[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30469-30472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11859]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Addition of Electric Generation for Peaking and Baseload Capacity 
at Greenfield Sites, Haywood County, Tennessee

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

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 identified in its 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Addition of Electric 
Generation Peaking and Baseload Capacity at Greenfield Sites, Haywood 
County, Tennessee.
    The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was made available 
to the public on March 16, 2000. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 
Final EIS was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2000. Under the preferred alternative, 
TVA has decided to construct natural gas-fired simple cycle combustion 
turbine power plants with up to 1,400 Megawatts (MW) of capacity at the 
Lagoon Creek Site. The construction will occur in two 700 MW phases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Askew, Senior Specialist, 
National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Policy and Planning, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT 
8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-6418 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#22454351494755625654430c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08781938b8597a0949681ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In December 1995, TVA issued its Energy 2020 Integrated Resource 
Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. This 
document projected demands for electricity in the TVA power service 
area through the year 2020 and evaluated different ways of meeting 
these projected increases. Under the forecast adopted by TVA, the 
demand for electricity was projected to exceed TVA's 1996 generating 
capacity of 28,000 (MW) by approximately 6,250 MW in the year 2005. TVA 
decided to meet this demand through a combination of supply-side 
options and customer service options.
    Since 1995, TVA has added about 2,700 MW of generating capacity and 
1,400 MW in option-purchase agreements to meet the increasing power 
demand in the Tennessee Valley (TVA 1999a). Incrementally, the 2,700 MW 
growth in capacity consists of operational efficiencies resulting from 
capital improvements at existing fossil, nuclear and hydro power 
production facilities, along with additions in capacity at several 
locations.
    Over the next few years, TVA plans to further increase capacity by 
2,400 MW through improvements to existing units and the addition of 
peaking units at existing fossil plants. However, these increases may 
not be enough to maintain adequate reserve capacity.
    It is reasonable to expect that the delivery of reliable and 
economic power to customers will require TVA to continue to pursue all 
of the portfolio options recommended in Energy Vision 2020, both 
demand-side and supply-side. Consistent with Energy Vision 2020, from 
which this EIS tiers, each of the portfolio options received an 
appropriate environmental review before a decision was made to proceed 
with implementation. Those actions are

[[Page 30470]]

not considered to be competing projects for the purposes of presenting 
and comparing environmental impacts in this EIS. Future projects would 
receive similar project-specific reviews for implementation.
    One of the supply-side options was to construct additional peaking 
capacity within the TVA power system. Tiering from the Energy Vision 
2020 EIS, this FEIS for Addition of Electric Generation Peaking and 
Baseload Capacity at Greenfield Sites, Haywood County, Tennessee 
evaluates the decision of adding up to 1,700 MW of peaking and baseload 
capacity at one of three undeveloped (greenfield) sites in Haywood 
County, Tennessee. The evaluation considered the following: the No 
Action Alternative, and nine Action Alternatives based on combinations 
of three power plant configurations sites at each of the three 
candidate sites. Other options evaluated included transmission 
connectivity and distribution, and natural gas fuel supply. The three 
candidate sites were selected based primarily on the following 
criteria: power transmission (system support, connection cost, and 
system losses), natural gas supply (pipeline availability, capacity, 
and delivered fuel cost), air quality impacts (likelihood of the area 
being able to incorporate additional emissions), and water supply 
(surface or groundwater availability). The alternative selected was 
based on both economic and environmental considerations.
    On June 3, 1999, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
EIS on its proposed construction of additional peaking and baseload 
capacity at greenfield sites. Newspaper announcements were published on 
April 14 and 15 for a public scoping meeting to be held on April 19. 
Approximately 25 persons attended the open house format meeting that 
also included a presentation by TVA management and staff. Public 
comments received at this meeting were considered in preparing the 
draft EIS. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS was 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal 
Register on December 17, 1999. A public information and comment meeting 
was held on January 13, 2000. After considering all comments, TVA 
revised the EIS appropriately. The Final EIS was distributed to 
commenting agencies and the public on March 16, 2000. A NOA of the 
final EIS was published by EPA in the Federal Register on March 31, 
2000.

Alternatives Considered

    Alternative methods of meeting TVA's future electrical generation 
capacity requirements were evaluated in Energy Vision 2020. One of the 
selected methods was to construct additional electric generation 
capacity within the TVA system. Tiering from Energy Vision 2020, to 
address the capacity additions, two alternatives were evaluated: a No 
Action Alternative and an Action Alternative.
    The No Action Alternative would result in TVA not constructing a 
combustion turbine generating plant at any of the three candidate sites 
in Haywood County, Tennessee. TVA would either undertake no new 
activities to meet anticipated demands by June 2001 for peaking power 
or would rely exclusively on options from the Energy Vision 2020 
portfolio that do not involve construction and operation new TVA fossil 
plant(s). Under this alternative, TVA would select another fossil 
alternative evaluated in Energy Vision 2020, such as option purchase 
agreements or spot market purchases. There is a significant risk based 
on TVA's experience that these alternatives would not enable TVA to 
meet future demands of its customers for low cost and reliable power, 
and thus, not meet TVA's need.
    Under the action alternative TVA considered nine alternatives. 
Three power plant configurations were each considered for construction 
at each of three candidate sites. The three power plant configurations 
are: (1) 700 MW of simple-cycle combustion turbines for peaking, (2) 
1,400 MW of simple-cycle combustion turbines for peaking, and (3) 700 
MW of simple cycle combustion turbines for peaking plus 1,000 MW of 
combined-cycle combustion turbines for baseload operation for a total 
of 1,700 MW. The three candidate sites are similar, undeveloped 
agricultural sites all located in Haywood County, Tennessee.
    Under the Preferred Alternative, TVA would construct peaking 
capacity additions of up to 1,400 MW in two 700 MW phases at the Lagoon 
Creek Site. Natural gas-fired simple-cycle combustion turbines (CTs) 
would be constructed. These CTs are designed to operate with dual fuel 
capability firing either natural gas or low sulfur distillate fuel oil 
to maximize fuel flexibility and lower operational costs. For nitrogen 
oxides control, these CTs would be equipped with dry low nitrogen 
oxides (NO<INF>x</INF>) burners for natural gas firing and would use 
water injection for NO<INF>x</INF> control when firing No. 2 distillate 
oil. The first 700 MW of capacity additions are proposed to be 
operational by June 2001. In addition to the CTs, associated 
transmission lines serving as a connection to TVA's power distribution 
system and natural gas interconnection pipelines would be constructed.

Decision

    TVA has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative of 
constructing up to 1,400 MW of peaking capacity in two 700 MW phases at 
the Lagoon Creek Site. TVA will also build the associated transmission 
lines serving as a connection to the TVA power distribution system as 
well as the natural gas supply pipeline connection. This will help TVA 
meet the projected demand for electricity in its service area as well 
as maintain reliable service to TVA customers.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    TVA has concluded that construction and operation of a 700 MW 
peaking plant at the Lagoon Creek Site is the environmentally preferred 
alternative. This plant configuration is the smallest of the three 
alternatives and accordingly has the least land disturbance and lower 
annual air pollutant emissions. Also, as a simple-cycle combustion 
turbine, there are minimal water supply requirements and minimal 
wastewater discharges. Additionally, the Lagoon Creek Site is more 
remote than the other two candidate sites which lessens noise impacts 
and visual affects. The larger acreage of the Lagoon Creek Site offers 
an increased buffer between the plant and future residential 
development. Also, no cultural resources eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places are present.

Environmental Consequences and Commitments

    No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified in the 
EIS. Standard construction and best management practices (BMPs) would 
be followed in all aspects of the project construction and operation to 
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. In addition, TVA has 
adopted the following mitigation measures:

Air Resources

    <bullet> Open construction areas and unpaved roads would be 
sprinkled with water to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
    <bullet> Use of low sulfur fuel oil.
    <bullet> Use of Dry Low NO<INF>x</INF> burners when firing natural 
gas to control NO<INF>x</INF> emissions; water injection will be used 
as NO<INF>x</INF> control measure when firing oil.
    <bullet> Use of best available control technology to minimize 
emission of other criteria air pollutants.

[[Page 30471]]

Surface Water Resources

    <bullet> Construct retention/settling pond(s) as early in the 
construction phase as feasibly possible.
    <bullet> Retention pond(s) would be used to manage/release site 
runoff.
    <bullet> Oil/water separator(s) would be used to collect oil from 
oil using/storage area stormwater runoff.
    <bullet> Areas disturbed by the initial phase of construction, such 
as equipment laydown areas and construction temporary parking, would be 
revegetated before beginning the second phase of construction, if 
applicable.
    <bullet> Revegetate along transmission line ROWs to reduce erosion.

Groundwater Resources

    <bullet> If neighboring wells are adversely affected by aquifer 
drawdowns, TVA would modify the well to lower the pump intake, install 
a new well or provide a connection to public water supplies, if 
available, or otherwise take appropriate action to remedy the problem.

Floodplains and Flood Risk

    <bullet> If a site within a floodplain is selected, all flood 
damageable facilities and equipment would be elevated above or 
floodproofed to the 100-year flood elevation to ensure compliance with 
Executive Order 11988.

Aquatic Ecology

    <bullet> Monitoring of aquatic life impacts will be conducted 
during periods of wet stream blasting, if conducted.
    <bullet> Bore or directionally drill pipelines under perennial 
stream beds or unique aquatic habitats or use flume stream crossing 
techniques.

Wetlands

    <bullet> Use existing roads, ROWs, and higher elevations, when 
feasible, for movement of construction vehicles along proposed linear 
features, such as pipelines and transmission lines.

Transportation

    <bullet> Implement a pavement maintenance program during 
construction and required physical improvements, such as paving, 
addition of shoulders to select roads off SR 19 to minimize negative 
effects on local travel.
    <bullet> After completing construction activities, pave Old SR 19 
from its eastern intersection with SR 19 west to its intersection with 
Elm Tree Road.
    <bullet> Require heavy haulers to assess all bridge crossings for 
potential capacity upgrades.
    <bullet> At all transmission line and pipeline road crossings, 
require adherence to guidelines in Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices.
    <bullet> Require trucks to meet all safety standards and road load 
limits.

Land Use/Soils

    <bullet> Segregate and replace topsoil from pipeline trenches to 
preserve fertility.

Visual Resources

    <bullet> Exterior lighting would be turned off when not needed.
    <bullet> Elm Tree Road, from its point of intersection with Old SR 
19 west to the plant entrance(s), would be covered with a six inch 
layer of crushed limestone, moistened, and compacted to reduce dust 
generation during construction activities and then paved after 
completion of construction activities.
    <bullet> Pave all high-traffic onsite roads to prevent dust 
generation.

Cultural Resources

    <bullet> Conduct Phase I/II archaeological survey for selected NG 
pipeline route to Texas Gas, if this supply option is deemed 
appropriate.

Environmental Noise

    <bullet> Blasting mats will be used to reduce and muffle noise 
released by explosions created during blasting, if conducted.
    <bullet> Conduct field monitoring after plant becomes operational 
to determine magnitude of site specific impacts. Appropriate and cost-
effective mitigation measures would be identified and implemented if 
determined necessary. Potential measures include turbine silencers, 
acoustic treatment or addition of enclosures, and/or construction of 
berms to deflect noise from sensitive receptors.

Safety and Health

    <bullet> Conduct 100% x-rays on natural gas pipe welds, maintain x-
ray records in accordance with DOT requirements, install shut-off 
valves at each end of the pipeline which close in the event of an 
abnormal operating condition.

Public Comment on the FEIS

    TVA received several public comments on the FEIS, including from 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA comments were in 
further response to TVA responses to EPA comments on the DEIS. Select 
comments from the EPA relevant to the adequacy of the FEIS and TVA's 
responses are summarized below.
    EPA comment on TVA response 43 in the FEIS concerned the need for 
additional cumulative air quality assessment for sulfur dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>). TVA's response is as follows: TVA believes that the 
cumulative air impacts analysis presented in Section 4.6.1.1 of the 
Final EIS is rigorous and adequate to describe the environmental 
impacts of the proposed actions combined with the impacts of other area 
sources. That analysis, which consisted of modeling the proposed 
sources and adding the current levels of pollution in the vicinity, 
which include the impacts of any other sources contributing to ground 
level concentrations. This approach is especially effective in a rural 
area such as Haywood County where few industrial sources of air 
pollution exist (no significant industrial sources of air pollution are 
closer than eight miles distant). The approach certainly provides a 
conservative assessment of cumulative impacts since it combines the 
highest values actually measured during the year of record with the 
highest predicted concentrations related to plant operation, and 
assumes they would simultaneously occur in time and space (which is 
extremely unlikely). The cumulative impacts analysis contained in the 
Final EIS is not intended to suffice for any ``increment consuming 
analysis'' required for a PSD application. As EPA is aware, the purpose 
of the NEPA review is to describe environmental impacts relative to 
standards and criteria which define where impacts to human health and 
welfare begin to occur. For this purpose, the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards are commonly used as measures of significance. On the 
other hand, the levels used to guide the PSD permitting procedure are 
not rigorously consistent, and are sometimes unrelated totally, with 
concentrations at which impacts to human health or welfare occur. 
Consequently, no comparison with PSD increment levels is made in 
Section 4.6.1.1. One would not expect the cumulative impacts analysis 
contained in the EIS to necessarily meet the needs of the increment 
consuming analysis required under some circumstances for PSD, and TVA 
makes no claims that it does in this case. Mr. James Lee's January 18, 
2000, letter stated that a cumulative impact analysis (meaning 
increment consuming analysis), was not warranted because the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the plant alternative being permitted (2B) 
are not excessive and are at a considerable distance to Mingo 
Wilderness Area.
    EPA comment on TVA response 52 in the FEIS concerned noise 
mitigation. More specific information was requested concerning 
mitigation methods and at what threshold mitigation would be performed. 
Source

[[Page 30472]]

reduction was recommended by EPA for noise attenuation. TVA's response 
is as follows: TVA has committed to further study the noise levels in 
the vicinity of the site to determine whether additional noise 
mitigation is needed and to identify appropriate mitigation methods. 
Source reduction in noise levels may not be the most cost effective way 
to prevent adverse impacts to area residents. TVA prefers to follow a 
plan to confirm the existence of community noise concerns, and to 
obtain adequate noise data which would allow for the verification of 
the legitimacy of the complaints and support the structuring of a 
suitable mitigation measure. This approach would avoid committing to a 
solution to a problem which may or may not exist, or be the best 
solution. As noted in the FEIS, potential mitigation measures include 
techniques for reducing noise at its source and methods that would 
reduce noise at receptor locations.
    EPA comment on TVA response 55 in the FEIS expressed a potential 
for an environmental justice (EJ) concern based on the demographics 
presented by TVA. There were also questions concerning the extent and 
success of public interaction with respect to EJ. TVA's response is as 
follows: As discussed in the FEIS, there are only three occupied 
dwellings within one mile of the Lagoon Creek Site. The EIS found only 
minimal environmental impacts and no significant environmental impacts 
on the residents of area surrounding the site. Due to the lack of 
significant impacts and the sparse population in the area, no EJ 
concerns were found. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, the site 
screening process included several other sites for this project, but 
they were determined to be less suitable than the sites in Haywood 
County. Some of these sites have relatively smaller minority 
populations than does Haywood County. Residents of the surrounding area 
were given various options for expressing any concerns they might have. 
All affected landowners (over 100), which included all adjacent 
properties, were sent copies of the Executive Summaries of the Draft 
and Final EISs, along with an invitation to the public meeting on the 
DEIS. The meeting itself included not only a presentation about the 
project, but also, prior to the formal presentation, an open house 
where anyone could talk individually with TVA staff to discuss concerns 
or ask questions. Fewer than fifteen private citizens attended the 
public meeting on the DEIS, despite several paid advertisements in 
local and regional newspapers and a TVA news release, each describing 
the availability of the DEIS and the public meeting date and time. No 
oral or written comments were received from any Haywood County resident 
not affiliated with local government. Among the elected officials 
involved, participants included one African American member of County 
Commission. None of the public comments received expressed concern 
about EJ issues. Benefits associated with the project include increased 
public revenues, along with a very small increase in employment and 
income in the area
    EPA comment on TVA response 57 in the FEIS was concerned with 
induced economic impacts due to increased power system reliability. 
TVA's response is as follows: Our approach in preparing the FEIS 
section on Indirect Impacts was to assess the local (within the county) 
induced impacts of the proposed project. In keeping with CEQ guidance 
for evaluating indirect or induced effects, we believe that the 
regional effects of this proposal are not ``reasonably foreseeable'', 
or close enough in time and distance to the proposed project for a 
meaningful evaluation. Such an evaluation would certainly be 
speculative and qualitative, since it could not be predicted how, 
where, and when the additional peaking power would be used in the 
region, and consequently of little use to decision-makers regarding 
initiation of the proposal. We agree that basic utilities are critical 
to the economic viability of most any industry. TVA's mandate, as 
defined in the 1933 TVA Act, is, among other things, to provide 
reliable, low-cost power to the Tennessee Valley region and to foster 
industrial development for the economic good of the people of the 
region. It is our hope that more reliable peaking power and other 
infrastructure being developed by TVA will be attractive to potential 
new industries and lead to the expansion of existing ones. However, we 
believe that economic growth should not sacrifice environmental 
quality. We further believe that the regulatory programs of the various 
Valley states, in conjunction with TVA programs for sustaining the 
quality of the environment in the region, will allow economic growth to 
occur in a manner that maintains or enhances environmental quality.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Joseph R. Bynum,
Executive Vice President, Fossil Power Group.
[FR Doc. 00-11859 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>