive closure date as a CCR prevents precipitation and storm
navigation and land management for the significant factor in its consideration of water runoff from reaching the CCR.
Tennessee River system and assists local the reasonableness of a closure Doing this reduces hydraulic pressure
power companies and state and local alternative. Instead, TVA took into and thereby reduces risks of structural
governments with economic account the 5-year timeframe that EPA instability and groundwater
development and job creation. set for completing impoundment contamination. TVA concluded that it
TVA has coal-fired plants and CCR closures [40 Code of Federal Regulations would take less than five years to close
impoundments in Alabama, Kentucky, (CFR) 257.102(f)]. However, early an impoundment in place, depending
and Tennessee. CCRs are byproducts closure is environmentally preferable to on its size, the distance to the cover
produced from burning coal and include closure later and this still remains an
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
system borrow area, and the condition
fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue important consideration in TVA’s of the road network between the borrow
gas desulfurization materials. CCRs are analyses. location and impoundment being
not hazardous, but they contain small The purpose of this action is to closed.
amounts of chemical substances such as support the implementation of TVA’s
arsenic, chromium and cobalt. TVA has goal of eliminating all wet CCR storage Alternative C—Closure-by-Removal
monitored ecological conditions at its coal plants by closing CCR Closure-by-Removal involves
adjacent to its plants and conducted impoundments across the TVA system dewatering the impoundment and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Aug 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM 05AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52111/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Notices 51963
TVA accepted comments submitted January 20–21, 2016. This council is reduce adverse impacts associated with
through an electronic comment form on chartered under the Federal Advisory proposed actions, include:
the EIS Web site, by post and email. Committee Act and provides advice to • Implementation of fugitive dust
During the comment period, TVA held TVA on energy resource activities. control systems;
10 public meetings to discuss the Draft Council members represent a diverse • Erosion and sediment best
EIS and proposed site-specific closures group of stakeholders, including TVA management practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt
with interested members of the public customers, state governments, fences and/or or truck washes) to reduce
and to accept comments on it. TVA environmental advocacy groups and the risk of impacts to surface waters
published notices of the public meetings educational institutions. After from construction impacts;
in local and/or regional newspapers as discussion of the Draft EIS and TVA’s • Other construction BMPs to
well as provided information on TVA’s analyses, the only additional action that minimize and restore areas disturbed
Web site. the Council recommended that TVA during construction such as revegetation
Additionally, TVA briefed customers, take was to conduct a robust monitoring with native species;
business leaders and local, state and program at its CCR facilities. • Implementation of supplemental
federal officials on the EIS in one-on- The NOA for the Final EIS was groundwater mitigative measures that
one meetings, a webinar and conference published in the Federal Register on could include monitoring, assessment,
calls. TVA created a five minute video June 10, 2016. Although not required, or corrective action programs as
that was shown at meetings and posted TVA solicited comments on the Final required by the CCR Rule and state
on the web. EIS during the mandatory 30-day requirements.
TVA received approximately 70 waiting period after a final EIS is Additional measures identified in Part
comment submissions which included released. II, the Site Specific NEPA review
letters, emails, petition-style Only 11 commenters responded. Most include:
submissions, comment forms, and of the comments consisted of brief • Evaluate the use of a temporary
submissions through the project Web statements. Four commenters had traffic signal to minimize traffic impacts
site. The comment submissions were concerns about impacts from CCRs. during the transport of borrow material
signed by more than 650 individuals. TVA responded to similar concerns to the Bull Run Fossil Plant.
Approximately 583 individuals and from commenters on the draft EIS. One Dated: July 28, 2016.
groups submitted comments as part of commenter simply informed us that it Robert M. Deacy, Sr.,
organized campaigns. These comments was permitted to construct a municipal Senior Vice President, Generation
were received as part of emails, form solid waste landfill in Tennessee near a Construction, Projects & Services, Tennessee
letters and submissions consisting of the rail line that would be able to accept Valley Authority.
text and a list of names and addresses coal ash, but construction had not yet [FR Doc. 2016–18600 Filed 8–4–16; 8:45 am]
of those who supported the comments. commenced. Another commenter BILLING CODE 8120–08–P
TVA provided responses to these endorsed Closure-in-Place. The
comments. Commonwealth of Kentucky and the
Two organized commenting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers observed
campaigns were submitted by: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
that their approvals may be needed for
• Sierra Club (411 individuals signed a some closure activities in the future. Federal Aviation Administration
form letter) The Department of the Interior supports
• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy TVA’s plans to transition to dry ash Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
(164 individuals signed a petition) storage and concluded that TVA had Program; Draft FAA Order 5500.1B
In addition, the Southern responded to all of its comments in the
final EIS. AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Environmental Law Center (SELC) and
Administration (FAA), DOT.
nine other environmental advocacy The two remaining commenters were
groups submitted an 89-page letter with the SELC with a coalition of other ACTION: Notice and request for
hundreds of pages of attachments environmental advocacy groups and the comments.
commenting on the Draft EIS. This letter EPA. SELC’s comments largely repeated SUMMARY: This notice announces a
was also carefully reviewed and its earlier comments. They continue to request for comments on the draft FAA
responded to by TVA. argue that TVA needs to conduct Order 5500.1B, Passenger Facility
The most frequently mentioned topics additional studies before making closure Charge. When finalized, this Order will
included the public involvement decisions. Notably, no other federal, replace Order 5500.1, Passenger Facility
process, the action purpose and need, state, or local agency or government Charge, issued on August 9, 2001. This
range of closure alternatives, criticized the FEIS or objected to the revised Order clarifies and updates
identification of the preferred identification of Closure-in-Place as statutory and regulatory requirements,
alternative, need to comply with other TVA’s preferred approach to closing the including those affected by changes to
federal and state requirements, need for 10 CCR facilities that are evaluated in the PFC statute from multiple FAA
full public disclosure, beneficial use of part II of the FEIS. As discussed above, reauthorizations.
CCR and a range of environmental EPA rated the FEIS ‘‘LO’’ and concurred
resource issues such as, potential with TVA’s identification of Closure-in- DATES: Comments must be received on
impacts on groundwater, surface water, Place as its preferred alternative in the or before September 30, 2016.
transportation, wildlife, floodplains, site-specific reviews in part II. ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of draft
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
wetlands, air quality, socioeconomics FAA Order 5500.1B, and comment form,
Mitigation Measures
and environmental justice, land use, is available after August 4, 2016,
safety and waste management. The reduction of environmental through the Internet at the FAA Airports
TVA also provided information about impacts was an important goal in TVA’s Web site at http://www.faa.gov/
the Draft EIS and its preliminary process for identifying CCR airports/. You may submit comments
conclusions to a formal session of its impoundment closure methods. using the Draft PFC Order 5500.1B
Regional Energy Resource Council on Mitigation measures, actions taken to Comment Form available at the same
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Aug 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM 05AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52111/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-08-05 06:43:32
Document Modified: 2016-08-05 06:43:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Record of Decision. | |
| Contact | Ashley Farless, 1101 Market Street BR 4A, Chattanooga, TN 37402, 423.751.2361, [email protected] The Final EIS, this Record of Decision (ROD) and other project documents are available on TVA's Web site https://www.tva.gov/nepa. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 51960 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR