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

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27020-27021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12420]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 hmdraper@tva.gov.

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