United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-61-081
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street. NE September 1981
Agency Atlanta. GA 30365
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Kentucky Utilities Company
Hancock County
Generating Station
Units 1 & 2
-------
^10 sr.,
o*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
£
0*
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
EPA 904/9-81-057
INPDLS Application Number:
KY 0057606
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Proposed issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
to
K'.-. r.tucky Utilities Company
ha;,cock County Generating Station Units 1 & 2
Hancock County, Kentucky
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Cooperating Agencies:
United States Army Kentucky Department for
Corps of Engineers & Natural Resources and
Louisville District Environmental Protection
Louisville, Kentucky 40201 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Kentucky Utilities Company proposes to construct and operate
two 650 MW capacity coal-fired electric generating plants
adjacent to Ohio River mile 715 in northeast Hancock County,
Kentucky. The EIS examines project alternatives, impacts, and
mitigative measures related to groundwater, air, surface water,
ecological, and socioeconomic and cultural systems.
Comments will be received until /dCV 1 3
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
Dario J. Dal Santo
EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881-7458
Approved by
*£ (X (U ,m "1881
les R. Jeter' Date
onal Administrator
-------
Executive Summary
for
Environmental Impact Statement
Hancock County Generating Station Units 1 & 2
Kentucky Utilities Company
(X) Draft
( ) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action
Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) is proposing to construct and
operate two 650 MW (net) capacity coal-fired steam electric
generating plants in the Skillman Bottoms area of Hancock
County, Kentucky. The EPA Region IV Administrator has declared
the proposed plants to be new sources as defined by Section 306
of the Clean Water Act. Operation of these plants would
require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Issuance of this permit would be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and subject to the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Consequently, an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
As a public utility KU is obligated to efficiently provide
adequate electric power to its service area customers. KU has
conducted an evaluation of its ability to fulfill future
electric power commitments and has determined the addition of a
generating unit in 1989 and of a second unit in 1994 is
essential to meeting projected future demands. KU's forecasted
growth rate considers that through conservation measures,
reductions in peakload and energy usage would be achieved.
Accounting for planned purchases and conservation, a reserve
margin of 12% would occur in the summer of 1989 without Unit
1. Forecasts show that without the addition of Unit 2 in 1994,
KU would have only a reserve margin of 13% for the 1994 summer
peak. There is a high probability that the forecasted load
could not be served when outages or maintenance are required.
KU's analysis indicates that neighboring utilities do not have
surplus capacity available that could be purchased for lengthy
periods of time. The Kentucky Public Service Commission has
not made a recommendation on the need for Hancock County Units
-------
1 & 2. Their review and decision process will follow release
of this Draft EIS.
The proposed Units 1 & 2 and supporting facilities would be
located on approximately 2350 acres in the Skillman Bottoms
area of Hancock County, Kentucky (Figure 2.1-1). The proposed
site is located on the Ohio River adjacent to river mile 715.
Skillman Bottoms is approximately 4 miles east of Hawesville,
Kentucky, 30 miles east of Owensboro, Kentucky, and 90 miles
west of Louisville, Kentucky. The area is predominantly rural
and land use is predominantly agricultural.
Major buildings and structures that would comprise Units 1 & 2
include the turbine hall and boiler complex, 4 electrostatic
precipitators, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) facilities, coal
and limestone handling systems, a barge unloading structure,
two 600-foot tall chimneys, two 60-foot tall mechanical draft
cooling towers, and cooling water intake and discharge
structures (Figure 2.1-2). Additionally, a wastewater
treatment system is planned and approximately 669 acres would
be utilized to dispose of the residual wastes generated by the
power plant. The units would be operational for approximately
35 years.
Makeup cooling water for Units 1 & 2 would be drawn from the
Ohio River. The cooling water intake structures would be
equipped with offshore slotted screens. Approximately 12.4
million gallons per day (mgd) (average) and 21.8 mgd (maximum)
would be required for cooling purposes. An additional 1.1 mgd
of freshwater would be required for inplant uses. KU would
obtain the freshwater from onsite wells.
An average of 10.5 mgd (maximum of 18.6 mgd) as evaporation and
drift would enter the atmosphere from the cooling towers.
Approximately 2.4 mgd (maximum) of plant effluents would be
discharged to the Ohio River. Other water flows include
percolation, consumption in the FGD system, and evaporation
from the FGD system and wastewater treatment ponds.
Units 1 & 2 would burn approximately 3,000,000 tons of medium
sulfur (3.5%) coal per year. Coal would be delivered to the
site by barges at a rate of 6 to 7, 1500-ton capacity barges
per day. A coal handling system, boiler design features, and
air pollution control devices would combine to ensure that
operation of the proposed units complies with applicable air
quality regulations. Particulate matter would be controlled
with electrostatic precipitators. Sulfur dioxide (S02)
emissions would be controlled by tail-gas scrubbing using an
FGD system. The formation of nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide during combustion would be inhibited by the design and
proper operation of the proposed boiler, furnace, and
combustion air control system.
ii
-------
The solid waste stabilization system would treat bottom ash and
pyrites from the steam generators, waste slurry from the SO2
removal equipment, and flyash from the electrostatic
precipitators. Dewatered FGD sludges would be combined with
lime and flyash to produce a cementitious product.
Approximately 1.25 million tons would be produced per year and
landfilled in one of three onsite landfills which total 669
acres. The landfill sites would be developed in 25 acre
parcels as needed.
Transmission facilities for the power plant would include an
onsite 345 kV substation and transmission lines extending 5
miles (for Unit 2) and 10 miles (for Unit 1) south of the plant
to existing transmission corridors. A new transmission line
paralleling an existing line in the Elizabethtown corridor
would be installed (Figure 2.1-3). This line would be
approximately 45 miles in length and is needed to distribute
power to Elizabethtown as the existing line is unsuitable for
upgrading.
3. Major Alternatives Considered
A. Management alternatives (conservation, purchases of power,
reactivating and uprating older units, and joint projects)
The Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) which issues the
Certification of Necessity and Convenience for power plants in
the Commonwealth has not formally addressed the need for
Hancock County Units 1 & 2. The KPSC will formally accept
review of the need for this project after release of the Draft
EIS.
For the EIS, alternatives were evaluated with regard to meeting
KU's forecasted demands. KU does not have any retired units and
uprating of existing units would not produce the amount of
generating capacity projected to be required. Neighboring
utilities have not been found to have sufficient capacity from
which to purchase the needed power. Conservation measures to
reduce peakload and energy usage were factored into KU's
forecast analysis.
B. Energy source alternatives (nuclear, oil, gas, coal,
hydroelectric, solar)
Major consideration was directed toward the state of the art of
these technologies, fuel availability, application to the
siting region, and construction time constraints. The proposed
coal-fired units were selected as desirable based on
environmental considerations (in conjunction with siting
alternatives), available technology, national fuel use
policies, and engineering, licensing, and construction lead
-------
times. Hydroelectric facilities of the capacity needed lack
the requisite geological conditions in Kentucky, and the
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Act of 1978 generally prohibits
the use of petroleum as the fuel source for power plants.
Nuclear based generating plants require extremely long lead
times for licensing and construction. The nuclear alternative
would be more appropriate and economical for larger sized units
(1000 MW) than the 650 MW units planned.
c• Siting Alternatives
A detailed siting analysis was performed by KU to identify
potential sites and to assess their environmental and
engineering suitability for a powerplant facility. This
analysis identified the Hancock and Breckinridge County sites
as the two preferred sites and KU proposed the Hancock County
site for the powerplant.
For the purposes of the EIS, the 9 most favorable sites
identified in the KU study were independently re-evaluated.
This re-evaluation identified the Hancock and Breckinridge
County sites and a site adjacent to the Green River as the most
environmentally preferable sites. Of the three, the
Breckinridge site appears to be the most environmentally
preferable, although all sites are environmentally acceptable.
The Green River site has been developed since the initial
siting analysis was conducted.
D. Cooling system alternatives
Cooling alternatives evaluated included once-through cooling,
cooling towers, and cooling ponds. Cooling water sources
considered were the Ohio River and groundwater. Intake
structures considered were onshore traveling screens, offshore
slotted screens, and Ranney well structures.
Once-through cooling was rejected because of the associated
adverse environmental effects (thermal and entrainment). An
1800 acre cooling pond would be needed for the cooling pond
option and would require expansion of the proposed plant site.
A wet-mechanical draft cooling tower was identified as an
acceptable alternative on the basis of environmental,
engineering and economic factors. Cooling water requirements
would be minimized due to recycling of the cooling water,
impingement/entrainment impacts would be minimized and thermal
impacts would be reduced if cooling towers were used.
The Ohio River was considered the principal source of cooling
water because of the quantities required. The offshore slotted
screened intake structure was identified as the preferred
alternative.
iv
-------
E. Wastewater treatment alternatives
Wastewater treatment and discharge systems were evaluated to
assess meeting regulatory requirements and to maximize reuse of
water. These alternatives were evaluated in conjunction with
cooling system alternatives.
KU proposes a system of holding ponds with recirculation of the
wastewaters for some plant water needs. Discharges to the Ohio
River would result from cooling tower blowdown. Filtered
runoff from stabilized sludge disposal areas also would be
discharged to surface waters and is anticipated to meet water
quality standards. >
Discharge of cooling tower blowdown would require dilution to
meet Kentucky water quality standards (KWQS) or to approach
ambient river concentrations. (Ambient river levels of several
substances exceed KWQS). A 100 foot mixing zone has been
proposed to achieve a 100 to 1 dilution. Alternatives to the
proposed system include reverse osmosis and precipitation of
metal containing wastes prior to discharge. Because of the
ambient river concentrations these were not considered
reasonable alternatives.
F. Air emissions control alternatives
Air emissions control system alternatives were evaluated
considering the state of the art of emission control
technology, environmental impacts, and economics. Major SO2
control alternatives included coal benef .iciation and several
FGD options. Major particulate control alternatives included
fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators. Nitrogen
oxides (NOx) control alternatives included application of
various combustion technology strategies.
KU proposes to utilize a limestone scrubber system to control
SO2, electrostatic precipitators to control particulates, and
an off-stoichiometric combustion boiler to control NOx. A
Prevention of significant Deterioration (PSD) ' permit
application has been submitted. Air quality levels and
increment consumption limitations would be met by KU's proposed
systems.
Various alternatives for the control of fugitive emissions from
the inactive coal pile were also assessed. Primary control
measures include use of wetting agents (water & surfactants),
screening, shaping, and enclosure. Enclosure and surfactants
are considered the most efficient control technologies.
v
-------
G. Residual waste disposal
Alternatives for flyash and FGD sludge disposal focused on
marketing the waste and on several onsite disposal options
(ponding, blending, stabilization). Stabilization (as a
cementitious material) of these wastes is considered a viable
alternative to minimize potential land use and leaching
impacts. Recycling and reuse of these materials would be a
preferred alternative.
H. Coal transport alternatives
There are three principal options available to transport coal
to the Hancock site: rail, barge, truck. Barging has been
determined to be the most desirable alternative. Trucking
would require a tremendous number of haul vehicles, would add
to traffic control difficulties on often poor quality roads,
and would be economically unattractive. Transport by rail is
economically and environmentally viable. However, because rail
unloading facilities would need to be operated in close
proximity to the Willamette bleached pulp mill and would
constitute an unnecessary impact potential, this was not
considered an acceptable alternative. Barging is economically
and environmentally viable although construction of a docking
facility on the Ohio River would be necessary and towing
capability would need to be available 24 hours daily to provide
adequate safety should a barge break loose from the docking
facilities.
I. No-action alternative
A no-action alternative was evaluated to consider the effects
and implications of not issuing an NPDES permit to KU for Units
1 & 2. Based on KU's projections, additions of a unit in 1989
and 1994 would be essential to meeting system needs.
Neighboring utilities have not been found to have surplus
capacity available that could be purchased for lengthy periods
of time. The KPSC will formally review KU's need for power and
make their recommendation following release of the Draft EIS.
Should system reliability on a long-term basis fall below
actual demands, significant effects could be experienced by the
consumers in the KU service region. These effects could
include blackouts and potentially a decrease in the economic
productivity and viability of the region.
Environmental impacts associated with ground clearing and loss
of the current agricultural onsite land use would not occur as
a result of the KU project if the facility were not permitted.
Likewise impacts to air resources and water resources would not
vi
-------
occur if an NPDES permit was not issued. Loss of potentially
significant archaeological resources would be avoided if the
permit were denied.
Because the Hancock site represents highly desirable industrial
property, some development within the life of the proposed KU
facility would be anticipated if an NPDES permit for the
project were denied.
J• EPA's preferred alternative and recommended action
Pending a positive determination of need for the facility from
the KPSC, EPA's preferred alternative would be construction of
additional generating units. As defined .in preceding
paragraphs one such alternative specifies constructing two 650
MW power plants in the Skillman Bottoms area of Hancock County.
A major aspect of KU's project generating considerable comment
and discussion has been the siting selection. Based upon the
siting analyses and evaluations performed, the Skillman Bottoms
site (Hancock County) is an environmentally acceptable site.
The Holt Bottoms site (Breckinridge County) could be a slightly
environmentally and economically preferable site alternative.
However, a large 25,000 tons of coal per day synthetic fuel
plant is presently proposed for construction and operation at
this site. The Kentucky Department of Energy, through land
purchase options, is making the Breckinridge site available for
the synthetic fuel plant. The cumulative impacts of the
synthetic fuel plant and the KU plant in the Holt Bottoms area
although not fully assessed would likely (from an environmental
and socioeconomic perspective) favor location of the KU
facility at the Hancock County site.
A major economic concern of locating the KU plant in Hancock
County would be the potential impact of coal dust on Willamette
Industries' bleached pulp mill and fine paper plant adjacent to
the proposed site. If sufficient quantities of fugitive coal
dust impinge on Willamette's wood chip pile there could be a
loss in the quality of the bleached pulp. This would impact
the marketability of the pulp for fine quality paper products.
At this time due to the lack of specific similar conditions and
industry analyses, the exact frequency and significance of this
potential impact is unknown. The best professional judgment is
that there could be an influence on pulp quality but that this
potential impact cannot be demonstrated by state-of-the-art air
modeling and would be expected to be infrequent. Analysis also
indicates this potential impact could be further mitigated.
Without in situ demonstrations more specific conclusions cannot
be reached. Measures which could alleviate this impact and
appear possible include moving, covering, partially covering,
vii
-------
and screening the wood chip pile or coal pile, and use of
wetting agents and surfactants. Receipt of coal at the Hancock
County Generating Station would commence about 1988 for a 1989
startup date, thereby allowing approximately 7 years for
Willamette and KU to develop and implement a program acceptable
to both parties which would protect each party's interests.
Although such an activity is outside the scope of the NPDES and
PSD permitting processes, it is EPA's judgment that this issue
is not irresolvable.
Pending a positive determination of need for the facility from
the KPSC, EPA would propose to issue an NPDES permit to KU for
the Hancock County Generating Station Units 1 & 2 facility as
proposed and as described in the Draft EIS. Several measures
to mitigate environmental impacts of the project (in addition
to those incorporated in the proposed project) have been
identified during the NEPA process and have been included as
Part III conditions to the NPDES permit. These measures are
identified in the Mitigation Measures section of the Executive
Summary (Section 5).
4. Summary of Major Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Project
The impacts associated with the facility would be a consequence
of the collective interaction of the various system
alternatives (fuel source, site, cooling system, air emissions
control, residual waste disposal, wastewater treatment)
identified with the proposed project. The primary emphasis of
the assessment focused on identifying the nature ana degree of
the associated impacts and determining means to minimize
adverse impacts.
Construction
The direct effect of constructing Units 1 & 2 and attendant
facilities would be a commitment of 700 to 800 lowland acres
for facilities development. An additional 669 upland acres
would be required for residual waste disposal. Major
terrestrial systems effected would include farmlands in the
lowlands and wooded areas in the uplands. Cropland and pasture
would be converted to industrial use resulting in the loss of
appoximately 1479 acres. Possible and known prime farmlands
comprise approximately 1050 acres on the site. Commitment of
these lands to the KU project would represent a loss of a
critical resource. Additionally, wildlife in these areas would
be forced to relocate or more likely would be lost.
Approximately three 8-month periods would be needed to
construct docks, intake and discharge structures, and shore
facilities. This activity would increase turbidity and
viii
-------
suspended solids Levels and would disturb benthic communities
in the area. The Corps of Engineers is presently evaluating an
application for dredge and fill activities associated with
construction of these facilities in the Ohio River. A decision
on issuance of this permit is pending completion of the
environmental review process.
Air quality would be affected by fugitive dust (particulates)
during heavy construction activities. Dust suppression
controls would be utilized to minimize these impacts.
Additional air quality impacts can be expected from vehicle
emissions associated with commuting of the construction force.
Construction of the facility would potentially disturb several
archaeological (99) sites on the property. Further testing of
33 of these sites to determine their eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places has been recommended by
the Kentucky Heritage Commission. Should these be declared
significant sites several could be adversely impacted.
Although these sites could be excavated prior to onsite
construction, the long-term effect would be loss of the in situ
archaeological character of the Skillnian Bottoms area.
Because the proposed site is in a rural area and distant (30-90
miles) from major laborsheds, significant transporation
problems may result during construction of the facility. The
problem is compounded by the relatively poor condition of the
onsite roads and the lack of an upgraded primary arterial
between metropolitan areas and the site. Housing impacts may
also occur if significant numbers of construction workers elect
to relocate to the site area. However, relocation to the site
area is not anticipated because of the generally short-term
need for most trade types.
Socioeconomic impacts would potentially be greatly compounded
should all major1 regional energy development undergo
construction activities concurrently. Although 9 energy
facilities (including 4 synfuel facilities) are planned in the
region, concurrent development is not anticipated.
Positive economic stimulus to Hancock County would occur as a
result of construction of these facilities. Hancock County
income could increase as much as 4.4%. An estimated $3.1
million would be generated by the 1% Hancock County
occupational tax during construction of the facilities.
Operation
Impacts of operation of Units 1 & 2 would primarily effect air
resources and adjacent industry in the area. Additionally,
impacts to groundwater and surface water resources and land use
would result.
ix
-------
An average of approximately 12.4 mgd of Ohio River water would
be required for cooling purposes. This represents 0.15% of the
7 day 10 year (7Q10) low flow for the Ohio River at river mile
715. A maximum of 21.8 mgd (0.26% of the 7Q10 low flow) would
be withdrawn. Although entrainrnent/imp ingement impacts are
expected, the low intake velocities (less than 0.5 feet per
second), type of intake structure (offshore slotted screens),
location of intake structures, and use of cooling towers will
minimize these impacts. Aquatic studies in the vicinity of the
Hancock site showed no consistent trends across the river nor
with depth for distribution of fish eggs and larvae.
The maximum volume of effluents discharged to the Ohio River
would be 2.4 mgd and would contain limited amounts of chlorine
and trace metals. The maximum ambient Ohio River concentration
of cadmium, mercury, iron, phenol, and cyanide currently exceed
aquatic life criteria and discharge of these substances would
therefore not meet the criteria. All effluents would meet the
Kentucky Water Quality Standard of 44% of the acute LC50
criteria. The discharge structure has been designed so that a
dilution of 100 would be achieved within a 100 foot distance
downstream of the structure. Concentrations of pollutants at
the edge of the 100 foot mixing zone would be less than six
percent above ambient levels and would not be expected to
result in a measurable impact to aquatic organisms in the Ohio
River. The Commonwealth is presently evaluating whether this
six percent increase would necessitate a variance. Chlorine
(0.10 mg/1 total residual chlorine), a biofouling agent
discharged with the effluent, would meet water quality
standards (0.01 mg/1) by the edge of the mixing zone.
The thermal component of the discharge would average 28°C
(82°F) [maximum 35°C (96°F)J in the summer and 18°C
(64°F) [maximum 20°C (69°F)] in the winter. a 1.1°C
(2.0°F) isotherm would result at the edge of a dilution zone
15 meters (50 feet) downstream of the point of discharge.
Operation of barge facilities would contribute slightly to the
silt movement in the river by resuspending silt from river
deposits. A potential navigation hazard exists with barges
breaking loose from the docking facility and striking Cannelton
Dam downstream. To eliminate this hazard a reserve tug would
conceivably need to be present 24 hours a day.
Impacts to the groundwater regime could occur in the form of
leachate from the stabilized sludge (fly ash, bottom ash, FGD
waste, lime) disposal areas, wastewater ponds, and coal pile,
primary constituents of the leachate would be acidity, trace
metals, and dissolved solids. Movement of leachate would be
toward the Ohio River due to natural groundwater flow.
x
-------
The stabilized sludge is claimed to be generally non-leachable
and data demonstrate minimal leachability. A groundwater
monitoring program would be implemented prior to plant
operation and would be designed to detect contamination of the
groundwater. A condition to the NPDES permit stipulates that
the wastewater ponds be lined with 2 feet of clay. This is
generally considered adequate to retard leachate from reaching
the groundwater. Should contamination occur, more stringent
measures could be implemented to ensure no further
contamination.
Principal atmospheric emissions from the facility would include
N0X, SO2 , and particulates. Dispersion of these emissions
would be assisted by .use of two 600 foot tall chimneys. A
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review has been
conducted for this project. Based on this analysis,
Commonwealth and Federal air quality standards would not be
violated.
Extensive investigations are currently in progress toward
understanding the globally significant acid rain problem.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from Units 1 & 2 would
potentially contribute to this phenomenon. The long term
effect on acid rain production is unknown.
There is a potential for impacts to result to the Willamette
bleached pulp mill and fine paper plant adjacent to the
proposed site. Fugitive coal dust (in sufficient quantity)
impinging on the Willamette wood chip pile could result in the
quality of the bleached pulp being unmarketable for fine
quality paper products. At this time due to the lack of
specific similar conditions and industry analyses, the exact
frequency and significance of this potential impact is
unknown. The best professional judgment is that there could be
an influence on pulp quality but that this potential impact can
not be demonstrated by state-of-the-art air modeling and would
be expected to be infrequent. Without in situ demonstrations
more specific conclusions cannot be reached. Measures which
could alleviate this impact and appear possible include moving,
covering, partially covering, and screening the wood chip pile
or coal pile, and use of wetting agents and surfactants.
Willamette could experience revenue losses approaching $187,000
if a days production of bleached pulp is affected.
Impacts associated with use of cooling towers include increased
fogging and icing and salt drift. Plume-induced fogging and
icing would be limited primarily to onsite locations and areas
of Skillman Road and the adjacent Louisville and Nashville
Railway switchyard. Deposition of salt drift is expected to be
most severe (1-25 tons/mile2-month) within 500 meters (1500
feet) of the cooling towers. Offsite salt drift deposition is
expected to be less than 1 ton/mile^-month.
xi
-------
Operation of Units 1 & 2 would generate considerable residual
wastes that must be disposed. The proposed onsite landfill
that would be utilized represents a long-term commitment of
this land and reduces the potential future uses of the land.
Operational impacts on the socio-economics of the area are
generally expected to be beneficial. The complex is expected
to generate 180 permanent positions (approximately 77 local
hirees) and increase the local tax base by 75%, property tax
revenues by 330%, and county revenues by 21%. In the long term
the increased tax revenues would help improve social services.
The proposed facility is compatible with Commonwealth and Area
Development District plans for such sites along the Ohio River.
The exisiting public, medical, recreational, and cultural
facilities within the surrounding areas would not be impacted
by this facility. No significant noise impacts are anticipated.
5. Mitigation Measures
Several measures which would serve to mitigate the impacts of
the proposed project on the surrounding environment were
identified during the environmental review process. These
measures are outlined below:
o Implement an erosion control and sedimentation program
during construction to reduce potential water quality
degradation from soil laden runoff.
o Monitor groundwater quality in the area during
operation to determine whether more stringent waste
disposal measures are needed.
o Line wastewater ponds with 2 feet of compacted clay to
reduce potential leachate impacts to the groundwater
regime.
o Limit corridor maintenance to use of EPA approved
herbicides.
o Provide for a complete archaeological investigation of
cultural sites on the Hancock site identified by the
Kentucky Heritage Commission. Such investigation
would include consultation with the Keeper of the
National Register and the Advisory Council, as needed.
o Monitor sludge pond runoff during operation to verify
and establish stabilized sludge runoff quality.
xii
-------
6• Unresolved Issues
o Ninety-nine (99) archaeological sites were identified on
the Hancock County site. Of these, 33 sites were
recommended for further testing by the Kentucky Heritage
Commission (KHC) to determine National Register
eligibility. This additional testing has not been
undertaken since KU has not proceeded to purchase the
property. If KU's decision is to proceed with purchase of
the property, then the additional testing would be
conducted in accordance with a protocol approved by the
KHC.
If necessary (if National Register quality properties are
identified) EPA, "KU, and the KHC would need to consult
with the Advisory Council to identify a mechanism to
preserve or excavate the sites.
o A house along the Elizabethtown corridor has been
identified by the KHC as being potentially National
Register eligible. EPA is currently pursuing consultation
with the Keeper of the National Register for this site.
If it is declared a National Register site, EPA and KU
would need to consult with the KHC and, if necessary, the
Advisory Council to identify a means to preserve the
integrity of the site. This is not anticipated to be an
issue since there is an existing corridor through the area
and the plans call for upgrading of this corridor.
Upgrading of the Elizabethtown corridor would necessitate
widening of the corridor. Archaeological testing would be
completed prior to upgrading activities. Testing and
consultation (if necessary) would proceed as outlined in
36 CFR 800.
o Authorization for the disposal of stabilized scrubber
sludge in the headwaters of onsite creeks would be, in
EPA's opinion, a permitting action by the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
as provided in regulations promulgated by EPA on May 19,
1980. Prior to this date such disposal was subject to
permitting by EPA under Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act. Based upon the assessment in the Draft EIS, EPA
would not object to the COE granting authorization for the
filling of #these headwater areas in a Section 404 permit.
The COE also has determined that the disposal of this
material, as presently proposed, is not within their
jurisdiction. Consequently, this issue continues to be
xiii
-------
unresolved at the federal level. A Solid Waste Disposal
Permit from the Commonwealth of Kentucky for disposal of
these wastes will be necessary.
The COE has expressed concern with the barge fleeting
facility proposed by KU. Major concern relates to
extension of the fleeting structures toward the Ohio River
sailing line and the closeness of the facility to the
Cannelton Lock and Dam.
KU is currently redesigning the fleeting facility to
alleviate COE concerns. Any design found to be acceptable
would of necessity be an improvement on the degree of
impact associated with the current design. Consequently,
this is still an unresolved issue relative to COE actions
in this project.
The Commonwealth is presently evaluating whether a
variance to Kentucky Water Quality Standards is necessary
for those Ohio River water quality parameters which exceed
the Standards and for which the concentration at the edge
of the discharge mixing zone is less than six percent
above ambient levels.
x iv
-------
FOREWORD
Kentucky Utilities Company (the Applicant) proposes to construct two
708-megawatt (650 MW net) coal-fired steam electric generating units on a site
near Ohio River Mile 715 in Hancock County, Kentucky. Distribution of power
from the Hancock Generating Station will require a 3-circuit, 345-kilovolt
transmission system. The Unit 1 transmission system will consist of a double-
circuit, 345-kV tie into an existing east-west 345-kV transmission line about
10 miles south of the proposed station, near Victoria Crossroads, Kentucky.
The Unit 2 transmission system will be constructed parallel to the Unit 1 double-
circuit line to another existing east-west transmission corridor about 5 miles
south of the station. It will be continued eastward in the existing corridor
about 45 miles to Elizabethtown, Kentucky.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implement-
ing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508)
specify that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is a summary
document written to provide the"decisionmaker and the public with critical and
relevant information on the merits and demerits of a proposed action. EISs
are to be analytic rather than encyclopedic and are to concentrate on signifi-
cant issues rather than amassing detail. Emphasis in EISs is to be on issues
of major significance; issues of lesser significance are to be addressed brief-
ly. EISs are to be concise and no longer than necessary to comply with NEPA.
The format, content, and intent of this document follow CEQ and EPA
implementing procedures by providing a DEIS that summarizes the major aspects
of the Applicant's project, alternatives, and impacts. The major aspects
summarized in the following sections of this DEIS are: purpose of the project
and the need for action (Section 1.0); the alternatives considered, including
the proposed action (Section 2.0); and the existing environment of the project
and probable impacts to it (Section 3.0). In section 4.0, among other NEPA
requirements, the unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed action are
summarized and commitments of resources by the project are identified.
Detailed technical information and impact assessments that support
the major findings and conclusions presented in the DEIS are contained in a
Technical Appendix. A limited number of copies of the Technical Appendix are
available for review at these locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EIS Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Planning Branch
Attn: ORLPD-R
600 Federal Place
P. 0. Box 59
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
xv
-------
Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources and Enviromental Protection
Office of Special Projects
Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Judge-Executive Office
Hancock County Courthouse
Hawesville, Kentucky 42348
Hawesville Mayor's Office
City Hall
Hawesville, Kentucky 42348
Hancock County Public Library
P. 0. Box 249
Hawesville, Kentucky 42348
Judge-Executive Office
Breckinridge County Courthouse
Hardinsburg, Kentucky 40143
Cloverport Mayor's Office
City Hall
Cloverport, Kentucky 40111
Breckinridge County Public Library
P. 0. Box 248
Hardinsburg, Kentucky 40143
Tell City Mayor's Office
City Building
Tell City, Indiana 47586
Tell City Public Library
909 Franklin
Tell City, Indiana 47586
xvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
FOREWORD xv
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 THE APPLICANT 1-1
1.2 NEED FOR POWER 1-5
1.2.1 Growth in Peak Demand 1-5
1.2.2 Peak Load Demand and Reserve Margin 1-8
1.2.3 Residential Customer Demand, Population, 1-10
and Industrial Increases
1.2.4 Generation, Purchases and Sales 1-13
1.2.5 Price and Availability of Competing 1-13
Energy" Resources
1.2.6 Future Trends 1-16
1.3 NEED FOR ACTION 1-18
2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT 2-1
2.1.1 Management Alternatives 2-1
2.1.1.1 Build the Generating Station 2-1
2.1.1.2 Power Purchases 2-6
2.1.1.3 Upgrade and Baseload Other KU 2-6
Generating Facilities
2.1.1.4 Construction of a Smaller Facility 2-6
2.1.1.5 Curtailment and Conservation 2-7
2.1.2 Alternative Energy Sources 2-9
2.1.2.1 Coal 2-9
2.1.2.2 Nuclear Fission 2-10
2.1.2.3 Oil and Gas 2-12
2.1.2.4 Other Energy Sources 2—13
2.1.3 Alternative Sites 2-13
2.1.3.1 Site Selection 2-13
2.1.3.2 Hancock Site 2-27
2.1.3.3 Breckinridge Site 2-27
2.1.4 Alternative Plant Systems 2-29
2.1.4.1 Generating Station
2.1.4.2 Emissions Control and Waste 2-37
Stabilization
2.1.4.3 Water Use 2-44
2.1.4.4 Coal and Limestone Handling 2-73
System
2.1.4.5 Site Development Procedures 2-75
2.1.4.6 Transmission System 2-75
2.2 NO ACTION 2-77
2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES 2-79
AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
2.3.1 Deny Permits 2-79
2.3.2 Defer Decision 2-79
xvli
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Title Page
2.3.3 Issue Permits With Conditions 2-79
2.4 EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2-81
2.5 MITIGATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-84
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1
3.1 HUMAN FACTORS 3-3
3.1.1 Population and Socioeconomic Conditions 3-3
3.1.1.1 Population 3-3
3.1.1.2 Socioeconomic Conditions 3-6
3.1.2 Land Use 3-9
3.1.3 Cultural Factors 3-15
3.1.3.1 Visual Resources 3-15
3.1.3.2 Archaeological and Historic 3-17
Resources
3.2
3.3
3.4
ATMOSPHERE
3-37
3.2.1
Climate and Meteorology
3-37
3.2.2
Air Quality
3-39
3.2.3
Noise
3-43
LAND
3-49
3.3.1
Physiography and Geology
3-49
3.3.2
Soils
3-53
3.3.3
Vegetation
3-59
3.3.4
Wildlife
3-63
WATER
3-72
3.4.1
Ohio River
3-72
3.4.2
Groundwater
3-80
3.4.3
Onsite Water Resources
3-82
3.4.3.1 Hancock Site
3-82
3.4.3.2 Breckinridge Site
3-84
3.4.3.3 Elizabethtown Transmission
3-88
Corridor Aquatic Resources
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 3-95
3.5.1 Historic and Archaeological Resources 3-95
3.5.2 Prime Farmland 3-97
3.5.3 Wetlands 3-98
3.5.4 Floodplains 3-98
3.5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources 3-99
3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3-100
4.0 THE PROJECT'S UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, COMMITMENTS 4-1
OF RESOURCES, AND CONFLICTS
4.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-1
4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S 4-4
ENVIRONNMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE-
MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
4.3 IRREVERSIBLE ANND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 4-4
RESOURCES
4.4 CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE 4-5
OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, COMMONWEALTH, REGIONAL,
AND LOCAL PLANS
xviii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Title Page
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
5.1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 5-1
5.2 NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC./TEXAS INSTRUMENTS 5-1
INCORPORATED
6.0 COORDINATION 6-1
6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 6-1
6.2 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 6-1
6.3 COMMONWEALTH OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES 6-1
6.4 LOCAL OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES 6-1
6.5 INTEREST GROUPS
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
8.0 APPENDIXES
8.1 DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
8.2 PSD DETERMINATION
8.3 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BIOLOGICAL OPINION
8.4 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS HISTORICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DETERMINATIONS
xix
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
1.1-1 Kentucky Utilities Generating Stations and Transmission 1-2
Systems
1.2-1 Kentucky Utilities Company Historical and Projected 1-7
Seasonal Peak Loads
1.2-2 Kentucky Utilities 1979 Load Duration Curve 1-9
1.2-3 Kentucky Utilities Capability, Capacity and Peak Load, 1-11
Historical 1975-1980, Projected 1981-1994
1.2-4 Input-Output Diagram, Kentucky Utilities, 1979 1-14
1.2-5 Kentucky Utilities Electrical Usage by Customer Class 1-17
2.1-1 Location of the Hancock and Breckinridge Sites 2-2
2.1-2 Proposed Hancock Site Layout 2-3
2.1-3 Location of Transmission Systems Associated with the 2-4
Hancock Generating Station
2.1-4 Construction Schedule for Hancock Generating Station Units 2-5
1 and 2
2.1-5 Location of Kentucky Utilities Nine Preferred Fossil 2-16
Fuel Sites
2.1-6 Aerial Photograph of Hancock and Breckinridge Sites 2-28
2.1-7 Proposed Breckinridge Site Layout 2-30
2.1-8 Salaries for Operating Hancock Generating Station 2-35
Units 1 and 2
2.1-9 Generating Unit Functional Flow Diagram 2-36
2.1-10 Water Flow for Construction Activities, Hancock 2-45
Generating Station Units 1 and 2
2.1-11 Water Flow Schematic for Hancock Units 1 and 2 2-49
2.1-12 Proposed Intake and Blowdown Water Systems in the Ohio 2-54
River for Hancock Units 1 and 2
2.1-13 Typical Detail for Ponds A, B, and C, Hancock 2-59
Generating Station
2.1-14 Coal and Limestone Pile Runoff Pond, Hancock 2-61
Generating Station
xx
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
2.1-15 Gravel Drain for Retention Ponds, Hancock 2-62
Generatinng Station
2.1-16 Discharge Locations, Hancock Generating Station 2-70
2.1-17 Ohio River Discharge Mixing Zone, Hancock Generating 2-71
Station Units 1 and 2
2.1-18 Discharge Port, Hancock Generating Station 2-72
2.1-19 Proposed Coal and Limestone Unloading Dock, Hancock 2-74
Generating Station
3.0-1 Region of the Hancock aad Breckinridge Sites and the 3-2
4-County Project Area
3.1-1 Residential Density Within 5 Miles of the Hancock 3-4
(left circle) and Breckinridge (right circle) sites
3.1-2 Land Use/Land Cover, Hancock Site, 1979 3-10
3.1-3 Land Use/Land Cover, Breckinridge Site, 1979 3-11
3.1-4 Agricultural Land Use, Hancock Transmission Corridor, 1979 3-13
3.1-5 Agricultural Land Use, Breckinridge Transmission 3-14
Corridor, 1979
3.1-6 View of Jeffry Cliff, 1980 (from Hwy. 1406) 3-16
3.1-7 View of Jeffry Cliff, 1980 (from Skillman Road) 3-16
3.1-8 View of Breckinridge Site from Highway 144, 1980 3-17
3.1-9 Significant Archaeological Sites, Hancock Site, 1980 3-18
3.1-10 Significant Archaeological Sites, Breckinridge Site, 1980 3-19
3.1-11 Joseph Holt House, Breckinridge Site, 1980 3-21
3.1-12 Holt Chapel, Breckinridge Site, 1980 3-21
3.1-13 Stamper Pirtle House, ELizabethtown Transmission 3-22
Corridor, 1980
3.2-1 Annual Wind Rose Data, Evansville, Indiana, Station 3-38
No. 93817, 1970-1974
3.3-1 Physiographic Regions of Kentucky 3-50
3.3-2 Geology of the Hancock Site 3-51
Kxi
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
3.3-3 Geology of the Breckinridge Site 3-52
3.3-4 Soil Associations, Hancock Site 3-55
3.3—5 Soil Associations, Breckinridge Site 3-57
3.4-1 Ohio River Basin 3-73
3.4—2 Mean Numbers (per 100m^) of Fish Eggs and Larvae, 3—76
Ohio River Miles 705, 707, 715, 717, and 722, 1979-1980
3.4—3 Water Resources, Hancock Site, 1979 3-83
3.4-4 Water Resources, Breckinridge Site, 1979 3-87
xxii
-------
TABLES
Table Title Page
i.1-1 Kentucky Utilities Generating Stations 1-3
1.1-2 Kentucky Utilities Company Highlights, 1974-1980 1-4
L.2-1 Kentucky Utilities Summer and Winter Peak Loads, 1960-1980 1-6
L.2-2 Kentucky Utilities Company Interconnections, 1981 1-10
L.2-3 Kentucky Utilities Forecast of Capacity, Demand, 3nd 1-12
Reserves During Summer Peak
L.2-4 Kentucky Utilities Forecast of Capacity, Demand, and 1-12
Reserves During Winter Peak
L.2-5 Forecast of Net Purchases During Summer and Winter Peaks 1-15
for Kentucky Utilities Company, 1981-1994
2.1-1 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Nuclear and Coal- 2-11
Fired Power Plants (1000 MW)
2.1—2 Comparison of Power Generation Alternatives Other Than 2-14
Coal and Nuclear Fission
2.1-3 Relative Favorability Comparison Matrix for Kentucky 2-17
Utilities Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites
2.1-4 Summary of Salient Features of Kentucky Utilities 2-18
Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites
2.1-5 Variables and Assumptions Used to Compare Kentucky 2-23
Utilities Preferred Sites
2.1-6 Index and Rank of KU's Preferred Sites for Each Environmental 2-24
Variable and for All Environmental Variables
2.1-7 Index and Rank of KU's Preferred Sites for Each Cost 2-25
Variable and for All Cost Variables
2.1—8 Ranking of KU's Most Favorable Sites Under Various Scenarios 2-26
of Effects-Costs Relative Importance
2.1-9 Design and Operating Parameters, Hancock Generating Station 2-31
Units 1 and 2
2.1-10 Capital Outlay Per Year for Construction of Hancock 2-32
2.1-11 Manpower Demands and Salaries for Constructing Hancock 2-33
Generating Station Units 1 and 2
xxiii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Title Page
2.1-12 Emissions Characteristics, Hancock Generating Station 2-38
Units I and 2
2.1-13 Comparison of Emissions (TSP annd S02) Conntrol Processes 2-39
2.1-14 Comparison of Solid Waste Disposal Processes 2-43
2.1-15 Comparison of Cooling Water Systems 2-47
2.1-16 Water Flow and Use for Operating Hancock Generating 2-52
Station Units 1 and 2
2.1-17 Original and Proposed Revised Effluent Standards for New 2-58
Sources Applicable to New Electric Power Generating Units
2.1-18 Effluents of the Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2 2-64
2.1-19 Water Quality Standards of Kentucky and the Ohio River 2-65
Valley Water Sanitation Commission
2.1-20 Expected Effluent Concentrations Relative to 0RSANC0 2-67
and Kentucky Standards
3.1-1 The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the 3-24
Hancock Project, Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site
Alternatives
3.1-2 Maximum PSD Increment Consumption and Air Emissions on the 3-40
Hancock and Breckinridge Sites and Comparison to NAAQS,
PSD and NSPS
3.2-2 The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock 3-44
Project, Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives
3.3-1 Soil Types, Hancock Site 3-56
3.3-2 Preliminary Soil Types, Breckinridge Site 3-58
3.3-3 Checklist of Plant Species Observed in the Project Area, 3-60
1979-1980
3.3-4 Checklist of Wildlife Species, Hancock Site, 1979-1980 3-64
3.3-5 Checklist of Wildlife Species, Breckinridge Site, 1979-1980 3-65
3.3-6 Land Resources annd Environmental Consequences of the 3-67
Hancock Project, Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site
Alternatives
xxiv
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Title Page
3.4-1 Fish ColLected at the Cannelton Lock and Dam (RM 721) 3-75
1968-1970 and 1975-1976, and from the Project Area
(RM 702-722), 1979-1980
3.4-2 Water Quality of Streams on the Hancock and Breckinridge 3-85
Sites, 1979-1980
3.4-3 Water Quality of Streams Crossed by the Hancock and 3-86
Breckinridge Transmission Corridors , 1980
3.4-4 Water Resources and Environmental Consequences of the 3-90
Hancock Project, Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site
Alternatives
xxv
-------
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) is required to deliver electric power
to its customers under the regulations and statutes of the Kentucky Public
Service Commission Law (Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 278.025). The law
requires that KU service any applicant who complies with the Commission
regulations and KU's filed tariff. Thus, KU must serve both the present
electrical demand and future electrical demand. Since the average time period
for planning, permitting, and constructing a fossil-fuel steam electric generat-
ing unit is about ten years, long-term planning, including prediction of future
needs, is necessary. KU's current prediction of future needs - its forcasted
load demand - is the basis for the proposed electrical generating station.
1.1 THE APPLICANT
Kentucky Utilities Company is an investor-owned electric utility that
was chartered by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in August 1912 and began service
in the state in December 1912. KU services an estimated 334,000 Kentucky
customers located in four service divisions - Western, Central, Mountain, and
Bluegrass. A subsidiary, Old Dominion Power Company, headquartered in Norton,
Virginia, provides service to 25,000 customers in southwestern Virginia.
Corporate headquarters, as well as Bluegrass Division and Lexington offices,
are in Lexington, Kentucky.
KU's current electric power capacity is 2178 MW, generated from seven
major stations (Figure 1.1-1 and Table 1.1—1). With the addition of two
generating units at the Ghent Station by 1984, KU's installed capability will
increase to 3178 MW. The Ghent, Green River, and Brown generating stations,
which are the most efficient and economical units, provide practically all of
KU's routine base load, while less efficient units at the Tyrone, KU Park, and
Haefling generating stations are used mainly for outages, maintenance periods,
and above-normal load periods to provide peak power. Transmission facilities
for power distribution include 3,800 pole miles of transmission lines, 12,000
miles of distribution lines, and 450 substations.
Electric power availability from other systems includes contract
entitlements and agreements for short-term and long-term power transactions.
Ownership of 20% of Electric Energy, Inc., which operates a 1008-MW plant near
Joppa, Illinois, that supplies power to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
plant near Paducah, Kentucky, entitles KU to 20% of any capacity not required
by DOE. Similarly, ownership of 2.5% of the 2250-MW generating capacity of the
Ohio Valley Electric Company (0VEC), which supplies electric power to DOE's
facility near Portsmouth, Ohio, entitles KU to 2.5% of the capacity not required
to meet OVEC's contractural obligations to DOE. A contract with Owensboro
Municipal Utilities (OMU) makes available to KU the capacity in excess of load
and reserve requirements of OMU's Elmer Smith Units I and 2, which together
have a net capacity of about 401 MW; KU purchased approximately 60% of OMU's
1980 capacity under this contract, which expires in 2000. Because KU can
purchase power only in excess of other entities' needs, energy from these
purchase agreements is not as reliable as that from KU capacity.
Interconnection agreements for various types of short-term and long-
term power transactions (purchases and sales) exist among KU and 11 other
companies, three of which joined with KU in 1971 to form the Kentucky-Indiana
1-1
-------
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
1
GENERATING STATIONS
MW
1. E.W. BROWN.. 665 STEAM
2. OIXOAM 24 HYDRO
3. GHENT 1022 STEAM
4. GREEN RIVER . 236 STEAM
5.HAEFLIN G 59
6. K U PARK 32 STEAM
7. LOCK SEVEN 2 HYDRO
8. TYRONE 140 STEAM
LEGEND
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES
345,000 AND 500,000 VOLTS .. ———
138,000AND 161,000VOLTS ...
69.000 VOLTS
23,000 AND 34,500 VOLTS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION -~
EKPC.
INTERCONNECTION POINT ...
RETAIL o
WHOLESALE •
TRANSMISSION SUB-
STATION *
DIVISION OFFICE if
DATE 6-1 -8C
Figure 1.1-1. Kentucky Utilities Generating Stations and Transmission Systems
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1980)
1-2
-------
Table 1.1-1. Kentucky Utilities Generating Stations
Station
Me
Fuel
Unit
Capacity
(megawatts)
Total Capacity 1979/1984
(megawatts)
E.W. Brown
Steam
Coal
1
2
3
100
155
410
665
Ghent
Steam
Coal
1,2
3,4*
511
500
1022/2022
Dix Dam
Hydro
-
1,2,3
8
24
Green River
Steam
Coal
1,2
3
4
30
69
107
236
Haefling
Gas turbine
Gas/oil
1,2,3
20
59
K.U.-Park
Steam
Coal
1
32
32
Tyrone
Steam
Oil 1
Coal
1,2
3
32
76
140
2178/3178
~
Startup in 1981 and 1984, respectively.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1980).
Pool (KIP). The objective of KIP has been coordination of planning and
installation of generating stations and transmission systems of the four
utilities to achieve reliable and economic operation with minimal reserve.
Capacity planning within KIP recently terminated when Public Service Company of
Indiana announced its intention to withdraw from the Pool. Long-term capacity
commitments in KIP end in March 1982, although certain short-term transactions
continue through March 1989. The Applicant anticipates renewal of interconnec-
tion agreements with KIP members prior to 1989 to continue use of existing
transmission interconnection facilities.
In addition to the Hancock facilities, ongoing and planned KU generat-
ing and transmission projects include Ghent Generating Station Units 3 and 4
at Ghent, Kentucky; a 105-mile, 345-kV transmission line from the E.W. Brown
Generating Station at Burgin, Kentucky to the KU Park Generating Station near
Pineville, Kentucky; a 40-mile, 345-kV transmission system from Ghent to a new
345-/138-kV substation about 5 miles west of Frankfort; a 70-nri.le, 345-kV
transmission system from E. W. Brown Generating Station to the Hardin County
substation near Elizabethtown; and continuation of a 500-kV interconnection
with Tennessee Valley Authority at the Virginia/Tennessee border to Pocket,
Virginia and then to Pineville, Kentucky.
During 1980, total KU operations employed 1800 individuals (Table 1.1-
2). Total operating revenues of $373.3 million were up 13% over 1979, in part
because of rate increases put into effect during 1980. Electric sales to
1-3
-------
Table 1.1-2.
Kentucky Utilities Company Highlights, 1974-1980
% Difference
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1979 to 1980
Operating revenues 165.1 221.1 229.4 260.0 306.1 330.4 373.3 13.0
($ million)
Net income ($ million) 13.3 24.3 25.7 21.7 21.5 30.8 26.7 -13.5
Earnings per average share 1.63 3.18 2.78 1.99 1.88 2.60 1.51 -42.0
of conmon stock ($)
Dividends per share of 1.74 1.75 1.83 1.93 1.96 2.04 2.12 3.9
common stock ($)
Construction expenditures 57.1 84.3 84.6 71.1 89.1 139.8 175.2 25.4
($ million)
Original cost of utility 629.8 709.4 791.3 859.2 866.5 906.9 945.9 4.3
plant ($ million)
Sale of securities, long- 48.0 54.2 51.6 41.0 44.5 114.2 134.3 17.6
term debt and capital stock
($ million)
Kilowatt-hour sales 9,008.5 9,527.3 10,810.0 10,669.5 10,179.5 10,121.9 10,771.7 18.5
(million)
System peak demand in kW 1,433 1,536 1,641 1,797 1,897 1,967 2,185 11.1
(thousands)
Average annual residential 7,633 8,406 8,806 9.831 10,178 10,021 10,692 6.7
use (kWh)
Cost of fuel used in 46.1 58.1 62.2 93.4 118.9 106.6 132.6 24.4
generation ($ million)
Number of employees 1 ,634 1 ,627 1 ,663 1,675 1 ,716 1,765 1 ,800 2.0
Average number of customers 315,521 322,076 331 ,000 340,000 342,105 350,480 357,048 1.9
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1980).
-------
consumers increased over those of 1979. The hot summer of 1980 and the addition
of new all-electric customers combined to increase average residential customer
electricity use from 10,021 kWh to 10,692 kWh, which is above the 1979 national
average of 8,833 kWh. System peak load increased 11% over that of 1979 to a
record of 2.185 million kilowatts; this peak occurred in July 1980. Overall,
KU's 1980 growth characteristics were somewhat higher than the depressed years
of 1977 and 1978. Despite two rate increases during 1978 and one during 1980,
KU's rates are among the lowest in the nation.
1.2 NEED FOR POWER
1.2.1 Growth in Peak Demand
Kentucky Utilities has planned the proposed generating station to
avoid a forecasted deficit in its generating capacity in the early 1990s. KU's
projection of future needs is based on both trends in peak demand and maintenance
of adequate reserve capacity. Peak demand is the greatest demand for electricity
during a single hour during a year. The utility must have the capacity to meet
this demand to prevent brownouts. The utility must also maintain a reserve
capacity above the peak demand for extraordinary contingencies such as system
outages.
Depending upon the meteorological region, peak demand can occur as a
summer peak or a winter peak. A summer peak results from air conditioning use
during the hottest part of the summer, whereas a winter peak results from
electrical heating during the coldest part of the winter. In KU's case, peak
loads during these two seasons are approximately equal (Table 1.2-1). Large
variations in apparent load growth from one year to the next are generally
attributable to weather variations, economic conditions, or a combination
thereof.
KU's annual summer load growth, expressed as an equivalent compound
growth rate, or levelized rate, was higher from 1960 through 1973 (9.9%) than
from 1973 to 1980 (5.9%). However, the winter load growth for the same two
periods was constant (8.4%). The summer peak growth rate slowed during the
i973 to 1980 period because of customer conservation practices and a slowed
economy. Although the winter season during this period had the same slower
economic growth and conservation influences, the denial of natural gas service
to new customers in 1973 raised KU's percentage of new all-electric residential
customers from around 40% to 90%. Natural gas is again available, so that KU's
percentage of new all-electric residential customers has declined to about 85%.
This and circumstances influencing 1981 winter peak (coldest temperatures on
Saturday rather than during the work week) produced a load growth for the winter
of 1.9% over the previous summer peak. The winter 1980/81 peak was 2143 MW,
which is a 9.5% increase over the 1979/80 winter peak.
The historic growth patterns of Kentucky Utilities' seasonal peak
loads (Table 1.2-1) are shown on Figure 1.2-1, along with the projected winter
peak loads from 1980/81 to 1993/94 and projected summer peak loads from 1981 to
1994. The Applicant expects the Jackson Purchase Cooperative, which it now
serves, to be served by Big Rivers Electric Corporation by the end of 1983.
The loss of this load represents approximately one year's load growth, as noted
by essentially flat lines on the graph for that time.
1-5
-------
Table 1.2-1. Kentucky Utilities Summer and Winter Peak Loads, 1960-1980
Summer
Season
Actual
Peak Load
(MM)
Adjustment*
(MW)
Adjusted Increase
from Previous Year*
[%)
Winter
Season
Actual
Peak Load
(MW)
Adjustment*
(MW)
Adjusted Increase
from Previous Year*
{%)
1960
489
63
1960/61
495
68
_
1961
522
51
8.2
1961/62
537
60
11.7
1962
584
56
12.4
1962/63
573
65
6.5
1963
583
49
3.1
1963/64
608
49
10.0
1964
665
54
14.4
1964/65
628
55
2.5
1965
727
61
9.0
1965/66
679
62
7.7
1966
781
14
15.2
1966/67
698
3
12.6
1967
789
3.9
1967/68
792
14.0
1968
937
18.8
1968/69
838
5.8
1969
979
4.5
1969/70
910
8.6
1970
1082
10.5
1970/71
1020
12.1
1971
1150
6.3
1971/72
1038
1.8
1972
1348
17.2
1972/73
1173
13.0
1973
1458
8.2
1973/74
1215
3.6
1974
1433
-1.7
1974/75
1282
5.5
1975
1536
7.2
1975/76
1514
18.1
1976
1610
4.8
1976/77
1797
18.7
1977
1795
11.5
1977/78
1845
2.7
1978
1897
5.7
1978/79
1920
4.1
1979
1967
3.7
1979/80
1957
1.9
1980
2185
11.1
1980/81**
2143
9.5
Level i zed - Annual Rate of Growth
~
Between 1960 and 1966, Kentucky Utilities served 4 cities and 2 electric cooperatives that are now served by or
are members of other utilities. Their loads were removed from peak load data to compare Kentucky Utilities'
year-by-year growth rate through 1980 on an equal basis.
1981 to date.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
-------
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1981)
Figure 1.2-1. Kentucky Utilities Company Historical And Projected Seasonal Peak Loads
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 7 8 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
HISTORICAL
PROJECTED
-------
Factors influencing KU's estimation of customer requirements and
future expansion are:
Peak load demand and reserve margin.
Residential customer demand.
Population and industrial increases.
Price and availability of competing energy resources.
1.2.2 Peak Load Demand and Reserve Margin
The load demand of a utility can be described through a load duration
curve. Figure 1.2-2 illustrates KU's load duration curve for 1979, giving the
percentage of hours during that year a particular demand in megawatts was
reached or exceeded. The top of the curve shows a peak load demand of 1967 MW
and the middle part of the curve shows a demand of over 1172 MW during 50% of
the year.
In addition to providing for peak demand, KU must plan reserve capacity
in excess of its forecasted peak load, as do all utilities. This excess capacity
provides a reserve to insure continued service to customers in cases of generat-
ing unit outages, deratings, or maintenance. Reserve capacity also is used in
the case of increased demands during periods of weather more extreme than that
used for the load forecast. The margin of reserve capability is based on
several considerations: historical load data, equipment outage rates, largest
unit to system size ratio, interconnections with other companies and changing
load patterns. KU has determined the need to plan for a 20% reserve margin
during peak load periods to ensure adequate service. This reserve margin is
consistent with that of other utilities in the country.
The current largest Kentucky Utilities unit size to system load ratio,
using the 1980 summer peak, is 23.9%. At this time, KU has three units in the
400 to 500-MW class and will add two more 500-MW units at Ghent Generating
Station during the early 1980s. The proposed Hancock Generating Station will
add two 650-MW class units, which are expected to be less reliable than the
Applicant's 500-MW class units because of their larger size and the required
SO2 removal equipment. As the number of large units on the system increases,
the probability that one or more may be unavailable during peak conditions
will increase. Coal-fired units have higher outage rates than other similar
fossil-fuel units, and the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
Group (ECAR), of which KU is a member, is currently experiencing 30% generation
unavailability among the group.
KU's transmission interconnections (Table 1.2-2), although several,
are valuable mainly in day-to-day or week-to-week operations and have little
effect on planned margins unless firm commitments for purchase are possible.
Figure 1.2-3 shows how KU plans to meet its peak load demand through
1994, with Ghent Units 3 and 4 and Hancock Units 1 and 2 on-line. Installation
of new units and power purchases will allow KU to meet demand, ensure reliable
service through adequate reserves, and have the capacity to conduct periodic
maintenance on its larger units during off-peak loads in spring and ,fall. KU's
1-8
-------
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1981)
Figure 1.2-2. Kentucky Utilities 1979 Load Duration Curve
-------
Table 1.2-2. Kentucky Utilities Company Interconnections, 1981
Voltage Classes
Interconnecting Company Interconnections (KV)
East Kentucky Power
33
69, 138, 161
Electric Energy, Inc.
1
161
Big Rivers Electric Corp.
1
138
Owensboro Municipal Utilities
2
69, 138
Louisville Gas & Electric
4
69, 138
Ohio Valley Electric Corp.
1
138
Public Service Indiana
2
138, 345
Ohio Power Co.
1
138
Kentucky Power Co.
1
69
Central Illinois Public Service
2
69
Tennessee Valley Authority
5
69, 161
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
forecasted capability, load, and reserves from now until 1994 are shown in
Tables 1.2-3 and 1.2-4.
The reserve levels shown in the graphics are higher than KU actually
expects because of the nature of purchase agreements with EEI, OMU, and OVEC
(see Section 1.1). KU's reserve levels assume no outages on these utilities'
systems, whereas outages do occur, causing fluctuations in the amount of elec-
trical energy available to KU. For example, 55 MW is expected from EEI 32% of
the time, 21 MW 40% of the time, and no power is available 28% of the time.
The reserve levels also assume KU will have its total capacity available during
peak loads, although it may be necessary to have even a ma jor unit down for
maintenance.
KU presently is forecasting a peak load demand of 3480 MW for summer
1994. This is 1295 MW above the 1980 summer peak.
1.2.3 Residential Customer Demand, Population, and Industrial Increases
During each year since 1965, except 1979, KU's residential customers
have increased their demand (average kilowatt hours consumed per customer per
year). The record high in 1980 was 10,692 kilowatt hours. The mild weather of
1979 probably decreased usage that year, and KU expects the trend of increased
usage to continue despite the dampening effects of conservation, inflation, and
general state of the economy. Although the percentage of new all-electric
residential customers will slow, KU expects its percentage of these customers
to remain above pre-1973 levels. With the current upswing in Kentucky's
population growth, KU expects residential customer growth to continue at about
2.4% annually.
1-10
-------
5000 r
4 500
4000 ¦
3500
3000 ¦
2 500
%
<
19
2O00
1500
IOOO
PEAK LOAD
I I purchase commitments
K.U. GEN. CAPACITY WITHOUT HANCOCK UNITS
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1981)
Figure 1.2-3. Kentucky Utilities Capability, Capacity and Peak Load,
Historical 1975-1980, Projected 1981-1994
-------
Table
1.2-3.
Kentucky Utilities Forecast
of: Capacity,
Demand,
and
Reserves During
Summer Peak
Total
Total
Installed
Net
Available
Peak
Reserves
Capacity
Purchases
Capac ity
Demand
Year
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW) (Z
of peak)
1981
2648
341
2989
2218
771
35
1982
2648
280
2928
2350
578
25
1983
2648
271
2919
2463
456
19
1984
2648
260
2908
2464
444
18
1985
3148
250
3398
2566
832
32
1986
3148
240
3388
2667
721
27
1987
3148
229
3377
2769
608
22
1988
3148
218
3366
2871
495
17
1989
3798
205
4003
2972
1031
35
1990
3798
192
3990
3074
916
30
1991
3798
180
3978
3175
803
25
1992
3798
166
3964
3277
687
21
1993
3798
151
3949
3378
571
17
1994
4448
136
4584
3480
1104
32
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
Table
1.2-4.
Kentucky Utiliti
es Forecast
of Capacity,
Demand,
and
Reserves During Winter Peak
Total
Total
Installed
Net
Available
Peak
Reserves
Capacity
Purchas es
Capacity
Demand
Year
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW) (%
of peak)
1980-81
2178
594
2772
2168
604
28
1981-82
2678
172
2850
2300
550
24
1982-83
2678
280
2958
2411
547
23
1983-84
2678
271
2949
2412
537
22
1984-85
3178
260
3438
2511
927
37
1985-86
3178
250
3428
2610
818
31
1986-87
3178
240
3418
2710
706
26
1987-88
3178
229
3407
2810
597
21
1988-89
3178
218
3396
2908
488
17
1989-90
3828
205
4033
3008
1025
34
1990-91
3828
192
4020
3107
913
29
1991-92
3828
180
4008
3206
802
25
1992-93
3828
166
3994
3306
688
21
1993-94
3828
151
3979
3405
574
17
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
1-12
-------
Kentucky growth in manufacturing employment has slowed since 1974.
The current recession's impact upon Kentucky is readily apparent: July 1980
manufacturing employment was 90.6% of the 1974 level. Much of this decrease is
outside KU's service area. If the current recession ends and economic recovery
occurs in 1981, and if Kentucky experiences industrial growth, KU's load forecast
may require upward adjustment. The Applicant expects industrial growth to
resume in Kentucky. The state is centrally located, has an excellent transporta-
tion network, has adequate water resources, and expects, because of its coal
resources, to be a competitive electrical energy supplier for industry that
may be considering locating there.
1.2.4 Generation, Purchases and Sales
The complex system of electrical energy sales and purchases for
Kentucky Utilities is explained through an input-output diagram for 1979 (Figure
1.2-4), which shows power generated and sold by KU (white blocks) and that
purchased from or sold to other utilities (shaded blocks). KU's mix of system
sales for 1979 shows commercial and industrial as the largest portion (43.6%)
and residential and rural sales second largest (36.2%).
The quantity of purchases and sales from and to other utilities
changes continually because of outages, as mentioned, and other factors. Long-
term transactions span a considerable length of time and generally are agreed
on months or years in advance. Short-term transactions are mainly dependent
upon the operating status of the system and may be used to cover short-term
outages for economic reasons or to conserve natural gas or oil fuel. A major
unit outage requiring the purchase of additional power could create a critical
situation should it occur during peak loads. During non-peak loads, KU's
reserves could cover the loss of a major unit unless another one was down for
maintenance.
KU's expected purchases and sales included in the load forecast will
be limited to EEI and OMU after 1982 (Table 1.2-5).
1.2.5 Price and Availability of Competing Energy Resources
Competing energy resources - natural gas, oil, and solar power - are
mainly used for home heating, water heating, and cooking when in competition
with electrical energy. Because of KU's summer and winter peak relationship,
both summer and winter loads must be impacted to affect load growth and reduce
capacity additions.
Natural gas usage is influenced by several factors, including recent
price adjustments for imports, the expense of presently unregulated domestic
reserves, and the anticipated rise in prices of other domestic reserves -when
deregulated by 1985. Deregulation is expected to make the price of natural gas
equal to or greater than that of oil on the basis of comparable dollars per
million Btu, because it is a cleaner fuel and not as subject to embargo. Also,
because natural gas still is restricted to users of large quantities (e.g.,
industry) and is used mainly for hot water and cooking in residences, KU does
not expect increased availability to decrease its summer peak.
Oil prices currently are climbing faster than electricity prices.
This, in addition to any future problem with availability, likely would cause
1-13
-------
TOTAL YEARLY INPUT = 10,922,308 MWH
POWER GENERATED —1
8,109,598 MWH
POWER PURCHASED
(LONG TERM)
2,656,130 MWH
POWER INTERCHANGED.NET
(SHORT TERM)
156,500 MWH
* PERCENT OF SYSTEM SALES
TOTAL YEARLY OUTPUT = 10,922,308 MWH
SYSTEM SALES = 8,241,4 53 MWH
RESIDENTIAL 1
2,007,653 MWH (24.4%)*
RURAL
974,743 MWH (11.8%)*
COMMERCIAL a INDUSTRIAL
3,593,558 MWH (43.6%)*
MINE POWER —
907,284 MWH (11.0%)*
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
758,215 MWH (9.2%)*
LOSSES AND COMPANY USE -
800,430 MWH
OTHER ELECTRIC UTILITIES
1,880,425 MWH
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (198L)
Figure 1.2-4 Input-Output Diagram, Kentucky Utilities, 1979
1-14
-------
Table 1.2-5. Forcast of Net Purchases During Summer and Winter Peaks
for Kentucky Utilities Company, 1981-1994
Net
Smmnpr Purchase (MW) From Company (MW)*
1981
341
OVEC 21, EEI 145, OMU
233,
ek :
29,
1982
280
OMU
225,
EEI
55
1983
271
OMU
216,
EEI
55
1984
260
OMU
205,
EEI
55
1985
250
OMU
195,
EEI
55
1986
240
OMU
185,
EEI
55
1987
229
OMU
174,
EEI
55
1988
218
OMU
163,
EEI
55
1989
205
OMU
150,
EEI
55
1990
192
OMU
137,
EEI
55
1991
180
OMU
125,
EEI
55
1992
166
OMU
111,
EEI
55
1993
151
OMU
96,
EEI
55
1994
136
OMU
81,
EEI
55
Winter
1980-81 594 OVEC 13, PSI 11, EK 175, OMU 240, EEI 155
1981-82 172 EEI 55, OMU 233, EK-29, 1PL-87
1982-83
280
OMU
225,
EEI
55
1983-84
271
OMU
216,
EEI
55
1984-85
260
OMU
205,
EEI
55
1985-86
250
OMU
195,
EEI
55
1986-87
240
OMU
185,
EEI
55
1987-88
229
OMU
174,
EEI
55
1988-89
218
OMU
163,
EEI
55
1989-90
205
OMU
150,
EEI
55
1990-91
192
OMU
137,
EEI
55
1991-92
180
OMU
125,
EEI
55
1992-93
166
OMU
111,
EEI
55
1993-94
151
OMU
96,
EEI
55
*Sales are noted by - sign.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
1-15
-------
substitution of electricity for oil in some an;as. KU's expected Load growth
would then he increased. Currently, increases in heating oil usage are not
expected for the same reasons, so that KU's winter peak load will not be
affected.
Solar power will not make a large contribution to energy requirements
in KU's service area for years. At that, increased solar usage is expected to
reduce only winter load until such time as technology can produce competitive
electrical energy with solar power. Winter peak demand would not be affected
noticeably by increased solar usage if the peak load period coincided with
several consecutive cloudy days. Electrical energy consumption may be greater
when solar power is used, as evidenced by two solar homes on KU's system. The
two homes, which differ in size and possibly represent two diverse lifestyles,
used 12,520 and 25,542 kWh, respectively, in 1980. By comparison, KU's average
residential customer used 10,692 kWh and the average all-electric residential
customer used 19,260 kWh in 1980.
1.2.6 Future Trends
The Applicant's current load forecast is a downward revision from the
previous one. Development in KU's service area has slowed. It is expected to
begin recovery in 1981, so that KU's growth rate will continue, but at a slower
rate than that of the 1970s. ,KU expects to add about the same amount of MW
load to its system during the nine years between 1980 and 1989 as it did in
the six years from 1974 to 1980. This anticipates growth above the national
average because of industrial expansion, increased electricity use for air
conditioning and heating, and expansion of coal mining production.
Despite the effects of conservation, inflation, and recession in
1979, residential sales showed an annual growth rate of 6.9/<, from 1970 to 1979,
and industrial and commercial sales showed an increase at. an annual rate of
6.0/£ for the same period (Figure 1.2-5). Rural sales showed an even higher
growth rate of 9.OX tor the period. Mine power showed a growth rate of 4.6%,
and if the relative percentage of underground mining increases, this wlLl
accelerate. An increase in underground mining would increase residential and
commercial load because it is more labor intensive than strip mining.
Another factor that could have a large impact on KU's mining segment
is synthetic fuel development. Kentucky's western coal fields have been
experiencing slack demand for their product because of its high sulfur content.
Should all or a substantial part of the proposed synthetic fuel plants (which
are outside KU's service area) materialize in western Kentucky, the western
Kentucky coal-mining counties that KU serves will experience substantial growth.
Such a development will accentuate KU's need for additional capacity.
1-16
-------
TO 72 74 76 78
L
actual
80 82 84 86 88 90
i TREND LINE EXTENSION
YEARS
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1981)
Figure 1.2-5. Kentucky Utilities Electrical Usage by Customer Class
1-17
-------
1.3 NEED FOR ACTION
The action as defined for this document is EPA's issuance of an NPDES
permit to Kentucky Utilities Company for proposed Hancock Generating Station
Units 1 and 2.
Under provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Kentucky
Utilities Company has applied to EPA for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the proposed power plant construction.
The NPDES permit is for purposes of discharging wastewater to waters of the
United States. In compliance with its responsibility under NEPA, EPA has
determined that issuance of an NPDES permit for the proposed project would
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment and subject to the provisions of NEPA. Prior to a decision
on issuance of the permit, CEQ and EPA procedures for implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500-1508 and 40 CFR 6, respectively) require an environmental impact
statement that identifies impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on
the natural and human environments.
This DEIS and draft NPDES permit (Appendix 8.1) have been prepared to
provide Federal, Commonwealth, and local agencies and the concerned public with
sufficient and comprehensible information on the proposed project, alternatives
to the project, and EPA's preferred action. The inclusion of impacts associated
with construction and operation of the transmission systems that will distribute
the Hancock Station power conforms with EPA's goals to combine all related
activities into a single project for DEIS purposes.
1-18
-------
2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
KU's proposed development plan for the Hancock project was selected
from a number of possible site locations and plant ancillary facilities de-
signs and operations. Factors considered during the various selection pro-
cesses included engineering, environmental, socioeconomic, and regulatory
requirements, and costs of development.
This section also addresses alternatives considered by the Applicant
during development of the proposed action as well as alternatives available to
Federal and Commonwealth permitting authorities.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT
Decisions resulting in KU's proposed action basically fell into four
categories: whether to build the generating station, where to site it, how to
fuel it, and which operational systems to use. Because detailed rationale for
the build alternative was presented in KU's statement of the need for addi-
tional power in its service area (Section 1.2), relatively little discussion
in this section is centered on management alternatives. Overall, for purposes
of the EIS process, the most in-depth analysis of the other alternatives
focused on KU's siting study and the ultimate selection of the Hancock and
Breckinridge sites as potential locations for the generating station. Thus,
an evaluation of KU's siting study is included in this section, and detailed
treatment of the proposed project on each of the two sites occurs throughout
the DEIS. The sites are located near each other on the Ohio River in western
Kentucky (Figure 2.1-1).
2.1.1 Management Alternatives
2.1.1.1 Build the Generating Station
Kentucky Utilities proposes to meet forecasted demands by construct-
ing and operating two 650-MW coal-fired steam electric generating units on the
Hancock site near Ohio River Mile 715 in Hancock County, Kentucky (Figure
2.1-2). The Ohio River is proposed as the cooling water source, and coal
delivery is planned to be by barge. Proposed waste disposal will utilize
about two-thirds of the site area.
Transmission facilities proposed for Hancock Generating Station Unit
1 will consist of a 345-kV substation at the plant and a 10-mile
double-circuit transmission line from the Hancock substation to an existing
tie-in point about 1.5 miles southwest of Victoria Crossroads in southern
Hancock County (Figure 2.1-3). Unit 2 transmission facilities will parallel
the Unit 1 lines southward for 5 miles and continue eastward, paralleling an
existing line, to a substation in southwest Elizabethtown in Hardin County,
Kentucky. Site preparation is proposed to begin in 1982, with completion of
Unit 1 and its transmission system in 1989 and completion of Unit 2 and its
transmission system in 1994 (Figure 2.1-4). KU orginally planned Unit 1 oper-
ation for winter 1984/85 and Unit 2 operation for winter 1986/87, based on
load growth rates of about 8%. The proposed dates reflect an estimated 3.4%
load growth through 1994.
2-1
-------
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1980) -
Figure 2.1-1. Locations of the Hancock and Breckinridge Sites
2-2
-------
*I*"£ fr-VO" LOW WfEff EL. J77.J F* ,
-»**« LHQ*fl»0 «Ww LC* Wtfg Bl. mc
MC«Mia WATER EL W 3 FT
100 YB/high **ter EL40«srr.
^BitLATfcP TO7 FLOOD LEYU EL. 407.* FT.
t-~ PROPERTY TAKE LB®" •" "
¦ P ^40 ATBFS ! .
Si^nflBPWTt.^.
527.se
SftSHSSS
a !:¦>¦•-
¦contwx :"m&M ~*©
ADM-NWTIWION »U».D*K>
LUNCH ROOM ANO
-^ LOCKER FACILITIES-
S*
0TAWLUED SLUDGj
MAM PLANT ACCE!
-FULL LIMES
BAWGES I9)
&ATCH PLANT AJEA
FUEL CM. STOWA0C —~
LiME UNLOADING AND.
VTC**f| AfEA
LlMESTONt «*-»
-ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
CQm\O0*
-FUTUAE HUNOTF »*S*
ABANDONED SOAD
ELEVATIONS APE REFERRED TO
MSI. DATUM 1921 AWUSTM6N*
SOURCE
Sargent &
Lundy
Figure 2.1-2. Proposed Hancock Site Layout
2-3
-------
r
N5
1
Figure 2.1-3. Location of Transmission Systems Associated with
the Hancock Generating Station
FORT. WOk
MILITARY WSERVATlOtJ
f<%.»**
CLOVERI
AakW
-*T0 0WC*SeO80
; jS k
VICTORIA CROSSROADS
INSBURG
EL1ZA8EWT0WN
LOCUST HILL
"WuiuNu confix
CECIUAi
MILES
EXISTING CORRIDOR
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1980)
-------
MB UNIT 1
HANCOCK SITE
- UNITS 1 & 2
KVS* UNIT 2
I TEW
i 1982 1 1983 1
1984 1 1985 1 1986 1
1987 1 1988 1
1989 1 1990 1 1991 1 1992 1 1993 1 1994
J A J 0 J A J 0 J
I l 1 J 1 1 .
AJ OJAJOJAJOJ
A J 0 J A J 0 J
III II l.
ajojajcjajojajojajojajo
II III III III 1 1 1 L. -1—1—
SITE WORK
PILING
SUBSTRUCTURE
STRUCTURAL STEEL
SUPERSTRUCTURE
STEAM GENERATOR
PIPING SYS & MECH EQUIP ERECT
BACKET® & FGD SYSTEM
RIVER WORK STRUCTURES
14 MONTHS
MONTHS
GRD FAB SILO
START
CONSTR. WORK
'IN FIELD
8-1-82
BOI LOUT #1-
INITIAL «
OPERATION PI
COMMERICAL
OPERATION #1
GRO FAB S LO
60 MONTHS
BO ILOUT n
H
INITIAL
OPERATION tl
I
COMMERCIAL
OPERATION #2"
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities (1980)
Figure 2-1-4. Construction Schedule for Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2
-------
To comply with EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Regulations (40 CFR 52, as amended), KU submitted atmospheric emissions
predictions to the Air Pollution Control Division of the Kentucky Department
for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (DNREP) in July 1978.
DNREP determinations on the PSD application were made public in August 1979.
A restraining order subsequently prevented DNREP from completing action on the
PSD application and EPA Region IV took the application for final processing.
The application for the Hancock NPDES permit was submitted to EPA Region IV in
May 1980. The application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant
to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), Louisville District, in September 1980. The COE issued public notice
of the DA permit application in December 1980.
2.1.1.2 Power Purchases
The agreements for short-term and long-term power transactions among
KU and 11 other companies and their limitations have been discussed. It is
commonplace among utility companies that deficits in capacity normally occur
prior to addition of new generating capacity and surpluses occur when a new
unit comes on line. These fluctuations are minimized by energy purchases and
sales, with a utility ultimately responsible for its own load demand and re-
serve. Energy purchases sufficient to meet load demand and preclude con-
struction of a new unit are possible only when neighboring companies have
over-built and maintained surplus- capacity for a lengthy period. Such excess
capacity is not presently available to KU.
2.1.1.3 Upgrade and Baseload Other KU Generating Facilities
KU has no standing retired units to bring back into service and up-
grading of existing units to meet increased demand is not feasible. KU's
present capacity is largely the result of construction between 1946 and 1977.
The first three units built during this time (Tyrone Generating Station) pro-
duce 32, 32, and 76 MW. These units are used presently as peaking units,
demonstrating KU's utilization of older units to help fulfill peak load
demands.
KU presently has a peaking capacity of 321 MW from seven generating
units. Their use as base load units would fall short of meeting increased
load requirements, as they would add no additional capacity to KU's reserve
margins. Further, three of them are gas turbine powered and too costly to run
as base load units; the others, although oil- or coal-fired, do not have
modern efficient equipment and would be costly to operate for base load, both
economically and resource-wise. These and other KU generating units are
utilized to their full safe operable ratings.
2.1.1.4 Construction of a Smaller Facility
Construction of less than 1300-MW capacity during the next 13 years
is not feasible to meet KU's anticipated demand and reserve. More than one
facility is neither economically nor environmentally sound. Common components
of a two-unit plant are prime economic considerations and a common site is
both economically and environmentally advantageous. Further, time necessary
2-6
-------
to gain permits for the number of smaller facilities required to meet KU's
estimates would push completion of the facilities beyond 1989.
2.1.1.5 Curtailment and Conservation
Present energy policy does not advocate curtailment of electrical
power to customers as a means of conserving energy. Kentucky Utilities does
not have any contractual ir.teriruptible loads, although its two largest in-
dustrial customers can be asked to curtail their operations during peak loads
or suffer rate penalties for the next 12 and 6 months, respectively for each
violation. Each of these industries has approximately 20 to 25 MW demand, and
curtailments generally total 15 MW to 20 MW. This small depression in load
demand is included in future estimates.
The effects of conservation also are included in future estimates as
part of KU's slowed growth characteristics. Conservation efforts continue at
KU, with both residential and commercial service advisors available and
active. Programs conducted during 1979 included consultations with home
builders and commercial construction firms; 66 weatherization workshops to
demonstrate caulking, insulation^ and weatherstripping techniques; and nearly
2000 presentations on energy conservation, energy supply, and electricial
safety. Customer education in energy conservation also includes bulletins
enclosed with monthly bills and short, occasional TV spots. Rate advantages
are offered for home water heating units that are designed to operate during
off-peak periods.
During 1979, KU began preparing for implementation of the Resi-
dential Conservation Service Program, as specified by the National Energy
Conservation Act of 1979. Although the proposed program covers only resi-
dential customers, KU has trained commercial service advisors to conduct walk
through energy audits designed to show commercial and institutional customers
how to implement low cost procedures to improve energy efficiency.
The National Energy Plan concentrates on conservation of oil and
natural gas. Parts of the energy plan have the potential for directly
conserving electrical energy: reduction of energy waste in buildings,
mandatory appliance efficiency standards, industrial conservation and fuel
efficiency improvements, and utility reform. Conservation practices that have
been incorporated into policies in other regions of the United States are
presented below. These measures either are or will become cost effective with
significant future increases in the real price of electricity.
Residential Sector
1. Retrofitting. Insulation, weatherstripping and caulking, and
storm windows can achieve savings of up to 20% of home energy use.
2. Heat-Conserving Construction in New Residences. An estimated
energy savings of 30% in new homes built after. 1980 could be
achieved, using ASHRAE 90-75 standards.
3. Improved Appliance Efficiency. Major energy-using appliances
include water heaters, kitchen ranges and ovens, clothes dryers,
2-7
-------
refrigerators, freezers, and television sets. Federal Energy
Administration target levels for increased efficiency range from
10% for water heaters to as much as 80% for television.
Estimated savings by improving the energy efficiency of all these
major appliances is 43%.
Commercial Sector
1. Reduction in Lighting (Levels and Quantity). Using task lighting
and reducing lighting levels in general can yield considerable
savings. The National Bureau of Standards suggests that
reductions of 15% of lighting energy in existing buildings and
25% in new buildings are possible. . Two other reports estimated
that reduced lighting levels could save up to 90% of electricity
used for lighting. The Northwest Policy Project estimated that
50% savings of lighting demand can be achieved (15% of the
commercial sector use).
2. Reduction in Infiltration and Ventilation (Existing Buildings).
Ventilation rates commonly used for large office buildings could
be greatly reduced without incurring lowered air quality.
Assuming ventilation rates of 25 cubic feet per minute, the
Energy 1990 study indicated that energy requirements for space
heating could be reduced by 50% if there were a reduction of 5
cfm to 10 cfm. The Northwest Policy Project (NEPP) estimated
that reductions in infiltration and ventilation can achieve
savings of 5 to 8% of the total commercial sector energy demand.
3. Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. Retrofitting measures could
reduce a commercial sector energy use by 23%, according to the
NEPP study; this includes limited wall insulation, roof
insulation, double-glazed windows, and ground-floor carpeting.
4. Design New Buildings for Energy Conservation. ASHRAE has
developed a model building code that sets performance standards
for efficient design (ASHRAE 90-75). Buildings designed to these
standards are intended to have high thermal resistance and low
air leakage and to use improved mechanical and electrical systems
that promote the efficient use of energy. NEPP's estimated
savings for this measure is 39% of the commercial sector's energy
use. There are additional, measures that could be incorporated to
increase energy-use efficiency, including the removal of waste
heat from lighting by changed air circulation, use of tinted
glass, reduced window area, and lower ceiling heights in retail
stores.
Industrial Sector
1. Industrial Housekeeping. Numerous studies have indicated that
industrial conservation could yield from 15 to 30% energy
savings. As indicated in several reports, it is difficult to
analyze this sector and to specifically quantify the potential
2-8
-------
savings. The recommended conservation measures are minimal and
do not include industrial processes.
2. Recycling. Although not applicable to all service areas, those
that have aluminum industry or other industry able to recycle can
achieve savings. An estimated 18% of energy consumed by the
aluminum industry could be saved through implementation of
recycling programs.
2.1.2 Alternative Energy Sources
In evaluating energy alternatives, KU determined that the energy source
most likely to be a realistic alternative to coal, considering availability,
state-of-the-art, and economics, was nuclear fission. Other sources included
in the evaluation were oil, gas, municipal refuse, geothermal energy, solar
energy, wind and hydropower.
2.1.2.1 Coal
Coal proposed for the Hancock Plant will come from western Kentucky,
southern Illinois, and southern Indiana, which comprise the Eastern Interior
Coal Region (Energy Research and Development Administration 1977). Strip
mining is more prevalent (70%) than underground mining in this region, re-
sulting in extensive, long-term impacts to natural and managed terrestrial
ecosystems. Although recovery time of the strip-mined land depends on several
factors, average estimates for restoration of pasture and crop productivity
are 30 years after mining, providing acid drainage and toxic substances are
properly treated (ERDA 1977). Forests begin to develop within 20 years, with
restoration of a mature hardwood forest probably occurring 150 to 200 years
later. Wetlands and bottomland forests (probably the most productive eco-
systems in the region) are difficult to impossible to restore. Mining impacts
to water quantity in this region are minimal, but acid mine drainage could
create chronic water quality problems.
Coal handling, preparation, and transportation, despite suppressant
procedures, impact particulate levels in local areas (ERDA 1977). Overall
socioeconomic impacts associated with mining and coal handling in this region
are projected to be generally small compared with other coal regions owing to
a moderate to ample infrastructure and flourishing economy. The U.S.
Department of Energy (formerly ERDA) expects mining and its impacts to
continue in this region at the same or an accelerated pace. In-situ coal
conversion, which should mitigate some of the impacts, is an incompletely
developed technology that currently is receiving less Federal research money
than other coal conversion programs.
DOE analysis of Eastern Interior Region coal (ERDA 1977) is similar to
that presented by the Applicant: 9,700 to 12,700 Btu/lb heat content, 1 to 5%
sulfur content, and 7 to 13% ash content. The Applicant's representative coal
analysis showed a sulfur content of 3.5% and an ash content of 14.5%.
Representative coal and coal ash analyses were:
2-9
-------
COAL
Heating Value
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Sulfur
Pyritic
Sul f ate
Organic
10,500 Btu
41.00%
29.00%
12.00%
14.50%
3.50%
2.00%
0.04%
1.46%
COAL ASH
Silica (Si03)
Ferric Oxide (Fe2
-------
Table 2.1-1. Comparison of Environmental Effects of Nuclear and Coal-Fired
Power Plants (1000 MW)*
Water Quality
Power ftir Quality
Nuclear Radionuclides (maxi-
mum dose = 0.012 mrera/
yr at 1000 m)
Cooling tower drift
(varies; precipitates
as much as 80 lb
salts/acre/yr within
0.5 mi of mechanical
draft tower)
Surface Water Groundwater Water Quantity Solid Waste Land Use
Heat
Chemicals applied
to uptake water
Deposition of
air emissions
Radionuclides in
effluents (maxi-
mum dose = 0.001
mrem/yr
Consumes 30
of 1250 cfs
take water
cfs
Leachates from
deposits
High-level
radioactive
material (80-
100 ft3/yr)
500 acres;
if cooling
ponds used,
additional
1500 acres/
1000 MW
Biological
Chronic effects of
low-level radioac-
tivity unknown
Modification and loss
of natural habitat
Entrainment
Impact of heat effects
depends on water body's
ability to disperse 15-
20°F temperature rise;
varies from modest in
large rivers and lakes
to significant in
smaller ones
Human Health
Same as Biological
Poses some risks
of accidents
Coal-fired
Particulates (3.5
thousand tons/yr)
Trace elements
Sulfur dioxide (41.4
thousand tons/yr)
Nitrogen oxides (24
thousand tons/yr)
Cooling tower drift
(same as nuclear)
Leachates from
coal and waste
storage
Deposition of
air emissions
Same as sur- No discharge Ash (430,000 55Q acres;
face water
Leachates
deposits
from
plants consume
all (22 cfs)
intake water;
others consume
approximately
half of intake
tons/yr)
Scrubber
sludge
if surge
pond used,
additional
150 acres/
1000 MW
Impact of chronic ef-
fects of low-level
toxic substance expo-
sure largely unknown
Acute exposure to SO2
can damage plants
Modification and loss
of natural habitat
Entrainment
Impact of heat effects
depends on water body's
ability to disperse
10°F temperature rise
Same as Biological
Acute exposure
aggravates respira-
tory problems and
irritates eyes
Quantities and radiation exposures are estimates from generic studies.
Sources: U.S. Department of Interior (1977); Energy Research and Development Administration (1977).
-------
typical 1000-MW coal-fired and nuclear plants are around 22 cfs and 30 cfs,
respectively). Geologically stable terrain is a major requirement for a
nuclear plant as is distance from population centers. Coal-fired plants also
require geologic stability and are further limited to locations in air quality
attainment areas. Emissions of combustion gases are not relevant to nuclear
plants.
Impacts associated with construction of the two types of plants are
essentially the same. Air quality is affected for the short term by an in-
crease in suspended particulate matter from dust and exhaust emissions. Ero-
sion and siltation likely will occur during excessive rainfall. Socioeconomic
impacts are large, peaking around the middle of the construction phase in con-
junction with the greatest labor force. The influx of a comparatively large
population for a short period of time generally creates a set of problems as-
sociated with municipal, social, and emergency services; social structure; em-
ployment; and business and housing development.
For comparing operational impacts, little is known about chronic ef-
fects associated with low-level exposures of biota and man to toxic substances
from coal-fired plants and to radionuclides from nuclear plants (Table
2.1-1). The most salient differences in potential environmental impacts are
those associated with the greater extent of land use and terrestrial/wetlands
habitats committed to cooling ponds for some nuclear plants and the thermal
discharge of others.
Public concern about the safety of nuclear fuels handling and use
remains the foremost issue in continued development of nuclear power. Legal
difficulties arising from this concern and escalating costs and delays in
equipment deliveries are deterrents to the utility industry. Further, the
normal lead time for putting a nuclear plant on line has increased
significantly since the Three Mile Island incident and moratorium on licensing
new plants.
Costs of nuclear fuel processing, the generating units, and certain
support functions in the fuel cycle have increased at a greater rate than
those of comparable fossil-fuel facilities and functions (U.S. Geological
Survey 1977). Fuel costs, although lower at present, are not expected to
remain significantly so. Thus, the economic benefit that generally has been
realized beyond the initial construction costs of several large-unit nuclear
plants likely will diminish in the near future; new plants may realize none
prior to widespread use of breeder reactors. The world price of uranium has
doubled in the past few years and it is expected to rise in response to short
supplies of known reserves relative to increased demands.
2.1.2.3 Oil and Gas
The Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (PL 95-620) pro-
hibits the use of natural gas or petroleum as a primary energy source in new
electric power plants. KU's proposed use of fuel oil for an auxiliary boiler
in the power plant (see Subsection 2.1.4.1) is within Federal F.nergy
Regulatory Commission rules pursuant to this Act.
2-12
-------
2.1 .2.A Other Energy Sources
Of the additional energy sources considered for power generation, only
municipal refuse appeared to be a viable supplement to coal or nuclear fuel
and none was a suitable alternative energy source for generating the entire
1300 MW for KU's projected energy needs (Table 2.1-2). Costs were the primary
factor in rejecting use of municipal refuse as a coal supplement. Excessive
costs would accrue either from building several small generating units for
local refuse use or from transport of prepared fuel to larger units.
Preparation of refuse for fuel use currently is more expensive than coal or
nuclear fuel preparation, although these costs generally are shared by
municipal governments involved. Dual purpose boilers for firing coal and
refuse would be required.
2.1.3 Alternative Sites
2.1.3'] Site Selection
The Applicant's siting study searched for locations suitable for a 2-
to 4-unit (500 to 600 MW each) fossil-fuel generating station, a 2-unit (1000
to 1200 MW each) nuclear station, or both. The study was conducted from March
1977 to mid-1978. Details of the study are in Section 2.1.3 of the Technical
Appendix. In response to comments from reviewing agencies during the scoping
portion of the EIS process, EPA required a review of the siting study and
presentation of the study methodology and results of the evaluation in the
DEIS. Both the siting study and the evaluation of site selection (also
detailed in Section 2.1.3 of the Technical Appendix) are based on information
pertinent at the time of the study. Thus, data displays and text do not
reflect the extensive detail developed later for the Hancock and Breckinridge
sites nor do they reflect changes in the status of sites (e.g., site G-l is
now occupied; boundaries of the Breckinridge site have been changed).
2.1.3.1.1 Siting Process
To select the Hancock, Breckinridge, and other alternate sites, the
Applicant's consultant initially identified 63 potential site areas in Ken-
tucky arid 5 in western Virginia, primarily on the basis of cooling water
availability, access to a railroad, and topography. After the initial identi-
fication of sites, an interdisciplinary team of engineers and environmental
specialists reviewed topographic maps, technical data, and scientific
literature to identify prohibitive factors that would eliminate any of the
sites from further consideration. The engineering considerations included
geological, seismological, and foundation design aspects. Environmental
considerations included land use, demography, ecology, meteorology, and" air
quality.
Sites considered acceptable after the preliminary screening were
identified on USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps and evaluated in greater detail
for water supply. Preliminary and secondary screening eliminated 23 sites,
including all 5 sites in Virginia.
The remaining 45 sites were grouped into those suitable, for fossil-
fueled plants, those suitable for nuclear plants, and those suitable for
2-13
-------
Table 2.1-2 Comparison of Power Generation Alternatives
Other Than Coal and Nuclear Fission
Energy Source
Geothermal Energy
Wind
Hydropower
Solar
Municipal Refuse
Viability
Must be used near source; no proven
source in Kentucky.
Questionable reliability of wind power
in project area; requires 500 to 1000
generating units, 45 square miles of
land, and winds of 7 to 9 meters per
second to produce 1130 MW.
Limited availability in Kentucky; not
sufficient for 1300 MW anywhere in
the Commonwealth; most hydropower
units in Kentucky are less than 50 MW.
1000 MW would require a collecting
surface of 36 square miles if ef-
ficiency of conversion to electrical
energy is 35%; most suitable for
residential use to offset electrical
energy used for water and space
heaters.
Widespread use where fuel costs are
high (Europe, especially); most
practical capacity is 200 to 400 MW
with maximum of 500 MW; most suitable
as supplement to coal if obtainable
nearby; Kentucky Utilities' largest
municipality (Lexington) could pro-
duce maximum of 25 MW at 5000 Btu/lb;
U.S. supply could produce 10 to 15%
of total boiler heat load.
Advantages
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Reduces solid waste problem;
saves other fuels; decreased
air pollutant emissions and
solid waste generation; ac-
ceptable disposal of solid
wastes.
Pi sadvantaqes
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
In U.S., cost of preparation and
transport remains higher than that
associated with fossil or nuclear
fuels; utilization by Kentucky
Utilities would require several
small generating units spread
throughout its service area.
Sources: Jackson (1974); Shannon (1975); Bonneville Power Administration (1977); Sarofin (1977); U.S.Department of Interior (1977).
-------
both. Sites were then evaluated in greater detail on the basis of eight con-
siderations: site development, geology, hydrology, ecology, meteorology and
air quality, existing and planned cultural resources, site access, and inter-
ferences with existing transportation facilities. Available literature, Com-
monwealth and Federal maps, and government agencies were among the information
sources used at this stage of the site selection process. The agencies visit-
ed to discuss the possibility of obtaining water from existing reservoirs and
major rivers, as well as the permit regulations applicable to the impoundment
of streams, were COE, Louisville District; USGS, Louisville; and the Kentucky
DNREP. Various reports and data pertaining to the water resources aspects of
the study were also obtained from these agencies.
Quantitative indices were developed from the engineering and
environmental considerations for each group of sites. The 11 highest ranking
sites in the fossil-fuel group and the 7 highest ranking sites in the nuclear
group were selected for further study. Preliminary site layouts and other
evaluations were prepared for each potential site, and a subsequent ranking
identified 7 preferred fossil sites and 6 preferred nuclear sites. After
reviewing these recommendations, Kentucky Utilities requested that 2
previously eliminated fossil-fuel sites be added to the preferred sites so
that 9 fossil-fueled (Figure 2.1-5) and 6 nuclear sites were included in'the
final phase of the siting process. Site L-8 was included in both groups.
Each of the 9 preferred fossil sites and 6 preferred nuclear sites was
visited by an interdisciplinary team of engineers and environmental special-
ists to determine the practicality of locating various facilities on the
site. Road traffic, demographic and land use patterns, and the type and con-
dition of habitats on and near the sites were noted. The visits also verified
previously obtained information.
Site visit data were used to update site layouts, which were used to
develop cost estimates. Air quality compliance was analyzed using EPA re-
commended models and National Weather Service data. Studies conducted by the
University of Kentucky for the Ohio River Basin Energy Study on the Social As-
pects of Power Plant Siting (1977) and the Ohio River Basin Commission Compre-
hensive Coordinated Joint Plant (1978) were reviewed to evaluate the potential
for adverse public reaction and other socioeconomic impacts.
Nine engineering and eight environmental considerations were compared
among the fossil-fuel sites to develop a favorability matrix (Table 2 1-3)
based on the information shown in Table 2.1-4. Subjective ratings 'were
determined on the basis of the consultant's past experience, professional
judgment of the totality of assembled data, current conditions in and around
the site areas, and, to some extent, projections of future development in the
site areas. The favorability ratios for engineering considerations were also
reflected m the differential site development costs. Land acquisition and
transmission costs provided by KU were also included in these estimates. On
the basis of the comparison matrix and the differential site development
costs, site 0-13 (Hancock) and site 0-26 (Breckinridge) were selected as the
prime and alternate sites, respectively, for fossil-fuel sites.
H^C Chosen 38 5J\e prime site because development of four units
MW capacity was possible on the basis of air quality considerations
2-15
-------
L*
I
SOURCE: Kentucky Utilities Siting Study (1978)
Figure 2.1—5. Location of Kentucky Utilities Nine Preferred
Fossil Fuel Sites
-------
Table 2.1-3. Relative Favorability Comparison Matrix for Kentucky Utilities
Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites
G-l
L-8
L-T 7
0-8
0-11
0-12
0-13*
0-22
Engineering Consideration
Environmental Consideration
Aquatic Ecology
Terrestrial Ecology
Archaeological and
Historical Sites
land Use
Socioeconomic
Considerations
Dispersion Characteristics
Air Quality
Considerations
Potential Fogging
and Icing
Favorability Code:
® = More Favorable
• = Favorable
x = Acceptable
®
®
®
®
®
x
X
X
®
X
X
X
®
X
X
®
®
®
X
0-26*
Water Supply
•
•
•
®
®
®
®
®
®
Foundation Considerations
X
•
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
Flood Hazards
•
®
®
•
X
•
•
•
•
Rail Access
•
v
®
®
A
•
®
®
®
Highway Access
®
•
X
0
®
•
•
•
•
Seismic Risk
X
®
®
X
X
X
®
X
Topography
•
•
X
X
•
•
•
•
•
Man-Made Interference
•
X i
x
Y
A
•
•
•
•
®
Airports and Air Space
®
•
•
x
•
X
•
•
•
®
•
®
•
X
•
X
•
®
®
X
®
®
•
®
®
®
®
•
•
•
X
X
•
®
X
•
•
•
•
•
"This matrix was formulated during the site selection j
developed later. study and does not reflect extensive detail
Source: Site Selection Study, Sargent & Lundy (1978).
2-17
-------
Table 2.1-4. Summary of Salient Features of Kentucky Utilities Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites (Sheet 1 of 4)*
NJ
I
00
Egg
MUX
C-l
Source or water - Green
River controlled by t. S.
Army Corps of Engineers'
reservoirs upstream; can
support four 550 MW units;
sice above 100-year flood
level.
Foundations - mats on
alluvial soils or bedrock
or controlled backfill.
Flat to rolLing topography;
Louisville and Nashville (L&N)
RR spur ' 6 mi; combined ash
and SO2 storage* for 21 years
for four units.
Permits from Corps for water
supply needed; mineral
development may affect con-
struction If oil, gas wells &
coal mines on sice are active.
Lining of ash and SOj ponds nay
be necessary. RR spur crosses
creeks and highway; one state
highway passes through site.
Source of water - cooling
lake formed by darning Rough
River upstream of existing
Corps Reservoir; site above
the flooding level; can
support four 550 MW units.
Foundations - macs founded
on residual soils or
possibly bedrock.
Flat topography; 111. Central
Gulf RR (ICG) spur '2 mi;
combined ash and SO2 storage*
for 20 years for four unlta.
Permits from Corps needed;
blowdown may affect existing
reservoir used for recreation
and water supply; Investiga-
tions necessary for faulting
in dam abutments.
L-17
Source of water - cooling
lake,formed by damning Slate
Creek; site above the flooding
level; possibly can support
four 550 MW units.
Foundations - oats founded
on residual soils or bedrock.
Gently rolling topography;
Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) RR;
spur 9 mi; combined ash
and SO2 storage® for 11 years
for four units.
Investigations needed in the
dam abutments for faulting;
bridges over the lake for'
RR spur; state route & several
light duty roads would be re-
routed; several pipelines
cross the lake & site; several
road bridges on the lake
needed; lining of ash and
0-8
Site partially in Ohio River
floodplain; source of
water - Ohio River; can
support tour 550 MU units,
site above 100-year flood
level.
Deposits in the floodplain
permeable; foundations -
piles up to 124 ft deep;
numerous active and
abandoned oil wells present
in the site vicinity;
several abandoned coal mines
and two active subsurface
coal mines within 2 miles
of the site.
Flat Co rolling topography,
ICG RR; spur 5 mi, combined
ash and SO2 storage4 for <*0
years for four units.
One state highway passes
through the plant site and
another passes through the
ash and S02 sludge pond;
lining of portions of these
ponds nuy be necessary; re-
ported mining activity in the
site area And associated po-
tential subsidence problems;
site in Seismic Risk Zone 3.
q-n
Site In Ohio River floodplain,
source of water - Ohio River;
can support four 550 MW units;
site above 100-year flood
level.
Deposits in the floodplain
permeable; foundations for
plant structures - mats or
piles 60 to 140 ft deep; oil
wells present at site
(Spencer 1964a).
Flat copogrsphy; L&N RJ);
spur 1 mi; combined ash
and S02 storage* for 22
years for four units.
Lining of ash and S02 ponds
may be necessary; 8 ft
ot fill needed for plant
grade; creek on site to be
rerouted; ownership of
mineral rights would need
to be determined.
*lhe on-site storage capacity Is based on a maximum dike height of about 40 to 50 feat for percned ash and SO2 sludge ponds and about 80 to 100 feet daa height for tnese
ponds forned by daaalng a creek m the site vicinity.
bNSPS for S02 - 1.2 lbs/106 Btu
NSFS for TSP - O.1 lba/106 Btu
THis Mtrijt ims formulated during the site selection study and does not reflect the extensive detail developed later.
Source: Site Selection Study, Sargent I Lundy (1978).
-------
Table 2.1-iv. Sutraaary of Salient "Features of Kentucky Utilities Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites (Sheet 2 of 4)
0-12
0-13
0-22
0-26
Site in Ohio River floodplain;
source of water - Ohio River;
can support four SSO MU units;
site above 100-year flood
level.
Site in Ohio River floodplain;
source of water - Ohio River;
can support four SSO MU units;
site above 100-year flood
level.
Site In Ohio River floodplain;
source of water - Ohio River;
can support four 550 MU units;
site above 100-year flood
level.
Site in Ohio River floodplain;
source of water - Ohio River;
can support four 550 MW units;
sice above 10(^year flood
level.
K5
I
Erf
u ai
Deposits in floodplain perme-
able; foundations - oats and/
or piles up to 100 ft. Numer-
ous oil wells present ac site
(Spencer 1964B) may be in-
active now.
Flat topography; L&N RR; spur
.1 mi; combined ash and SO2
storage* for 11 years for
four units.
Lining of ash and SO2 ponds
may be necessary; ownership of
mineral rights would need to
be determined.
Deposits in floodplain perme-
able; foundations - mats and/
or piles up to SO ft deep.
Oil wells present at site
(1965) may be inactive now.
Flat to rolling topography;
L6N RR; spur * 1 ml: combined
ash and SO2 storage* for 9
years for four units.
Lining of ash and SO£ ponds
may be necessary.
Deposits in floodplain per-
meable; foundations - mats and/
or piles up to 160 ft deep.
Flat topography; Ci£> RR;
spur •vl mi; combined ash
and SO2 storage* for 5 years
for four units.
Lining of esh and SO2 ponds
may be necessary; many light
duty roads crossing the site
would be rerouted.
Deposits in the floodplain
permeable; foundations - mats
and/or piles up to 150 ft
deep.
Flat topography; small ponds fc
creeks onsite; L&N RR; spur t 1
mi; combined ash and SO. storage
for 7 years for four units.
Lining of ash and SO2 ponds
may be necessary; RR spur
crosses a highway.
-------
-4, Summary of Salient Features of Kentucky Utilities Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites (Sheet 3 of 4)
C-I
L-6
L-17
0-6
0*11
Planned land use It industrial;
no recreation In site vicinity;
no properties on Nat'l Register;
approx. 20 hones to be relocated;
little socio-economic impact
during construction because of
availability of labor within
confuting distance.
A few ponds on site; long RR spur
crosses two wooded creeks; ash
and SO2 storage areas cover woods,
ponds and part of unwooded streams;
state endangered species could
occur on site.
Approx. 55 hones to be relocated;
no properties listed In the Nat'l
Register; rec. activities near
site; some local opposition an-
ticipated; little socio-economic
impact during construction.
Cooling lake floods wooded areas
and some ponds; ash and SO2
storage areas cover parts of
several wooded creeks; state en-
dangered species could occur on
site or in streams that vrmld
be flooded.
No properties on Nat'l Register;
some 300 homes to be relocated;
cemeteries & churches affected
by cooling lake; Daniel Boone
Nat'l Forest borders the lake;
some local opposition antici-
pated; little socio-economic im-
pact during construction.
Cooling lake floods wooded
streams; ash and S02 storage
areas cover wooded slopes;
state and federal endangered
species could occur on site or
in streama that would be flooded.
Existing land use Industrial;
no recreation in site vicinity;
no properties on Nat'l Register;
approx. 26 hones and 10 trailer
homes to be relocaced; little
socio-economic Impact during
construction.
Ash and SOj storage areas cover
farmland, small voodlots and un-
wooded creeks; state endangered
species could occur on site.
Planned land use Is industrial;
no recreation In site vicinity;
no properties listed in the
Nat'l Register; approx. 20 homes
to be relocated; aesthetic im-
pact upon Lewlsport, Ky., close
to site; little socio-economic
Impact during construction.
One Important wooded serara and
several ponds on site; site Is
mostly farmland; state en-
dangered species could occur
on slte>
Good dispersion; maximum reduc-
tion to 737. of the New Source
Performance Standards fNSPS) for
SO2 needed for two-unit plant.
Good dispersion; site 20 mi N of
Mcosnoth Cave Nat'l Park, Mandatory
Class I Area; max. reduction of 507.
of NSPSb for TSP might be needed
for three- or four-unit plant.
Good dispersion; max. reductions
up to 677. of the NSPSb for SO2
needed for four-unit plant.
Good dispersion; maximum reduc-
tions of 677. of the NSPS for
SO2 needed for cvo-unlc plant;
redeslgnation of entire Webster .
County as a NAA may be necessary
for more than two-unit plant.
Good dispersion; maximum reduc-
tlooa up to 687. of the NSPS^ for
S02 needed for four-unit plant.
The proximity of nonattainaent
areas restrict the capability
of site to support a two-unit
plant only.
Large number of homes to be re-
located.
Since the Mammoth Cave Nat'1 Park
is a Mandatory Class 1 Area, pol-
lutant increments allowed are re-
strictive and may allow the opera-
tion of three- or four-unit fossil
plant at this site. The en-
dangered Mud Darter, known to
occur In thla area, could be
found In any of creeks that will
be flooded.
Severe loq>act on homes, ceme-
teries and churches.
The endangered Tippecanoe
Darter is known to occur in
this area.
Provisions needed to protect
Ullllama Cemetery.
-------
Table 2.1-4. Summary of Salient Features of Kentucky Utilities Preferred Fossil-Fuel Sites (Sheet 4 of 0
0-12
Q»U.
0-22
0-26
*2
33
3 a
8
8
Planned land use It Industrial;
no recreation In site vicinity;
Sanuel Pate House 0.5 ml vest
of the site Is listed on Nat'l
Register; appro*. 15 hones to be
relocated; aesthetic Intact on
nearby eowainlties; little socio-
economic impact during construction.
Site located at base of wooded
bluffs and near wooded streams;
no endangered species likely to
occur on site; several ponds on
the site.
Planned land use ia Industrial;
site is located across from the
Hoosier Nat'l Forest in Indiana;
approx. 10 hows to be relo-
cated; little socio-economic
intact during construction.
TVo wooded streams on site;
ash and SOj storage areas
cover woodlot and streams;
state and federal endangered
species could occur on site.
Planned land u»e is industrial;
no recreation In site vicinity;
no properties listed on the Nat'l
Register; approx. SO homes to be
relocated; little socio-economic
Impact during construction.
Farmland and unwooded streams
on site; ash and S0£ storage
areas cover unwooded streams
and fallow fields; no en-
dangered species likely to
occur on site.
Existing and planned land use is in-
dustrial; Joseph Holt House &
Chapel near the site are listed in
Nat'l Register - indirect effects;
Holt Bottom Archaeological District
near site; approx. IS homes to be
relocated; little socio-economic
i^>act during construction.
Ash and SO2 storage areas cover
poods and wooded streams; state
endangered species could occur
on site.
vC
t*
(S5
sr
Favorable dispersion; maxlaus
reductions up to 69% of
NSPS*5 for SO2 needed for three-
unit plant.
Favorable diaperslon; maxDaua
reductions up to 68% of Che
NSPS for SO2 needed for four-
unit plant.
Acceptable dispersion; site
located in an SOj nonattaln-
ment area; therefore, emission
off-seta are required.
Acceptable dispersion; mex. re-
duce ions up to 672 of the NSPS®
for SO2 needed for four-unit
plant.
N>
I
to
Site is close to property
nominated for the National
Register; the proximity of
S02 nonattainment restricts
the cepabillty of alte to
support a three-unit plant.
Large number of homes to be re-
located.
This alte will likely require
special permit procedures for
any plant due to its location;
nonattalment area.
Site close to Nat'l Register
Property and archaeological
district. Air quality
monitoring In conjunction
with meteorological monitor-
ing might be needed to
establish ambient air
quality since the disper-
sion characteristics at
site are complex and no
air quality monitors are
located in the site vicinity.
-------
(Table 2.1-4), low differential site development costs, dependable water sup-
ply, favorable dispersion characteristics and air quality considerations.min-
imum fogging and icing potential for major roads, relatively small lan re-
quirements, industrial zoning of the site area, lack of National Register pro^
perties, minimum public reaction potential, and availability ot a con
struct ion labor force.
2.1.3.1.2 Evaluation of the Siting Process
Methodology for evaluating the Applicant's siting process included a
review of the site selection study, interviews with the Applicant an the Ap^
plicant's consultant, review of additional pertinent inorma ion, an a re^
ranking of the sites. The latter activities were aPP^. only to 9 pre
ferred fossil-fuel sites, accepting the consultant s finding that these were
the most favorable of the initial group.
Eleven environmental and three cost factors (Table 2.1-5) were used to
compare the 9 sites. Indices were developed for each ac or a!* ^
most favorable site for that factor and 1 for the least ^"orab'e. Each site
between the extremes was given an index value based on the deference between
it and the most favorable site.
• j i ~ t-v.a environmental variables (without
Averaging the index values of the envyonme 2>1_6). Breckinridge
weighting them) shows three distinct groupings f Hancock and G-l are
the most favorably ranked site, is in a group by itself. Hancock and G 1 are
the most favorable of the middle group, which includes L 8, 0 8 0 11 and
0-12. Site L-17 requiring a cooling lake and displacement of 300 houses and
u u. _ '' J n 00 a cUp in a nonattamment area and near
several miles of roads and 0-22, a site in, , no ^ £auorable.
housing projects as well as industry, are clea y
. c of <5i te development also separate into
The indices of average cost ot sice r
in / , , „ , r-1 is mnqt favorable, followed closely by
three groups (Table 2.1-7). Site G-l is most wvuid , j 3
enree gruu^t, v Breckinridge site are the most favorable
thp Hancock site. Site 0-12 and the nretMu^u6"= ,
n nanco , n-11. respectively. As before, sites
of the second group, followed by 0-8 and U ii, •7. .
0-22 and L-17 are in the least favorable group and site L 8 joins them.
Costs and effects are combined under a number of scenarios in Table
2.1-8. Each scenario consists of giving a different weight to the contribu
. r a ¦ pffpcte. At the far left, cost is considered
tion of costs and environmental etteccs. al «-i. _
three times more important to the index than effects. At the far right, the
opposite is true and effects are given three times the weight o „osts.
Three groups of sites emerge from this analysis. No matter what the
weighting, Hancock, Breckinridge, and site G-l emerge as the most favorable,
sites L-17 and 0-22 are the least favorable, and the others tend to be inter
mediate. When considering cost more important, site G-l is the most
favorable, followed by Hancock and Breckinridge. However, if environmental
effects are weighted heavily, Breckinridge is more favorable than G-l , which
in turn, is more favorable than Hancock. At equal weighting, little
difference exists among the three#
Overall, reranking the 9 alternate sites tends to support selection of
the Hancock (0-13) and Breckinridge (0-26) sites among the most favorable.
2-22
-------
Table 2.1-5. Variables and Assumptions Used to Compare Kentucky Utilities
Preferred Sites
Variable
Assumptions
Environmental Effects
Extent of Site
Length of Railroad
Spur
Length of Makeup/
Blowdown Pipeline
Length of Transmission
Right-of-Way
Solid Waste Storage
Capacity
Distance to Nearest
Nonattainment Area
or Class I Area
Available SO2
Increment
Distance to Nearest
Airport
Proportion of County
Cropland Lost to
Site Development
Number of Houses
To Be Moved
Existing County
Employment
Larger sites have greater potential for
adverse impacts on land use and natural
systems
The longer the right-of-way, the greater
the potential for adverse impacts
Same as above
Same as above
The greater the capacity, the less need
for offsite shipment and storage
The greater the distance, the less chance
of exceeding standards
The more increment available, the less
chance of exceeding standards
The greater the distance, the less chance
of accident related to the plant
The more cropland lost, the greater the
adverse effect
The more movement, the more social dis-
ruption and adverse impact
The lower the existing employment, the more
positive the economic impact of new jobs
Differential Costs
Construction
Land
Transmission
The lower the costs, the more advantageous
for utility customers
Same as above
Same as above
Source: Review of Site Selection Study, Texas Instruments Incorporated (1980)
2-23
-------
Table 2.1-6. Index and Rank of KU's Preferred Sites for Each Environmental
Variable and for All Environmental Variables
Distance to
Nonattainment/ SO2
Land
Railroad
Pipe
1 ine
Transmission
Class
I
Increment
Sol id Waste
County Cropland
Existing County
Demand
Spur Length
Lengths
Row length*
Air Quality
Availabi1ity
Disposal Demand
Nearest Airport
Demand
Houses
Moved
Employment
Average Ejects'
Site
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Inoex
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rant.
Index
Rank
Inde*
Rank
G-I
0.06
5
0.70
8
0.67
8
0.05
5
0.72
7
0.60
8
0.56
3
0
]
0.20
2
0.03
4
0
1
0.33
3
1-8
0.91
8
0.24
6
0
1
0.02
4
0.38
4
0.10
4
0.62
4
0.08
2
1.0"
8
0.16
8
0.41
3
0.41
5
L-17
1.0
9
1.0
9
0
1
0
1
0
1
0.26
5
0.90
6
0.54
5
1.0"
8
1.0
9
1.0
9
1.0
9
0-8
0.31
7
0.58
7
1.0
9
0.02
2
0.53
6
0.48
7
0
1
0.46
4
0.32
3
0.06
6
0.80
8
0.55
7
0-11
0.07
6
0
1
0.50
5
0.02
2
0.94
8
0.07
3
0.45
2
0.54
5
0.62
7
0.03
4
0.46
5
0.36
4
0-12
0.03
4
0.11
3
O-SO
5
Q. 16
8
0.44
5
0.32
6
0.87
5
1.0
9
0.48
6
0.02
2
0.46
5
0.43
6
0-13 (Hancock)
0.01
2
0.11
3
0-50
5
0.10
6
0.22
3
0.06
2
0.95
7
0.69
7
0.41
4
0
1
0.46
5
0.31
2
0-22
0
1
0
1
0.33
3
1.0
9
1.0
9
1.0
9
1.0
9
0.69
7
0.43
5
0.14
7
0.41
3
0.86
3
0-26 (Breckinridge)
0.02
3
0.11
3
0.33
3
0.13
7
0.09
2
0
1
0.98
8
0.39
3
0
1
0.02
2
0.06
2
0
1
G * S?te on Kentucky's Green River.
L = Sites requiring cooling lakes.
0 * Sites on Kentucky side of Ohio River.
Index: 1 * least favorable; 0 * most favorable.
Rank: 1 * most favorable; 9 = least favorable.
* I'i where 1 Index for site i
1*1 * * value for site 1
X_ * value for most desirable site
Nj »»
J, X, * value for least desirable site
rw J
4>
•Based on transmission costs and the assumption of a direct relationship between cost and right~of>way length.
"Accurate estimates not available but losses would be larger than those of other sites.
•"Average effects are arithmetic means rescaled to 0 » most favorable and 1 * least favorable.
Source; Review of Site Selection Study. Texas Instruments Incorporated (1980).
-------
TaWe 2.1-1, Itvdex and Rank o£ TO's Preferred Sites for Each Cost Variable
and for All Cost Variables
Construction Costs
Land
Costs
Transmission Costs
Average Costs
Site
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
Index
Rank
G-l
0
1
0.04
2
0.05
5
0
1
L-8
0.63
5
0.81
8
0.02
2
0.71
7
L-17
1.0
9
1.0
9
0
1
1.0
9
0-8
0.80
7
0.10
6
0.02
2
0.44
6
0-11
0.87
8
0
1
0.02
2
0.44
5
0-12
0.38
3
0.07
4
0.16
8
0.27
3
0-13 (Hancock)
0.11
2
0.06
3
0.10
6
0.09
2
0-22
0.67
6
0.29
7
1.0
9
0.98
8
0-26 (Breckinridge)
0.43
4
0.08
5
0.13
7
0.29
4
G » site on Kentucky's Green River.
L = sites requiring cooling lakes.
0 = sites on Kentucky side of Ohio River.
Index: 1 - least favorable; 0 = most favorable.
Rank: 1 - most favorable; 9 = least favorable.
* |*i " Xm| where I. = index for site i
|x, - X I X- = value for site i
¦ I m ¦ i
X = value for most desirable site
m
Xj = value for least desirable site
~Average costs are arithmetic means rescaled to 0 = most favorable and 1 = least favorable.
Source: Review of Site Selection Study, Texas Instruments Incorporated (1980).
-------
Table 2.1-8. Ranking of KU's Most Favorable Sites Under Various Scenarios of
Effects-Costs Relative Importance
Effects *
Effects -
Effects *
Effects *
Effects *
1.5X Effects =
2X Effects »
Rank
2.5X Effects =
3X Effects *
Site
fi-1
i-a
3X Costs
Rank
1
2.5X Costs
Rank
2X Costs
Rank
1.5X Costs
Rank
Cost
Rank
Costs
Rank
Costs
Costs
Rank
Costs
Rar
0.08
0.64
0.09
0.62
1
0.11
0.61
1
0.13
0.59
1
0, 17
0.56
2
0.20
0.53
2
0.22
0.51
2
0.24
0.50
2
0-?5
0.-39
2
L-J7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0-8
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.52
0.52
(Ml
0-42
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.38
0-12
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.39
0-13 (Hancock)
0.15
2
0.15
2
0.16
2
0.18
3
0.20
3
0.22
3
0.24
3
0.25
3
0.26
3
0-22
0-95
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0-90
0.89
0.89
0-26 (Breckinridge)
0-22
3
0.21
3
0.19
3
0.17
2
0.15
1
0.12
1
0.10
1
0.08
1
0.07
1
Source: Peview of SUe Selection Study, Texas Instrunents Incorporated 09*10).
-------
Site G-l appears to rank along with them until capability to support four
units relative to air quality is considered. Otherwise, site G-l appears to
rank the same as the Hancock site, and the Breckinridge site ranks highest.
2.1.3.2 Hancock Site
The proposed Hancock site is in Skillman Bottoms in Hancock County,
Kentucky at River Mile 715, opposite the Breckinridge site on an oxbow of the
Ohio River (Figure 2.1-6). It is approximately 4 miles east of Cannelton,
Indiana and Hawesville, Kentucky, and 5 miles northwest of Cloverport,
Kentucky at latitude 37° 53' north and longitude 86° 41' west. Portions
of the site boundaries abut the Ohio River to the east, U.S. highway 60 to the
south, Kentucky highway 1406 to the west, and Skillman Road (Hwy. 1406) to the
north. Estimated extent of the site is 2350 acres, and the land presently is
owned by 20 parties. Current land use is predominantly agricultural. Most of
land is cultivated for cash crops, although there is some cattle and timber
production. Drainage of the site is to the west and south into three;
streams: Sandy Branch, Muddy Branch, and Indian Creek. Elevations range from
399 to 690 feet mean sea level (msV). Ohio River water level at the site is
maintained at 382.3 feet msl by the Cannelton Lock and Dam located at River
Mile 721.
As mentioned in Subsection 2.1.1.1, development of the Hancock Gen-
erating Station will utilize most of the site (Figure 2.1-2). The major fa-
cilities will occupy about one-third of the site, graded to 425 feet msl, and
solid waste disposal areas will occupy most of the remaining area. Develop-
ment and reclamation of disposal landfill will be staggered throughout the
estimated 35-year life of the project.
Right-of-way alternatives for the new transmission corridor described
in Subsection 2.1.1.1 (Figure 2.1-3) have not been proposed, but they are
expected to fall within a 1.5-mile area straight from the plant to the
Victoria Crossroads tie-in point. Right-of-way width from the plant to the
junction of the existing Elizabethtown transmission corridor 5 miles south
will be 250 feet. The remaining 5 miles of right-of-way to the existing
Owensboro transmission corridor will be 150 feet wide. The entire southward
right-of-way will be prepared during construction of the Unit 1 line so that
disturbance during construction of the Unit 2 line will be limited to tower
placement and stringing activities. Continuation of the Unit 2 line to
Elizabethtown will require an additional 100 feet of right-of-way along the
existing corridor.
2.1.3.3 Breckinridge Site
The Breckinridge site is at Ohio River Mile 704 in Holt Bottoms in
Breckinridge County, Kentucky. It is 11 miles upstream from the Hancock site
and 17 miles upstream from the Cannelton Lock and Dam. The nearest town is
Cloverport, Kentucky, 6 miles southwest in the bend of the oxbow. A smaller
settlement, Stephensport, Kentucky, is somewhat east of the site at River Mile
701. Highway access is via Kentucky 144, which traverses the western portion
of the site and borders much of the northern portion. New Bethel Road is near
the eastern border. Estimated extent of the site is 2480 acres, and current
land use is predominantly agricultural. Drainage of the site, mostly to the
2-27
-------
ho
I
NJ
00
SKILLMAN BOTTOMS
(Hancock Site)
HOLT BOTTOMS
(Breckinridge Site)
SOURCE: Donn K. Wimmer, by permission (1980)
Figure 2.1-6. Aerial Photograph of Hancock and Breckinridge Sites
-------
south arid southwest, is into Town Creek. Elevations range from 400 to 675
feet msl. Normal Ohio River water level at the site is 382.3 feet msl.
Development of the generating station on the Breckinridge site is shown
in Figure 2.1—7. The major facilities will occupy lower elevations, with
grade established at 430 feet msl. As on the Hancock site, plant facilities
will utilize about one—third of the land and waste disposal landfill will be
developed on the remaining area. The waste disposal areas will be developed
and reclaimed in increments.
Transmission facilities for the Breckinridge Generating Station will be
similar to those for the Hancock plant, except that Unit 1 transmission will
tie into the Owensboro system near McQuady, Kentucky in Breckinridge County
(Figure 2.1-3). Right-of-way (ROW) widths will be the same as described for
the Hancock system. Length for Unit 1 ROW will be 15 miles and that for Unit
2 will be 6 miles to the Elizabethtown corridor and 40 miles from there to
Elizabethtown.
2.1.4 Alternative Plant Systems
2.1.4.1 Generating Station
Major facilities proposed for the generating station will include a
two-part main building to house the steam generator (boiler), turbine-
generator, and auxiliary equipment of each generating unit. Each unit of the
main building will be 266 feet high, the equivalent of a 26-story building.
Four electrostatic precipators (ESP) will collect fly ash from the flue gas
exiting the boilers. Two 600-foot chimneys (Table 2.1-9), located at UTM
527.9E and 4193.2N on the Hancock site, will discharge emissions from the flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Two 250-foot diameter by 60-foot high
mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for the circulating water
system. The remainder of the facilities will consist of a coal and limestone
handling system, barge unloading structures, water intake and discharge
structures, and a 345-kV switchyard and transmission system.
The generating station on the Breckinridge site would be similar. At
that site, the chimneys will be located at latitude 37° 45' north and
longitude 86° 34' west. Differences in the design and operating parameters
would be:
Flue Gas Desulfurization System
SO2 removal efficiency (overall) 90.5%
Chimney
Base elevation above sea level 430 feet
Cost of constructing the generating station on the Hancock site is
expected to be $1.8 billion (Table 2.1-10) and about $10 million more than
that on the Breckinridge site because of site conditions. Construction
activities associated with the plant (at either site) will have two peaks, one
in 1987-1988 requiring 920 to 980 persons, and one in 1992 requiring about 920
workers (Table 2.1—11). About 5^ ($57 million) of total equipment, struc-
tural and other materials, and services costs is expected to be spent in the
2-29
-------
PLANT
SITE*
¦EMPTY COAL BARGES (13)
r—EMPTY LIMESTON&i ,
L_ BARGES (9) / I,
OVERT ER HOUSE-
STORAGE
BCCC*•*HOPPER
L*«ST^E STOCKOUT-
KFV PLAN
mimo
STRUCTURE-'
rvANSVI' ' r i tQANA
1000'
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy *(ft>80) ^
Figure 2.1-7. Proposed Breckinridge Site Layout
2-30
-------
Table 2.1-9.
Design and Operating Parameters, Hancock
Generating Station Units 1 and 2
Steam Generating Unit
Electric generating capacity
Maximum gross
Maximum net
Average annual
Maximum heat input to boiler
Maximum coal consumption rate
Typical heating value of coal
Maximum continuous main steam output
Turbine generator speed
Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)
Collection efficiency
Collection area (SCA)
Flue gas
Discharge flow rate to ESPs
Maximum linear velocity through each ESP module
Maximum opacity of exiting ESP
Flue Gas Desulfurization System (FGD)
SOg removal efficiency (overall)
Range of pressure drop across system
pH of reactant tank liquor
Flue gas
Approach velocity
Exit velocity (from chimney)
Exit temperature
Discharge flow rate
Maximum opacity exiting FGD system
Chimney
Diameter (inside)
Base elevation above sea level
Height
708 MW
650 MW
54%
6650 x 106 Btu/hr
317 tons/hr
10,500 Btu/lb
4.97 x 106 lb/hr
3600 rpm
99.78%
400 to 430 ft2/1000 ACFM
2.48 x 106 ft3/min (ACFM)
5.0 ft/sec
20%
91.8%
4 to 20 in. H20
5.5 to 6.5
10 to 17 ft/sec
90 ft/sec
170°F
2.484 x 106 cu. ft/min at 170°F
20%
24.2 ft
425 ft
600 ft
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1980).
2-31
-------
Table 2.1-10.
Capital Outlay Per
Year for Construction
of
Hancock Generating
Station Units 1 and t
>
Heavy Equipment,
Structural Materials,
Light Equipment, Goods,
Contractors*
Non-Local Services**
Local Services ***
Total
Year
($000)
($000)
($000)
($000)
1980
422
422
1981
_
2,135
—
2,135
1982
1,048
3,921
206
5,175
1983
2,212
8,665
456
11,333
1984
12,733
42,921
2,259
57,913
1985
28,900
106,531
5,607
141,038
1986
51,267
209,959
11,050
272,276
1987
86,630
164,647
8,666
259,943
1988
114,186
3,964
209
118,359
1989
18,678
13,294
700
32,672
1990
20,517
75,507
3,974
99,998
1991
64,121
186,470
9,814
260,405
1992
146,772
212,201
11,169
370,142
1993
88,751
58,684
3,089
150,524
1994
12,738
-
-
12,738
Total
648,553
1,089,321
57,199
1 ,795,073
*
Contractors' cost = salaries, overhead, and profits.
~ *
Heavy equipment, structural materials, and non-local services will be purchased outside the
project area.
iticit
Light equipment, goods, and services, estimated at 5% total costs (excluding labor), will be
purchased locally, to the extent possible.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
project area if suppliers are available. These items would include, among
others, lumber, hardware, automobiles, office trailers, and office supplies.
Unit 1 is proposed to begin commercial operation in April 1989 and Unit 2 in
April 1994. The projected life of each generating unit is 35 years, so that
Unit 1 will operate through 2024 and Unit 2 through 2029. Although the plant
will operate at or near maximum capacity on occasion, the annual load factor
will be about 54%.
The labor force expected to be required to operate one unit of the
power plant is 130 and that expected to operate both units is 180.
Personnel within 4 categories will be:
Number of Workers
Category One Unit Two Units
Operation 47 63
Maintenance 51 72
Supervisory 17 23
Other 15 22
TOTAL 130 180
2-32
-------
Table 2.1-11.
Manpower Demands and Salaries for Constructing
Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2*
~*""A'«££e
j
t-door#?#-
VlXriU}"
s"6tota;
*°™w>>ua/
^drVsor
***«., ^
r°ta)
Total
Workers (_$000^
2
10
6
3
21
71
261
208
50
60
45
155
695
Total
Workers ($000^
4
16
12
1
1
1
1
1
5
41
151
444
443
54
65
35
35
49
236
,448
1984
i
1986
.... 1985
r
1988
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
orkers
($000)
Workers
Workers
($0Q0)
Workers
($000)
Workers
mm.
36
1,482
56
2,528
60
2,934
62
3,305
39
2,267
26
785
26
856
40
1,436
46
1,800
36
1,542
14
562
42
1,840
80
3,820
82
4,268
53
3,010
34
1,632
74
3,871
114
6,500
88
5,469
50
3,367
12
571
32
1,660
66
3,733
114
7,029
146
9,810
10
501
36
1,966
52
3,094
126
8.172
148
10,463
12
521
18
852
40
2,065
64
3,600
116
7,115
-
—
-
-
26
1,352
116
6,573
132
8,156
-
-
12
595
40
2,161
82
4,830
138
8,861
14
584
14
636
20
991
50
2,702
30
1,767
158
6,638
310
14,804
538
28,086
830
47,748
888
56,378
3
177
5
322
8
561
13
993
16
1,332
5
354
12
926
23
1,934
29
2,659
29
2,898
1
53
2
116
4
252
8
550
8
600
1
38
2
84
4
182
8
397
8
433
4
153
7
293
19
866
29
1.440
27
1.461
2
106
2
116
2
126
3
206
5
375
16
881
30
1,857
60
3,921
90
6,245
93
7,099
174 i
7.519
340
16,661
598
32,007
920
53,993
981
63,477
Workforce
Manual
Carpenter
Laborer
Operator
Ironworker
Boilermaker
Pipefitter
Electrician
Millwright
Insulator
Other
Subtotal
Norma nual
Supervisor
Field Engineer
Cost/Schedule
field Procedure
Administration
Safety/first Aid
Subtotal
Total
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
orkers
($000)
Workers
($0001
Workers
($000)
Workers
($000)
Workers
($000)
Workers
($000)
10
609
30
2,072
42
3,161
54
4,431
38
3,398
2
183
22
1,007
18
902
22
1,140
40
2,210
24
1,445
4
246
15
905
12
809
18
1,323
34
2,723
20
1,745
2
182
6
415
20
1,570
44
3,860
108
10,327
56
5,837
2
213
20
1,587
10
799
112
9,748
182
17,264
52
5,377
2
220
12
904
8
672
52
4,761
148
14,770
104
11,314
10
1,186
22
1,271
10
729
32
2,542
98
8,485
64
6,040
10
976
8
505
8
588
12
960
44
3,837
26
2,472
8
777
16
1,049
-
-
34
2,827
104
9,428
58
5,730
10
1,009
10
601
12
840
14
1,068
38
3,159
16
1,450
141
8.853
128
8,981
382
31,390
850
76,634
458
44,808
50
4.996
4
363
3
297
7
755
11
1,293
11
1,409
3
419
6
654
5
594
17
2,200
23
3,244
24
3,690
4
670
2
163
2
178
5
485
5
529
5
577
2
251
2
118
2
129
5
350
6
458
6
500
1
91
4
236
4
257
10
701
18
1,375
18
1,499
4
363
2
164
1
89
2
194
3
317
3
346
1
126
20
1,698
17
1,544
46
4,685
66
7,216
67
8,021
15
1,920
161
10,551
145
10,525
428
36,075
916
83,850
525
52,829
65
6,916
Salaries are based on adjusted dollars for each year of construction.
Source: Kentucky Utllities Company (1981).
2-33
-------
Projected total salaries through the life of the plant are shown in
Figure 2.1-8. In 1989 dollars, the value of the Labor salaries for the
35-year operation of both units is $146 million.
The proposed coal-fired steam generators (Figure ?.l-9) will he bal-
anced-draft reheat drum type boilers with a maximum continuous main steam out-
put of 4,970,000 lb/hr (Table 2.1-9). A primary air system with three primary
air fans, two vertical shaft regenerative type air heaters, and two
forced-draft fans will supply the combustion air, while coal feeders,
pulverizers, and boiler feedwater pumps will supply the fuel and water for
each boiler. Four induced-draft fans will draw the combustion gases (flue
gas) from the boilers through the particulate removal system and force them
into the FGD system and then to the chimneys. A water-filled hopper will
collect ash remaining in each furnace. This waste will be sluiced, along with
pulverizer rejects (pyrites), to a bottom-ash dewatering bin and then to the
waste stablization system.
Accessories associated with the steam generators to improve overall
operating efficiency include an economizer, which is a heat recovery device in
the boiler that transfers heat from passing flue gas to the boiler feed-
water. The air heaters, as mentioned, will act as recuperative heat exchang-
ers, using waste heat from the flue gas to preheat combustion air before it
enters the boiler. Noise associated with the boilers will be abated by equip-
ping air fans with either inlet or discharge silencers and through the appli-
cation of acoustic insulation.
During the steam cycle, superheated main steam from the boiler will
enter the high-pressure turbine, be expanded, and returned to a reheating unit
in the boiler. The reheated steam will go first to the intermediate-pressure
turbine for further expansion and then to each of the two low-pressure tur-
bines, which will further expand the steam and exhaust it to a shell-and-tube
condenser. In the condenser, heat will transfer from the steam to circulating
water, which will be returned to the cooling tower where heat will be
dissipated to the atmosphere. The condensed steam will be pumped back to the
boiler as part of the boiler feedwater.
On the way to the boiler, the feedwater will pass through a series of
tubular heaters and a direct contact heater from each turbine. Heat of
condensation from steam in the turbines will transfer to the feedwater. This
regenerative type feedwater heating and the boiler reheat of steam exhausted
from the high-pressure turbine will increase the turbine cycle efficiency and
reduce thermal discharge.
To supplement start-up steam requirements at initial operation or when
the main boilers are out of service, an auxiliary oil-fired boiler will
generate 75,000 lb/hr steam, operating with less than 100 million Btu/hr total
heat input. Low-sulfur fuel oil will be used, and the manufacturer has guar-
anteed that all applicable emissions standards will be met.
Maximum coal consumption for Hancock Units 1 and 2 will be 317 tons per
hour per unit. For both units operating at normal load (54% of capacity),
annual consumption will be 3 million tons. For the life of the plant (35
years), both units will use 105 million tons. Delivery of the coal is planned
to be by barge. Based on 1500-ton capacity, average annual coal consumption
2-34
-------
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1989 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
YEAR
: Sargent & Lundy (1980)
Figure 2.1-8. Salaries for Operating Hancock Generating
Station Units 1 and 2
2-35
-------
HOT REHEAT STEAM
MAIN STEAM
POWER OUTPUT
FROM RIVER
COLD SIDE
SLOWDOWN
ITO OHIO RIVER)
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1980)
Figure 2.1-9. Generating Unit Functional Flow Diagram
-------
will require 6 to 7 barge loads per day.
An active coal supply containing 2 days requirements at full load will
be maintained in silos. An open, inactive onsite storage pile will contain
1.4 million tons, have 40° side slopes, be 50 feet high, and occupy 22
acres. No lining is proposed to mitigate leaching, but runoff will be treated
(see Subsection 2.1.4.3.5.2), and the storage pile will be compacted regularly
and watered as necessary to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Leachate from the
coal pile will increase trace element levels in soil, vegetation, and
groundwater. A groundwater monitor near the storage pile will ensure no
long-term impact on potable groundwater. KU's groundwater monitoring plan is
a condition of the NPDES permit, Part III (see Appendix 8.1).
2.1»4.2 Emissions Control and Waste Stabilization
The Applicant proposes an integral particulate removal system, sulfur
dioxide removal system, and waste stabilization system to control partic-
ulate (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and treat resultant solid
wastes. Nitrogen oxide (the other regulated pollutant in emissions from
coal-fired power plants) and minor, pollutant emissions will be controlled by
the boiler operation. During boiler operation, excess air will be provided to
the furnaces to reduce formation of carbon, carbon monoxide, and hydro-
carbons, which are products of incomplete combustion. Residence time of the
combustion materials will then be limited in order to maintain N0X formation
wi thin air quality standards (Table 2.1-12). Because limitations on residence
time reduce combustion efficiency, this method of N0X control is a trade-off
between N0X and carbon monoxide production. In practice, the two effects
will be optimized to avoid excessive emissions of either pollutant, as
guaranteed by the boiler manufacturer.
2.1.4.2.1 Particulate Control
Electrostatic Precipitators. Two electrostatic precipitators, oper-
ating in parallel, are proposed to collect ash suspended in combustion gases
n£ each unit and maintain acceptable particulate emissions (Table 2.1-12).
pesign efficiency of the precipitators will be 99.78%. Eighty-five percent of
tbe coal ash is expected to be fly ash and the remainder bottom ash, although
s0tne of the heavier fly ash will fall into the hoppers and be treated with the
bottom ash. Host of the remaining fly ash will be collected dry from flue gas
negatively charging the ash particles and attracting them to positively
charged plates. At suitable intervals the collecting plates are rapped to re-
lease the particles. The particles will be collected in hoppers beneath the
recipitators, conveyed pneumatically through a pipeline to a storage silo,
later transported dry to the waste stabilization system. Annual total ash
(fc>ottom and fly) for both generating units at 54% capacity will be 435,00Q
t0Ds, of which 370 thousand tons will be fly ash.
Fabric Filters. Collection of fly ash by filtration through porous
c^brics was the alternate particulate removal system considered by KU. In
bis system, the flue gas is pulled or pushed through a filterhouse (baghouse)
^fitaining a number of cylindrical fabric bags that are supported within a
fusing. Dust buildup on the filter surfaces is removed by reverse flow
^a.ckwash), shaking, rapping, vibrating, or a combination thereof. Collection
^ficiency is high but reliability for cycling large coal-fired power plants
&£0-c extended operating periods has not been demonstrated (Table 2.1-13).
2-37
-------
Table 2.1-12. Emissions Characteristics, Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2
Flue Gas
Sulfur dioxide
Particulate
Maximum Uncontrolled 54% Capacity Uncontrolled Actual Maximum
(each unit) (each unit) (each unit)
44,356 lb/hour
6.6 lb/million Btu
78,100 lb/hour
11.9 lb/million Btu
104,911 tons/year
184,486 tons/year
3,637 lb/hour
0.54 lb/million Btu
172 lb/hour
0.03 lb/million Btu
Allowable New Source
Actual 54% Capacity Performance Standards (NSPS)
(each unit) (each unit)
8,602 tons/year
407 tons/year
4189.5 lb/hour
0.63 lb/million Btu
199.5 lb/hour
0.03 lb/million Btu
Nitrogen oxides
8645 lb/hour
1.3 lb/mi 11 ion Btu
20,447 tons/year
9,437 tons/year
3990 lb/hour 9437 tons/yeai»
0.6 lb/million Btu*
3990 lb/hour
0.6 lb/million Btu
Fugitive Emissions*
24-hr Maximum Controlled
17.7 lb/hour
425.1 lb/day
Annual Average Controlled
8.2 lb/hour
35.9 tons/year
NJ
I
U>
Co
~Includes coa1 and limestone handling and waste stabilization building.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
-------
Table 2.1-13. Comparison of Emissions (TSP and SO2)
Control Processes
System
Particulate Control
Electrostatic precipitators
Fabric filters
Sulfur Removal/Control
Pyrite removal in pulverizers
Capture by flyash alkalinity
Coal washing (pretreatment)
Coal mixing (pretreatment)
Coal conversion
Fluidized bed confcustion
Advantages
Low maintenance.
Suitable for extended operation.
Particle collection efficient.
Particle removal efficient.
High collection efficiency for wide range
of particle sizes.
Hot affected by particle resistivity.
Removes about 20% of pyritic sulfur.
Intrinsic process requiring no additional
cost or energy use.
SX reduction of SO^ emissions.
Intrinsic process.
$% removal of available sulfur in
bituminous coal.
Removes most of pyritic sulfur from
pulverized coal.
Hlxing variable sulfur content coal prior
to pulverizing can ensure that the average
analysis fuel will be fired.
S02 removal systems not needed because sol-
vent refining or gasification produces es-
sentially sulfur-free liquified coal or
synthetic gas.
SO? removal eliminated by burning coal in
s fluidized bed of limestone to form cal-
cium sulfate, a particulate that could be
filtered from flue gas or otherwise removed.
Disadvantages
Collection efficiency affected by particle
resistivity, therefore could be affected by
changing coal sources.
Frequent maintenance and repair due to short
bag life (2 years)
Sensitive to acid dew point variations.
Reliability of long-term performance for large-
scale cycling power plants not demonstrated.
Requires high-efficiency S02 removal system.
Requires high-efficiency S02 removal system.
Economical only for certain pyrite sizes and
distributions.
Only 45* of total sulfur content removed with
9QX pyrite removal 1f pyrite is a significant
portion of sulfur content.
Requires stackers and special reclaimers for
coal placement and removal from the active coal
pile.
Power requirement is 425 kilowatts.
Usefulness minimal because of limited range of
coals available to meet specified sulfur content.
Not proven for large-scale utility operations.
Not comnerclally available for large-scale utility
operations.
SO2 Removal Systems
limestone scrubber
Lime scrubber
Double-alkali scrubber
Limestone is readily available 1n or near
the project area and less costly than
other reactants.
Limestone preparation Is less energy In-
tensive than lime preparation.
Waste 1s more easily dewatered than lime-
produced waste.
Proven technology.
Lowest Installed equipment cost.
Less waste than limestone scrubber.
Lower manpower and system energy requi re-
ments than limestone scrubber.
Enclosed storage.
Highest operating efficiency, wfth lower
liquid circulation rate and nonscaling
reactant.
Least amount of waste produced.
Potential for least environmental effects.
Hay have highest Installed equipment cost.
Produces most waste.
Requires an open limestone stockpile.
Haste difficult to dewater.
Hay require a holding pond for FGD sludge.
Costs sonewhat higher than lime scrubber.
Not demonstrated on commercial installations
similar to the Hancock plant.
Sources: Kentucky Utilities Conyany (1979); Sargent and Lundy (1979).
2-39
-------
JOINT
PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Consolidated Permits Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404/881-7458
in conjunction with
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Road
Fort Boone Plaza
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Public Notice No. PH81KY171 September 24, 1981
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION HEARING
ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; NOTICE OF
PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT; AND NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION
FOR STATE CERTIFICATION OF THE NPDES PERMIT
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be made
available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
the EPA Office of Federal Activities (OFA) and to the public on
or about September 25, 1981, on Kentucky Utilities Company's
proposed Hancock County Generating Station Units 1 & 2 to be
constructed near Hawesville in Hancock County, Kentucky.
In order to solicit further public participation on the
proposed issuance of necessary permits and determinations for
the proposed project, a public information hearing will be
held. The hearing is scheduled for November 5, 1981, and will
begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Hancock County High School Gymnasium,
Rural Route 1, Lewisport, Kentucky (halfway between Lewisport
and Hawesville on U.S. 60). The hearing panel will include
representatives from EPA, the Corps of Engineers (COE), and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Both oral and written comments will be accepted and a
transcript of the proceedings will be made. For the accuracy
of the record, written comments are encouraged. The Hearing
Officer reserves the right to fix reasonable limits on the time
allowed for oral statements.
-------
-2-
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
to Kentucky Utilities Company, 120 South Limestone, Lexington,
Kentucky 40507 for its Hancock County Generating Station Units
1 & 2 near Hawesville, Kentucky, NPDES No. KY0057606. The
application describes four proposed discharges from
construction and operation of the facility which will generate
and transmit electricity, SIC Code 4911. The site is located
adjacent to the Ohio River in the vicinity of river mile 716.
Discharges will enter the Ohio River, Sandy Branch Creek, Muddy
Branch Creek and Indian Creek all of which have been classified
by the Commonwealth of Kentucky for All Uses.
The proposed NPDES permit contains limitations on the amounts
of pollutants allowed to be discharged and was drafted in
accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33
U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) and other lawful standards and
regulations. The pollutant limitations and other permit
conditions are tentative and open to comment from the public
both in writing and at the public hearing.
A fact sheet which outlines the applicant's existing and
proposed discharges and EPA's proposed pollutant limitations
and conditions is available by writing or calling the EPA. A
copy of the draft permit is included in the DEIS and is also
available from EPA. The administrative record, including the
application, draft permit, fact sheet, environmental impact
statement, comments received, and other information are
available for review and copying at 345 Courtland Street, 2nd
floor, Atlanta, Georgia, between the hours of 8:15am and
4:30pm, Monday through Friday. A copying machine is available
for public use at a charge of 20jzf per page.
A preliminary determination regarding the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit under the Clean Air Act
was issued on October 12, 1979, and a public hearing was held
on July 22, 1980. Since the public hearing, additional
information has been submitted for the PSD record.
Consequently, a public notice announcing the re-opening of the
public comment period for review and comment on this new
information was issued on August 20 and 27, 1981. The comment
period for the new information was for 21 days. Following the
close of the PSD comment period and analysis and consideration
of comments submitted, a final determination on the PSD permit
will be formulated.
-------
-3-
Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, NPDES permit issuance, the
proposed permit limitations and conditions, or the State
Certification of the NPDES permit are invited to respond in
writing by November 13, 1981, to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia
30365, ATTENTION: Mr. John E. Hagan III, P.E.; Chief, EIS
Branch. The NPDES numbers, KY0057606 should be included on the
first page of comments. All comments received by November 13,
1981, will be considered in the formulation of final
determinations regarding the Final EIS, the NPDES permit and
permit conditions, and the State Certification of the NPDES
permit.
A Final EIS will be published after the close of the public
comment period. The Final EIS will consist of a summary of the
Draft EIS, the Agency's decision on this project, responses to
comments received on the Draft EIS, the transcript of the
public hearing, any other relevant information or evaluations
developed after publication of the Draft EIS, and a proposed
NPDES permit. A copy of the Draft EIS should be retained if a
complete evaluation of the project is desired.
After consideration of all written comments and of the
requirements and policies in the CWA and appropriate
regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will make
determinations regarding permit issuance. If the
determinations are substantially unchanged from those announced
by this notice, the EPA Regional Administrator will so notify
all persons submitting written comments or oral comments at the
public hearing. If the determinations are substantially
changed, the EPA Regional Administrator will issue a public
notice indicating the revised determinations. Requests for an
evidentiary hearing may be filed after the Regional
Administrator makes the above-described determinations, but can
only be based on issues raised at the Public Hearing or
writing during the comment period or where determinations are
substantially changed as noted above. Additional information
regarding evidentiary hearings is available in 40 CFR 124
Subpart E, 45 FR 33498 (May 19, 1980), or by contacting the
Legal Branch at the address above or at 404/881-3506.
The Corps of Engineers will be represented at the public
hearing to receive comments on their Section 10 and Section 4q4
permitting actions. The Corps of Engineers also will be
issuing a public notice for this hearing.
-------
-4-
The Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection has been requested to certify the discharges in
accordance with the provisions of Section 401 of the CWA .
Comments on issuance of certification must be submitted to the
state agency address above within thirty (30) days of the the
date of this public notice. The state agency will co-chair the
hearing in order to receive comments relative to state
certif ication.
Copies of the Draft EIS, which includes the draft NPDES permit
and permit rationale are available for review at the following
locations:
Judge - Executive Office
Hancock County Courthouse
Hawesville Mayor's Office
City Hall
Cloverport Mayor's Office
City Hall
Tell City Mayor's Office
City Building
Judge - Executive Office
Breckinridge County Courthouse
Hancock County Public Library
P.O. Box 249
Tell City Public Library
909 Franklin
Hawesville
Hawesville
Cloverport
Tell City
Hardinsburg
Hawesville
Tell City
m
-------
2.1.4.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Control
To maintain air quality standards, use of high-sulfur coal may re-
quire some kind of pretreatment of coal (Table 2.1-13), as well as a system
for flue gas desulfurization. Methods that will remove virtually all sulfur
(pyritic, sulfate, organic) from coal prior to combustion (coal conversion) or
during combustion (fluidized bed combustion) are not commercially available
for large-scale utility installations. Rather than pretreatment, Kentucky
Utilities proposes to use a coal source with guaranteed maximum sulfur content
and a compatible SC>2 removal system (scrubber) that will meet air quality
standards (Table 2.1-12). Two intrinsic processes - partial (20%) pyrite
removal during coal pulverizing (for 5% SO2 reduction) and absorption of
some of the sulfur oxides produced during combustion by alkalinity of the fly
ash (for 5% available sulfur reduction) - will provide part of the overall
91.8% SO2 collection efficiency expected from the system (Table 2.1-9).
Three types of scrubber systems were considered: limestone, lime, and
double-alkali.
Limestone Scrubber. The FGD system proposed for the Hancock Gen-
erating Station will be designed to operate continuously and to maintain per-
formance during all modes of boiler operation, including various boiler loads
and sulfur content of the coal. The expected number of SO2 absorber modules
is 3 to 5, with one always removed from service for inspection and maintenance.
Removal of SO2 will occur as flue gas is forced from the electro-
static precipitators into the absorbers, which will be fed with limestone re-
actant in the form of a slurry. SO2 will react with the calcium-based al-
kali to form calcium sulfite. This and the reactant slurry will be agitated
in a reactant recirculating tank. Capacity of each tank will be sufficient
for completing the reaction to calcium sulfate, which will precipitate while
the reactant slurry is recirculating through the absorbers. Flue gas exiting
the absorbers will be reheated by hot air injection or by passing it through a
reheat exchanger. A mist eliminator system with demister sprays and soot
blowers will remove entrained moisture and particulate matter before the flue
gas exhausts into the chimneys. Waste slurry will be discharged to a surge
tank and then to the waste stabilization system.
The limestone scrubber will produce more waste than either the lime
or double alkali system (Table 2.1-13). Unless the waste is cycled for other
uses (described in the next subsection), the limestone system will create the
greatest waste disposal problem. Since KU proposes onsite waste disposal,
landfill area and subsequent effects (e.g., topographic and soil changes) will
be greater than might be expected with the other alternatives.
This system will require an open limestone stockpile. It is
proposed to contain 1.8 thousand tons of 3/4 inch pebbles that will be piled
30 feet high and occupy 7 acres. Runoff from the pile will be diverted to a
closed-system holding pond. No lining is proposed to mitigate leaching, but
effects of calcium carbonate leaching (primarily FH changes) apparently are
minimal in most locations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1978). Similarly,
fallout of fugitive emissions from the pile apparently will have limited
chemical effects, although nearby vegetation may be coated with the dust and
experience stress related to transpiration and other leaf activities.
2-40
-------
Grinding of the limestone prior to slurrying will be done in silos to minimize
fugitive emissions from the small particles.
Limestone consumption at the Hancock plant will average 335,000 tons
per year. Based on 1500-ton capacity, delivery of the limestone will require
less than J barge each day or 220 per year. Maximum generating capacity will
use 35 tons of limestone each hour for each unit.
Lime Scrubber. This system uses lime that is hydrated in a slaker,
slurried, and pumped to the S02 absorbers. The reaction in the scrubber
modules is similar to that of limestone.
Enclosed storage alleviates the effects of fugitive emissions from
open stockpiles, but difficulties in dewatering the waste could require hold-
ing the FGD sludge in a pond rather than sending it from the FGD system to the
stabilization system. This would create a greater potential for leaching
than does the stablized waste (Table 2.1-13).
Double-alkali scrubber. A highly reactive, soluble, nonscaling sod-
ium-based scrubbing solution is pumped to the SC>2 absorbers and the cleaned
gas is released through the chimneys. The solution from the scrubber is di-
vided into a large and small stream. The larger stream recirculates to the
scrubber and the smaller one goes to a reactant tank that contains limestone
or lime and precipitates calcium sulfite and sulfate. The waste stabilization
system accepts the slurry from the reactant tank and via a vacuum filter pro-
cess produces a sulfate filter cake that is disposed of in a landfill.
In addition to other advantages, this scrubber potentially could
produce fewer indirect environmental effects than the others. However, at
this point it has been demonstrated only as a prototype system and is not a
proven technology.
2.1.4.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal
The generating station will produce three solid wastes: slurry from
the FGD system, fly ash from the electrostatic precipitators, and bottom ash
and pyrites that are collected in the boiler hoppers and sent to dewatering
bins. The Applicant proposes a waste stabilization process that produces a
cementitious aggregate suitable for onsite storage in ravines. Other solid
waste disposal methods that were considered included ponding, sale of solid
wastes, and blending of solid wastes with no further treatment.
Stabilized Waste. The proposed system consists of thickeners that
will dewater the slurry from the FGD system and a central filter-blending
facility that will combine this sludge and the hopper materials with a product
of lime (3% of weight), water, and fly ash. Major components of the hopper
material and fly ash will be silicon, aluminum, and iron compounds (see coal
ash analysis; Subsection 2.1.2.1), while the FGD slurry will be mainly calcium
sulfate and calcium sulfite. A typical pozzolanic (cement-producing) reaction
will occur when the lime, fly ash, and water are mixed:
3 CaO • Si02 * 3H2O
3 CaO • AI2O3 • 6H2O
2-41
-------
Composition of the sludge will be:
CaS0/+ • 2H20
CaSOo • 1/2 H?0
CaC03
so that reaction with the intermediate products will produce cementitious sul-
fites or sulfates.
Lime consumption for this process for both units will average around
70 tons each day, or 26,000 tons per year. Delivery of lime (3/4 inch peb-
bles) will be by truck or rail and storage (60-day supply) will be in silos.
At maximum capacity, total stabilized waste generation from each
unit will be 124 tons, or 4057 cubic feet per hour. Average annual production
for both units will be 1.25 million tons, amounting to 28,900 acre-feet during
the life of the project. Fresh stabilized waste will be stockpiled until
cured. The cured waste will be trucked each day to one of the landfill areas
shown in Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-7. Capacities of each landfill area on the
Hancock site, based on 494-feet clearance of Jeffry Cliff (an offsite
land form), existing topography, and contouring of 40 to 45 feet maximum, will
be:
Generat ing
Acres
Acre-Feet
Unit-Years
Landfill
Area
1
169
7,300
17.7
Landfill
Area
2
309
13,350
32.5
Landfill
Area
3
191
8,250
20.0
TOTAL
669
28,900
70.2
The landfill areas will be cleared and leveled in 25-acre increments. The
stablized waste will be contoured in valleys and lower slopes to the extent
possible, topsoil will be added, and grasses seeded. Benching will be done as
necessary and temporary drainage systems will discharge into a temporary
retention basin. Once a fill increment has vegetated, natural drainage will
establish and the basin will be reclaimed.
Landfill sequence for the Breckinridge site has not been determined
but incremental development and reclamation would be similar.
Production of a stabilized waste for onsite disposal provides the
least probability of contamination of groundwater and soils, as well as the
most flexibility for future expansion of the plant (Table ?. .1-14). The stab-
ilization process is relatively new and leaching characteristics, although
considered the least impactful, are basically unknown. Possible leachates and
their potential leachability relative to onsite soils are discussed in Section
3.4.2.
Blended Waste. As in the stablized waste process, one system hand-
les all of the solid wastes from the power plant. In this process, however,
lime is omitted as a fixing agent and levels of soluble components in the
solid blend remain higher than those in the stabilized solid blend. Thus,
leachate formation is not minimized for landfill disposal (Table 2.1-14), and
2-42
-------
Table 2.1-14 Comparison of Solid Waste Disposal Processes
Process
Stabilized Waste
Blended Waste
Sale of Solid Waste
Advantages
All solid wastes handled in one system.
Easily transported.
Minimizes leachate potential.
Landfill disposal allows other land use.
Future markets possible.
All solid wastes handled in one system.
Easily transported.
Less bulk and expense than stabilized
waste.
Landfill land use may be more limited.
Proven use of ash wastes.
Potential for use of sludge wastes.
Ponding of Solid Wastes Proven technology.
Disadvantages
Lime additive increases bulk and costs.
Leaching potential higher than stabilized waste.
No markets.
Requires separate processing.
Markets will not dispose of total U.S. production
(about 15% 'of U.S. production since 1965 has been
marketed).
Synthetic gypsum process relatively unproven.
Synthetic gypsum not readily marketable because of
plentiful natural gypsum.
Large areas unreclaimable for several years.
Generally requires lining to prevent or mitigate
groundwater and other contamination.
Most expensive disposal method.
Sources: Hecht and Duvall (1975); Duedall and Seligman (1979); Ansari and Owen (1980).
-------
lining or other treatment could be necessary to prevent groundwater
contamination and significant buildup of trace elements in soils and
vegetat1 on.
Sale of Solid Wastes. Current marketability of solid wastes re-
quires separate processing of ash and sludge components. Bottom ash and pyri-
tes are dewatered and sold with fly ash for roadbed material. The sludges are
oxided to form gypsum, which is used in building materials. However, the mar-
ket for road fill will not dispose of total 'J.S. production of fly ash and the
synthetic gypsum process is still unproven (Table 2.1-14)•
Ponding of Solid Wastes. This historic method of solid waste dis-
posal pumps slurries, sludgesj and dry wastes to holding ponds. The water may
or may not be recycled. Filled ponds are covered with soil.
Ponded solid wastes are most susceptible to seepage and discharge of
trace elements, although synthetic or clay liners are now generally used to
prevent or mitigate impacts from seepage. Runoff generally is regulated by
sizing the pond for sufficient freeboard and providing diversion canals to
other impoundments. Overall, ponding results in the greatest waste volume and
is the most expensive solid waste disposal method (Table 2.1-14).
2.1.4.3 Water Use
2.1.4.3.1 Water Sources
Water sources available to meet water demands of constructing and
operating the Hancock Generating Station are groundwater and the Ohio River.
Because, the plant will require up to approximately 16,000 gallons per minute
(gpm) makeup water to maintain a 560,232-gpm circulating cooling water flow
and other flows after start-up, the Ohio River was considered the better
source for the majority of operating water demands (cooling water). Proposed
groundwater use for boiler makeup, potable, and service water consists of up
to approximately 1000 gpm of the maximum operating demand and up to 140 gpm to
supply all construction water demands. This amount of groundwater can be ob-
tained from a minimum of onsite wells (average pumpage for the alluvial aqui-
fer in the project area is 300 to 500 gpm), which can be installed and pumped
economically from the alluvial aquifer. Were groundwater used to supply total
operating needs (23 million gallons per day at maximum plant load), numerous
onsite wells would be required, or an alternative would be installation of
large Ranney wells in the bed of the Ohio River (see Alternative Intake Struc-
tures, Subsection 2.1.4.3.4). These are more costly than either onsite wells
or equipment for Ohio River water withdrawal.
2.1.4.3.2 Water Demand and Flow
Maximum expected groundwater demand and continuous daily flow during
construction will be (Figure 2.1-10):
2-44
-------
ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOWS
* NPDES SERIAL NUMBERS
MAXIMUM FLOWS
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
Figure 2.1-10. Water Flow for Construction Activities, Hancock
Generating Station Units 1 and 2
2-45
-------
Use
Maximum Demand
(gallons per day)
Maximum Flow
(gallons per minute)
Dust control 22,000 15
Batch concrete 160,000 110
Sanitary or potable 18,700 13
Miscellaneous 3,000 2
Water sprayed on construction areas and miscellaneous water will
evaporate primarily. Water for concrete batching will be consumed in the pro-
cess. Treated sanitary water and site runoff will be discharged (NPDES dis-
charge 002) into Sandy Branch (Hancock site) or Town Creek (Breckinridge
site). Maximum site runoff, based on precipitation patterns in the project
area, is expected to be 20.9 thousand gpm.
Water demand during operation is determined by several factors, in-
cluding the type of system used to cool the generating units. Cooling water
systems evaluated for the Hancock Generating Station included once-through
cooling (once-circulated water discharged directly to the Ohio River) and sev-
eral types of closed-cycle cooling methods that use outside air or water to
remove heat from recycled circulating water.
KU proposes a closed-cycle wet mechanical draft cooling tower system
rather than once-through cooling because the once-through system has a higher
installed cost and environmental impact potential is greater. Choice of the
wet mechnic.al draft system over other closed-cycle systems was partly because
of proven performance and low visiblity.
2.1.4.3.3 Heat Dissipation Alternatives
2.1.4.3.3.1 Closed-cycle Cooling Water
Four types of cooling tower systems and a cooling lake were the
closed-cycle systems considered.
Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers. The cooling system proposed
for the Hancock plant has a 12-cell circular wet mechnical draft cooling tower
for each generating unit. Water circulated through the main plant condensers
is cycled to the cooling towers, which use induced-draft motor-driven fans to
draw outside air through the tower. The circulating water is continually re-
distributed in fine droplets to increase contact with air and loses its heat
by convection, radiation and evaporation.
There are several advantages to a mechnical draft system. The tower
is smaller than a natural draft tower because air movement is accomplished by
fans rather than by a chimney effect, which means lower capital costs and
lower visibility (Table 2.1-15). Fans also allow greater control aver air
supply and water temperatures. This control means high operating costs, with
the fans requiring as much as 0.5% of the station's energy use.
Disadvantages of the proposed system include a visible plume that is
produced by moisture-laden air coming in contact with cooler outside air. In
this case, small size is not an advantage because potential plume—induced fog-
ging and icing often is at ground level.
2-46
-------
Table 2.1-15. Comparison of Cooling Water Systems
System
Closed-cycle Cooling
Wet mechanical
cooling towers
Wet natural draft
cooling towers
Dry cooling towers
Wet/dry cooling towers
Cooling lake
Once-through Cooling
Advantages
Low capital costs
Low visibility
Little impact on aquatic
biota
Control of air supply and
water temperatures
Performance independent of
relative humidity
Low operation/maintenance
costs
Little impact on
aquatic biota
Good plume dispersion
qualities
Little impact on
aquatic biota
No fogging or icing
Low vi sibil ity
Low visibility
Can modify plume
characteristics to limit
fogging and Icing
Little impact on aquatic
biota
Potential for recreation
Low operation/maintenance
costs
None apparent
Di sadvantages
Potential localized
fogging and icing
High operation/maint-
enance costs
Potential localized
fogging and icing
High vlsibil ity
High capital costs
Performance partially
dependent on environ-
mental conditions
High capital costs
High operation/maint-
enance
High backpressures
make them unsuitable
for conventional
turbines
High capital costs
High operation/maint-
enance costs
Requires flooding
of 1800 acres
No available land
for flooding
High construction
impact
Large impact on
aquatic biota
High capital costs
Sources: Koflat (1974); Haggerty and LeFevre (1976); Rubin and Klanian (1975).
2-47
-------
The proposed cooling system will. be operated to mi ni.nuzt> both makeup
demand (consumptive use of Ohio River water) and discharge from the cooling
tower cold-side blowdown (water with concentrated dissolved and suspended
materials) to the river. Estimated demands nnd continuous daily flows for the
cooling water system and other water systems are shown in Figure 2.1-11 and
Table 2.1-16.
The cooling water system estimates are based on (S.8 cycles of
concentration (condenser to cooling tower to condenser loops). Increased
cycl.es of concentration would decrease makeup water, makeup pump power, water
pretreatment, and blowdown discharge flow. However, at 2.9 cycles of
concentration and above, Ohio River water at the sites requires sulfuric, acid
treatment to prevent calcium carbonate (CaCOj) sealing and deterioration of
pipes and heat transfer surfaces. It is estimated that the reaction product,
calcium sulfate, could be a problem at above 6.8 cycles of concentration in
the event of above average CaCOj levels and above average circulating water
temperatures. Average CaCO^ content and average circulating water
temperature will allow up to 10.4 cycles of concentration. For optimum
operating conditions a continuous monitor will determine total dissolved
solids (an indicator of CaC03 content) and temperature of circulating water.
The impacts of this system on Ohio River water availability will be
insignificant (see Section 3.4.1) under any of the projected operating con-
ditions. Impacts on groundwater availability in the project area also will be
insignificant (see Section 3.4.2).
Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers. Relying on an upward draft
created by the density difference in warm air inside the tower and cooler air
outside, the natural draft tower works on the same principle of heat transfer
but is 300 to 500 feet tall. Aesthetic impact may be large (Table 2.1-15).
However, in one evaluation under worst-case meteorological conditions, viewers
criticized the lower mechanical draft towers where topography and vegetation
obscured them because the sources of the intense plume were not visible,
producing the appearance of ground fire. Construction cost is about 3 times
that of a mechanical draft type.
Dry Cooling lowers. Because they dissipate heat: by conduction, con-
vection, and radiation in a system of fine tubes similar to an auto radiator,
dry cooling Lowers are more of a closed system than are wet ones, and have no
plume (Table 2.1-15). They not only require considerable maintenance, but.
also require more capital cost to build. In addition, the high condenser
backpressures make them unsuitable for use with conventional turbines.
Wet/Dry Cooling Towers. These towers can operate in an all wet or
mostly dry mode when weather conditions permit. This reduces evaporation, and
plume visibility can be controlled by varying the wet to dry tower use ratio.
These towers are costly and have maintenance problems associated with both
systems (Table 2.1-15).
Cooling Lake. This system uses impounded water as the circulating
water source, passing withdrawn water through the condenser and returning it.
Artificially-induced currents are created, retaining heated water and allowing
2-48
-------
COlD SiOE 8lO*OOWN
1,295 GPM
INTAKE 008*
OHIO RIVER
PRECIPITATION
FQD SYSTEM
LANDFtuL
RUNOFF
BASIN AREA I
OHIO RiVER
GRAVEL
discharge aos*
DRAIN
56 GPM
MUDDY 6«A?mCh
CREEK
GRAVEL
DISCHARGE 001*
DRAIN
56 GPM
(5>
INDIAN CREEK
ho
i
AO
002* (FOR NPOES PERMIT MONITORING)
DISCHARGE 002*
SANDY BRANCH CREEK
DISCHARGE 006*
RUNOFF FROM COAL
ANO LIMESTONE STORAGE
IN EXCESS OF I0Q24
NPDES
SERIAL NUMBERS
NOTE
NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES
REFER TO NOTES
SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW -
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HANCOCK POWER PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
HANCOCK COUNTY, KENTUCKY
SARGENTIlLUNDY h
JULY 7, 1981
Figure 2.1-11 Water Flow Schematic for Hancock Units 1 and 2
(Sheet 1 of 3)
-------
COLO SiDE SLOWDOWN
2.SCHARGE OCt*
2>2l GPM
A/"
45.632
INTAKE 008*
OHIO RlVER
COOLING TOWERS
UNIT &. 2
6.9 CYCLES
OF CONCENTRATION
PLANT SERVICE
WATER SYSTEM
560,232 GPM
plant auxiliary
CONDENSERS
plant main
CONDENSERS
Plant heat
exchangers
air heater,
FURNACE ANO
PRECIPITATOR
WASH OPERATIONS
PRECIPITATION
o u.
POND
POND
"A"
"B"
Tl
EVAPORATION
FLOOR DRAINS
Oil SEPARATOR
N>
/
Ln
BLOWDOWN
FLASH TANK
TO
ATMOSPHERE
1658 GPM
PRECIPITATION
2)4' GPM
PRECIPITATION
FGD SYSTEM
landfill
RUNOFF
BASIN AREA i
GRAVEL
DRAIN
discmarge 003*
2,141 GPM
PRECtPITATlON
FGD SYSTEM
LANDFiLl
RUNOFF
BASIN AREA 3
GRAVEL
DRAIN
2,j4i GPM MuDO* BRANCH
(5) CREEK
OlSCHARGE 001*
2,141 GPM
(5)
INDIAN CREEK
2J4I GPM
FGD SYSTEM
LANDFILL
Runoff
BASIN AREA Z
GRAVEL
DRAIN
DISCHARGE 002* (FOR NPDES PERMIT MONITORING)
2,141 GPM (5)
DISCHARGE
PRECIPITATION
SITE AREA
RUNOFF
BASIN (6)
00b
PLANT SITE
GRAVEL
20,397 GPM~
RUNOFF
DRAIN
PRECIPITATION
SWITCHYARD.
TRANSFORMER,
AND FUEL OIL
STORAGE
AREA RUNOFFS
FGD SYSTEM
OIL
SEPARATOR
COAL ANO
LJMESTONE PILE
RUNOFF RETENTION
8ASIN
EVAPORATION ANO
LOSS WITH
*>GD SYSTEM
BY-PRODUCT
.COAL PILE RUNOFF
3i920 GPM
LIMESTONE PILE RUNOFF
Discharge 002*
SANDY BRANCH CREEK
DISCHARGE 006*
RUNOFF FROM COAL
AND LIMESTONE STORAGE
IN EXCESS OF 10024
PLANT AND FGO
SYSTEM BEARING
SEAL AND COOLING
WAIEH MSIEM
FGD SYSTEM BY PRODUCT
STOCKOUT PILE AND EMERGENCY
RETENSION BASIN RUNOFF
precipitation
NOTE
NUMBERS
N PARENTHESES
REFER TO NOTES
* NPQES SERIAL NUMBERS
SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW-MAXIMUM
HANCOCK POWER PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
HANCOCK COUNTY, KENTUCKY
SARGENT&LUNDY
¦MMIIM1 <
JULY 7, 1981
Figure 2.1-11 Water Flow Schematic for Hancock Units 1 and 7
(Sheet 2 of 3)
-------
Water Use Diagram
Notes:
1) The air heater and precipitator wash and boiler cleaning
flows noted represents the average impact of these
infrequent water uses.
2) Boiler chemical cleaning wastes will be disposed of by
evaporation in the steam generator (oraainc acids) and
application to on-site fields (phosphates). If chemical
cleaning procedures do not allow the above disposal
methods, the wastes will be hauled off-site and disposed
of by a licensed contractor.
3) Domestic water use flows shown on the maximum flow diagram
represent maximum instantaneous flows. The effluent flow
rate from the sewage treatment plant is controlled.
4) During upset conditions when make-up water to Pond C
is not required, the maximum discharge rate (maximum
flow diagram) would be increased by 613 gpm.
5) Only approximately 25 acres of the FGD System by-product
landfill area will be active at any one time.
6) Site area runoff basin is installed for use during con-
struction and will remain in place for normal plant
operation.
7) Precipitation flows on the maximum diagram are based
on maximum once in ten years 24 hour rainfall rates.
8) Ponds A, B, and C will be sized for some retention.
Therefore, flows noted on the maximum diagram, in and
out of these ponds, do not necessarily balance.
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1980)
Figure 2.1-11 Water Flow Schematic for Hancock Units 1 and 2
(Sheet 3 of 3)
-------
Table 2.1-16 Water Flow and Use for Operating Hancock Generating
Station Units 1 and 2
Maximum Flow Average Flow
Operation (gpm) (gpm)
Cooling Water
Auxil iary condensers 45,632
Main condensers 462,600
Heat exchangers 52,000
Equipment wash 10
F1 oor wash 3
Evaporation 12,942 7,298
Cold-side blowdown 2,321 1,295
Makeup (Ohio River) 15,150 8,606
Filtered Water
Filter backwash 41
Boiler feedwater 296 252
Laboratory drains 10
Potable 9(100)(max. instantaneous) 9
Service water 490
Evaporation 268 115
Makeup (groundwater) 1,046 802
Ponds A and B Cycle
Evaporation 8 (A + B)
FGD System 10 (A)
40 (B) 76 (B)
Makeup
Precipitation 342 (A + B)
Cooling water system 10 (A)
Filtered water system 40 (B) 76 (B)
Pond C Cycle
FGD system 1,481 977
Bottom ash handling 4,443 (4,429 circulating) 4,443 (4,435
, , circulating)
Evaporation and loss 25 25
Makeup
Cold-side blowdown 663 209
Filtered water system 702 646
Floor wash 3
Stabilized waste stockout pile 125 4
Coal and limestone pile 4,605 121
Precipitation 1,028 27
Di scharge
Ohio River 1,658 1 086
Muddy Branch 2,141 ' 56
Sandy Branch 23,033 605
Indian Creek 2,141 55
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
2-52
-------
sufficient cooling (radiation and evaporation) for reuse. An 1800-acre im-
poundment would be necessary for the Hancock Station's two units (Table
2.1-15).
2.1.4.3.3.2 Once-through Cooling
In this system, the Ohio River would be used as a heat sink. Water
is withdrawn, circulated through the condenser, and returned downstream of the
intake, structure. This system would require 650,000 gpm for the 2-unit
Hancock plant. The addition of heat would disturb thermal equilibrium until
the heat is dissipated because a natural water body tends to maintain a heat
balance with the atmosphere.
Once-through cooling was rejected as an alternative heat dissipation
system because of several adverse environmental effects, including the thermal
discharge. Potential thermal-induced impacts include modification of phyto-
plankton and zooplankton abundance and composition, modification of local
movement and congregation of fish, modification of the reproductive capacities
of fish, and alterations in the distributions of benthic organisms.
Construction of a once-through system requires substantial quanti-
ties of large pipes, a large intake structure, and a discharge structure on
the shore. Permanent impacts may occur from construction of the intake system.
Impingement and entrainment of aquatic biota are major impacts be-
cause of the volume of intake water and its velocity. Those intakes
minimizing impacts are costly. All capital costs of the once-through system
are high (Table 2.1-15).
2.1.4.3.4 Water Intake and Discharge Structures
2.1.4.3.4.1 Ohio River
Intake equipment proposed for the Hancock plant includes three make-
up pumps to be housed in a 35-foot-diameter concrete structure above the
100-year flood level on the shore at Ohio RM 716 (Hancock site) or RM 705.5
(Breckinridge site). Capacity of each pump will be 8000 gpm, so that one can
act as a spare during all operational loads. Two buried 42-inch-diameter
makeup pipelines will carry river water to the cooling towers. The cold-side
blowdown will be discharged through a 24-inch-diameter pipeline that parallels
the makeup pipelines to near the shoreline; from the shoreline it will extend
38 feet into the river at a depth of 6 feet (Figure 2.1-12 shows Hancock site
detail).
The two intake pipes will be buried from the cooling towers into the
Ohio River riverbed to distances of 340 and 640 feet from the pumphouse,
respectively (Figure 2.1-12). Each will emerge and fork near its end for
attachment to two intake screens. Underwater position of each pair of screens
will be 360 feet msl, which is 22 feet below normal surface elevation
maintained by the Cannelton Lock and Dam. The screens will be cyclinders 13
feet long and 4 feet in diameter. Screen openings will be spaced at 0.25
inches, so that openings will be less than that. The longitudinal centerline
of each screen will parallel river flow. At the proposed depth, the screens
should remain slightly submerged should lock and dam failure occur.
2-53
-------
ho
I
Ln
12- SITUATION PlASl 4"»°
I I 1 B..IMJM
-COHWOUto ncmuwuamtn.
cpwwcw pu. /•«. *rut WlffiR,-1\ j.
=4, *.«*****»> m^Ljg^yst:
x ^ejnT.aooeu-e S»wSSp«u.-/ j5S
*^bwst*SB«>«
Sectiom C-C
to
kill ill
*J7wr« |>
SlTuATlQM
wrrr-
&AvrwN» *m »* W
«****»
M.VL, 1429 DATUM.
S&ctiom E>-5
MM4 f M»T
fWWIO IMW« ft»#H0U9C
Location PLau
ai#c, c#*mLi*i ,iho -kv
o-Tio mo
PROPOSED INTAKE
PUMPHOUSE AND
SLOWDOWN PIPE
UMOtTfcLHOV
JANUARY 21. 1M1
rW*.
¦iSJSSKfei,
-* r*V
_ . up l-M'*
«ntL WT/4C M%
€AftTMWO«K QuAWTtT(£5
I. ItfTfcKg PlPtUOCS
A) OfteOCaSK. _ c ^
ft) tKCIkV^TiOW - _ 4^'900 C>
C) COMP^CTtO ^CkPiu> _ tf
0) 5-ORC Jw 5 ^00 C T
Section P"Pfr*n—u
Section E-E'^t io»i)
WMVT
in
n«ona»cc 2 0'~ 1 umi
Ac
L afPWMA
AMI •CeotN*
5eCTIOH F-F [SWT \ofi)
B1
£M*T
r«0P05tD».0 4
51 f sretL bL0wa**i ftpe
SecT>o«kj G-G (>»t i<**)
8CA1A 'W Fttt
t &u>woawN p>ptu*e
A) DfcEO^WG
6) fcfcCAWftTtOU
C) COMPACTEO 3ACP
0 COARSfc 5€DO«*G _
G) FINE efeOOiUG
a. INTAKE PUMWOOSfe
4J GXCAtfATlQIW
200 C f
2*400 C Y
- 27000 C T
5200 C Y
9CC-?
feOCt
50 C T
. I.C^O CT
A tWTA^e PkAAPtiOU*£ Access 80*0
/k) coMPACieo c,vw _. . . c cooc^
6) MP t*AP f > 200 ^ Y
c; COAASC etOD|h>Q ? soo c t
0) F>Nt ecW»NCi
t) CRUSW.0 Stow* SOAO » k-ior ^
KANC^C<6EN»e^Ar:»o^ STA.
PROPOSED INTAKE
PUMPHOUSE AND
SLOWDOWN PIPE
(CROSS-SECTIONS^
M«6£NT\IUWY
JANUARY 21. 1901
Figure 2.1-12 Proposed Intake and Blowdown Water Systems in
the Ohio River for Hancock Units 1 and 2
-------
Three types of intake systems were evaluated: onshore traveling
screens, Ranney wells, and the offshore slotted screens proposed for the plant.
Offshore Slotted Screens. The slotted screen alternative will dis-
turb aquatic communities during installation of the river structures and dis-
rupt terrestrial communities during construction of the onshore pump struc-
ture. The area of terrestrial disturbance of construction activities would be
approximately the same as the area disturbed by construction of an onshore
traveling screen intake structure but less than that of Ranney wells.
This offshore intake structure is not anticipated to require the
periodic maintenance dredging usually required for onshore traveling screens.
Intake velocity will be the same, 0.5 feet per second or less, but water depth
would differ. The cyclindrical shape of the slotted screen offers minimum
resistance to natural water flow. Particulate matter is not trapped against-
the screen face and buildup of deposits is minimized. This arrangement along
with the low intake velocity should minimize entrainment and impingement.
A comparative summary of^degree of expected ecological effects shows
the offshore slotted screen to be environmentally acceptable:
Impact From
Construction
Maintenance
Entrainment
Impingement
Cost
Onshore
Traveling
Screens
Desirable
Less Desirable
Less Desirable
Desirable
Desirable
Ranney Wells
Less Desirable
Most Desirable
Most Desirable
Most Desirable
Less Desirable
Offshore
Slotted
Screens
Desirable
Host Desirable
Desirable
Most Desirable
Desirable
Definitions
Most Desirable: Expected to have minimal adverse impact on aquatic
and terrestrial biological communities; relative
overall costs less than other alternatives.
Desirable: May have impacts on aquatic and terrestrial
communities that are more than minimal but not
chronic or severe; costs generally in a range that is
considered appropriate for the purpose of the
structure.
Less Desirable: May have severe and/or chronic impacts on aquatic
and terrestrial communities. Costs exceed appro-
priate levels of expenditures relative to purpose of
structure.
In conjunction with issuance of the NPDES permit and subsequent ap-
proval to begin operation of the proposed power plant under the permit, EPA
must evaluate the adverse impact of cooling water intake structures on the
aquatic environment. The provision for this evaluation is Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, which requires that the location, design, con-
struction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best
2-55
-------
technology available for minimizing adverse impacts. These factors are ad-
dressed relative to the proposed system and site specific conditions in
Section 3.4.1.
Onshore Traveling Screens. A conventional onshore intake structure
usually consists of traveling screens that strain small debris from the cool-
ing water. Trash racks generally are located in front of the traveling
screens and these racks prevent large debris from collecting on the traveling
screens. Construction of onshore traveling screen systems generally has an
impact on terrestrial biota because of earthmoving activities, and on aquatic,
communities because of dredging activities.
If the onshore traveling screen structure is located in a shallow
water area, periodic dredging of silt from in front of the structure may be
required to maintain proper flow volume. Such activity would disrupt the
biological communities in the immediate area. Intake approjici. velocity would
be 0.5 feet per second or less, so that, although fish impingement would
occur, it would be minimal.
Ranney Wells. A Ranney well type intake system consists of a cy-
lindrical caisson approximately 16 to 18 feet in diameter with screen pipes
projected into the aquifer below the river bed. This type of system is pref-
erable to an onshore traveling screen since periodic maintenance dredging is
not required because of the filtration effect on the aquifer. Entrainment of
fish eggs and larvae and impingement of adult and juvenile fish will not occur
using groundwater as a source for cooling water. At least three Ranney wells
would be required to supply x^ater for Hancock Units 1 and 2, and these wells
would have to be spaced at least 1000 feet apart. The terrestrial area dis-
turbed by construction of this number of wells would be greater than the area
disturbed by construction of the other alternatives. In addition, the cosL of
the Ranney well type intake system would be several times greater than that of
the other alternatives.
2.1.4.3.4.2 Wells
hocat ions and specifications of onsite wells for proposed
groundwater withdrawal will be determined upon completion of onsite borings
and water sample analyses. Preliminary data indicate that water of sufficient-
quantity and quality can be obtained from the alluvial aquifer. KU's demand
on the. alluvial aquifer is expected to have no significant impact on
municipal, industrial, or domestic supplies (see Section 3.4.2)
2.1.4.3.5 Water Management
Proposed water management for the generating station was developed
to meet water quality standards, minimize environmental impact, and maintain
reasonable installation ano operating costc. Water tieatment processes pro-
posed for the Hancock plant include pretreatments to make river and well water
suitable tor plant use, as well as treatments to make wastewater suitable for
recycling in the closed water systems and to assure discharged water complies
with water quality standards. The only discharges into surlace waters during
plant operation will be cooling tower blowdown, as mentioned, and site runoff,
which includes runoff from the areas developed for plant facilities and from
landfill areas for solid waste disposal (Water Flow Diagram, Figure 2.1-11;
2-56
-------
discharge numbers are serial numbers of the draft NPDES permit appendixed to
this report). Sewage treatment plant water will be temporarily discharged
into an onsite stream during construction (Figure 2.1-10). Sewage treatment
plant water and plant process water will be recycled in closed systems during
operation and there will be no discharge of these wastestreams to waters of
the United States (Figure 2.1-11).
2.1.4.3.5.1 Makeup Water Pretreatment
Circulating Water. As mentioned, makeup water from the Ohio River
will be treated with sulfuric acid to control pH of the circulating water and
prevent CaCC>3 effects on equipment. Additionally, chlorine will be added to
the circulating water to prevent biofouling (mold and algae buildup) of the
equipment. Quantities of both substances will be controlled so that blowdown
water will meet effluent standards (Table 2.1-17).
Boiler Makeup, Potable and Service Water. At the desired flow rate,
the expected high iron content of groundwater on the Hancock and Breckinridge
sites will require a green sand -filter system. The filter system will be
backwashed periodically to remove accumulated solids. Neither the backwash
water nor the potable and FGD system service water will be treated beyond the
filter system. The remainder of the well water flow will be directed from the
filter system to a demineralizer system to remove anions and cations prior to
use for boiler makeup (Figure 2.1-11).
The precise demineralizer specifications will be based on results of
a preliminary groundwater sampling program at the site. Maximum occurrence
data from United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate need for one weak
acid cation vessel, one strong acid cation vessel, one vacuum degasifier (de-
carbonator), one strong base anion vessel, and one mixed bed vessel. From the
mixed bed vessel, the water will go to storage. Regeneration of the cation
resin with sulfuric acid and the anion resin with sodium hydroxide will occur
every 24 hours.
2.1.4.3.5.2 Wastewater and Runoff Treatment
Wastewater management will include storage in holding Ponds A and B
for use as a direct makeup water source for the FGD system and storage and re-
circulation in Pond C. Locations of the holding ponds are shown in Figures
2.1-2 (Hancock site) and 2.1-7 (Breckinridge site). Runoff treatment will
utilize several retention basins, including 2 permanent ones - the coal and
limestone pile runoff basin and the site area runoff basin (Figure 2.1-11) -
and temporary ones to be constructed in active landfill areas (represented by
gravel drains in Figure 2.1—11)-
Holding Ponds. Design for Ponds A, B, and C will include discharge
systems that will allow control of water levels between high and low set
points. The high level set point will consider upset conditions (e.g. , low
makeup flows to the FGD system with maximum anticipated runoff rates). Each
pond will be designed to contain a once-in-10-year 24-hour rainfall above the
high set point (Figure 2.1-13). They will have a minimum 2-foot thick clay
lining to effect a 10~7-centimeter per second permeability or equivalent.
2-57
-------
Table 2.1-17. Original and Proposed Revised Effluent Standards for New Sources
Applicable to new Electric Power Generating Units
Original NSSP
(159/1 iter x flow)
Effluent
All discharges
Allowable pH range: 6.0 to 9.0
Polychlorinated biphenyl compounds
Low-volume wastes
Oil and grease
Total suspended solids
Bottom ash transport water
Oil and grease
Total suspended solids
Fly ash transport water
Oil and grease
Total suspended solids
Boiler blowdown (metal cleaning wastes)
Oil and grease
Total suspended solids
Copper (total)
Iron (total)
Cooling tower blowdown
Chlorine (free)***
Chlorine (total)***
Chromium
Phosphorus
Zinc
Other corrosion inhibitors
129 Priority pollutants
Once-through water
Chlorine (free)
Coal Pile Runoff
Total suspended solids
Construction Runoff
Total suspended solids
Daily Maximum Daily Average
Proposed Revised NSSP*
(mq/liter x flow)
20.0
100.0
1.00**
5.00**
15.0
30.0
0.75**
1.50**
20.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
15.0
30.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
No detectable amount
No detectable amount
Ho detectable amount
No detectable amount
Not applicable
0.5 0.2
Maximum Instantaneous
50 (bypass without limitation
10Q24)
Daily Maximum Daily Average
20.0
100.0
20.0
100.0
15.0
30.0
15.0
30.0
0 0
Regulated as low-volume waste
0.14 0.14
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
Maximum Instantaneous
50 (bypass without limitation
10Q24)
NPDES
Discharge Number
(Figure 2.1-11)
001,002,003,004
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
001
Not applicable
006
50 (remanded)
50 (remanded)
005
*
Revised New Source Standards of Performance (NSSP) were proposed on October 14, 1980. New units must meet NSSP wnen they begin
discharging. New units that commenced construction between March 4, 1974, and October 14, 1980, must meet the original NSSP
when they begin discharging, and they cannot have more stringent NSSP requirements imposed on them for 10 years from the date of
initial operation. New units that commenced construction after October 14, 1980, must meet the revised NSSP (when finalized)
when they begin discharging. Final revised NSSP are expected in mid 1981.
**
Maximum and average limitations apply to discharges from once-through systems.
***Maximum is maximum instantaneous; average is over chlorination time, not to exceed 2 hours.
-------
I-
/
w
-EMtRGitNOr
SPILLWAY
PLAN
2-0 VdltJ THICK. CLA»Y UMINg] «pV pVl
(IO"7CM/5tC PtRM^BkUlTY) K l
OR. EQUVV/AutWT \ EttV J
T
f lO YEAR. - 2A UOUtt.
\ rainfall PLUS I'
SECTION
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
Figure 2.1-13 Typical Detail for Ponds A, B, and 0, Hancock
Generating Station
2-59
-------
Pond A will receive waste streams from infrequent (annual) cleaning
processes - air heater wash, boiler fire-side cleaning, and precipitator wash
- with a total flow rate of 10 gpm (Figure 2.1-11). The streams will bo
retained in the pond and pumped to the FGD system. Pond B will receive the
spent acid and alkaline solutions and rinse water from the boiler makeup
demineralizer system. Average flow of this regenerate and backwash material
will be 40 gpm (Figure 2.1-11). Ponds A and B will provide holdup and surge
capacity to allow a uniform flow to the FGD system (10 gpm and 40 gpm,
respectively).
Pond C will receive process water (649 gpm) from several plant sys-
tems (floor drain, ash hopper seal, station sample, boiler blowdown, sand
filter backwash, sanitary waste treatment), as well as a portion (209 gpm) of
the cold-side blowdown and runoff (125 gpm) from the coal, limestone, and
uncured stabilized waste stockout piles. Bottom ash transport water (4443
gpm) will be recirculated through the Pond C system and the remainder of the
outflow (977 gpm) will be consumed in the S02 removal system (Figure 2.1-11).
Bottom ash system water will consist of two fractions: supernatant
water from the bottom ash/pyrites dewatering bins and water for boiler
refractory cooling and sealing of the bottom ash hoppers. Floor drain water,
which will contain leakage, spills, and cleanup water, will be treated in an
oil separator prior to discharge to Pond C. Coal- and limestone-pile runoff
will be collected in a common retention basin (Figure 2.1-14) for settling and
filtering prior to entering Pond C. Like others, this basin will store a
once-in-10-year, 24 hour rainfall plus a 1-foot freeboard. During more severe
storms, untreated coal and limestone runoff will be discharged to Sandy Branch
(discharge 006, Figure 2.1-11). Water balance in Pond C will depend on
operation of the FGD system. Pond C will be sized to store up to 36 days of
low volume and sanitary wastewater if the FGD system is not operating.
Sanitary Waste Treatment. Equipment for the sewage plant will
include a conventional gravity sewer system and a package sewage treatment
designed to process a maximum of 12,500 gpd (250 persons at 50 gpd) during
operation and 18,700 gpd (1000 persons at 18.7 gpd) during construction. A
surge tank will ensure uniform hydraulic loading. Design will allow the
system to alternate between the two treatment modes as the rate of effluent
flow demands. Effluent from both modes will be given tertiary treatment
consisting of filtration and recirculation. The discharge to Pond C (during
operation) and the site area runoff basin (during construction) will be
chlorinated.
Boiler Chemical Cleaning. This process will occur approximately
once every three years. The wastes will be disposed of by evaporation in the
boiler (based on using an organic acid solution for boiler chemical cleaning)
and application to onsite fields (phosphate/wastes). If the chemical cleaning
procedures do not allow evaporation of the cleaning wastes in the boiler, the
wastes will be hauled offsite by a licensed contractor and disposed of.
Runoff. Except for coal, limestone, and stabilized waste stockout
locations, runoff from the entire site will discharge into streams (Sandy
Branch, Muddy Branch, and Indian Creek on the Hancock site; Town Creek on the
Breckinridge site). All runoff from cleared locations (including active
landfill areas) will be ponded and gravel-filtered prior to discharge (Figure
2.1-15). Additionally, runoff from the switchyard, transformer, and fuel oil
2-60
-------
fOUTLET to powd'c
< K)R. FLOWS < JO YCAR.-
HOUR RAlklFfcLL
EMtRGtWCX Sptuw^
FOR FLOWS > (O YEAR-
24 HOUR RAINFALL.
DRMUS BY MHWlTt
TO SKNOW &RAMCU
PLAN
i
OUTLET
STRUCTURE
HIO.H
SET PT
CLtV
1IO TEAR - 1A HOUR
\RA)KJF&H- PLUS t'
OUTLE.T PIPE
TO POW0 C
SECTION.
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
Fi< " Co.'iI and Limestone ?il« Runoff Pond, Hancock
Rent'rating Station
2-M
-------
PL AM
fELtVATlON »S fc'ABOVE.
EMEROtUCY DRAIN I MULT
,/TT\,
SECTION* A
("EMCRCitNCY DRAIN INLET fcT MfcK.
j ELtVftTT ION or POMO OURjNC,
(jO YtAR.- 24 MOOR RA1NFMJL
(^NORMAL POOL EL.
PU-Tttt MAteRtAV.
fRIP -RAP OVtR
\e>EDOtNG» MATERIAL
SECTION e>-B
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
Figure 2.1-15 Gravel Drain for Retention Pont
Generating Station
M n : )c oc. V
2-6 2
-------
storage locations will be treated in an oil separator prior to ponding in the
site area runoff basin (Figure 2.1-11).
On the Hancock site, a permanent site area retention basin will
treat site area runoff prior to discharge into Sandy Branch (discharge 002).
Runoff from landfill areas will go through a temporary retention basin to be
constructed where landfill is occurring and then be discharged into the
drainage area for dilution with runoff from undisturbed and reclaimed
locations within the watershed. Dilution factors estimated for active
landfill runoff in each of the Hancock site drainage areas are:
Stream
Discharge
Drainage Acres
Dilution Factor of 10-Acre
Active Landfill with Waste
Less than 30 Days Old
Muddy Branch 003
Sandy Branch 002
Indian Creek 004
313
1,300
217
17.7
72.0
15.7
Runoff from the 25-acre active landfill areas will be segregated
from other runoff discharges to Muddy Branch, Sandy Branch, and Indian Creek.
This will be accomplished by ditching and diking each active landfill
increment to keep water from the remaining landfill area from running through
the active area. Water from the active area will be routed to the temporary
retention basin and then discharged into the remaining landfill area. Each
temporary retention basin will be reclaimed when the landfill increment has
been seeded with grass and natural drainage established.
Channelization of Sandy Branch for site area runoff or construction
in either Muddy Branch or Indian Creek (none proposed) will occur at points
where upstream flow is less than 5 cubic per feet second and will not require
a Department of the Army (DA) permit (COE, Louisville District, Personal
Communication).
On the Breckinridge site, a permanent site area retention basin will
treat site area runoff prior to dischage to Town Creek. Landfill
specifications and dilution factors for the Breckinridge site are not
available. Any construction on Upper Town Creek (e.g., channelization for
site area runoff) will require a DA permit because of flow greater than 5
cubic feet per second (COE Louisville District, Personal Communication).
2.1.4.3.5.3 Discharges
Water quality limitations applicable to wastewater management at the
proposed Hancock plant are those of EPA, the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), and the Kentucky DNKEP, Division of Water
Quality. Expected characteristics of discharges regulated by the United
States were submitted to EPA Region IV in the Applicant's NPDES application.
EPA's standards for new effluent sources are in Table 2.1-17, which shows
those discharges applicable to the Hancock plant keyed to the water flow
diagram (Figure 2.1-11) and serial (discharge) number in the permit
application; expected effluent concentrations in each discharge are in Table
2.1-18. ORSANCO and Kentucky water quality standards are in Table 2.1-19;
2-63
-------
Table 2.1-18 Effluents of the Hancock Generating Station
Units 1 and 2
Daily Average and Maximum Value Expected Per Discharge 1/
001 002 _003 004
Daily Daily Daily Daily
Parameter Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum
Flow (gpm)
pH (standard
units)
Temperature (°
Winter
Summer
1086 1658 605 23033 56 2141 56 2141
9.0 - 9.0 - 9.0 - 9.0
' 64 69 ------
82 92 ------
Total Suspended
Solids 400 - 50 50 50 50 50 50
Oil and Grease - 115
Aluminum - Ll - - - - - ~
Ammonia - 2.65 2,3/ 2L3/ 2,3/ 2,3/ 2.3/ 2>3/
ArSenic - 0-068 THT117 T5^058 Oil7 TT558 lull? 7^58
Cadmium - 0.136 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chlorine!/ 0.20 0.50 0.51/ 0.51/ .
Chromium - 0.680 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07
Copper - 0.354 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Cyanide - 0.136 ------
Lead - 0.544 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Mercury - 0.041 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Nickel - 0.68
Phenols - 1.22 -
Selenium - 0.034 0.009 0.018 0.009 0.018 0.009 0.018
Zinc - 0.880 0.25 0.65 0.25 0.65 0.25 0.65
1/ All values are milligrams/liter except where noted
1/ No data available
1/ Present only during construction phase
1/ NPDES permit (Appendix 8.1) stipulates instantaneous maximum of 0.1
Source: Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2 NPDES Application
2-64
-------
Table 2.1-19 Water Quality Standards of Kentucky and the Ohio
River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Pollutant
Kentucky
ORSANCO"
PH
Oil and grease
Fecal coliform (organ isms/100
milliliter)
Toxic substances (not persistent;
noncumulative).
Pesticides and all other toxics
Color
Dissolved oxygen
Methylene blue active substances
Phthalate esters
Phenol
Hydrogen sulfide
Sulfate (total)
Nitrate (NO3-N, as total)
Cyanide (free)
Trace Inorganic
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 l'um
Cadmium
Chloride (total)
Chlorine (total residual)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Z1nc
Total dissolved solids
6.0-9.01 5.0-9.0
No visible amount1 Substantial
No visible amount3
200 (geometric mean)3
1/10 96-hr LC501
0.44 96-hr LC^
1/100 96-hr LC50
75 platinum-cobalt -
color units
4.0 minimum1, 5.0 average1 -
0.53
S.0031
0.0051
0.0021
2503
10
0.005 maxfmum1 0.2
0.051 0.05
1.0' t.o
0.011-soft water1 _
1.100-hard water1 -
0.004-soft water1 0.01
0.012-hard water1
2503
0.011
0.1001 0.05
0.053
1.03
13
1.01
0.053 0.05
0.053 0.05
0.000051 0.005
0.0023
0.01
0.013
0.053 0.05
5.03
7503
removal
400 maximum5, 200 average5
1/20 96-hr MTL
Concentrations in mi 11fgrams^liter unless otherwise noted.
1 Kentucky standards that apply to all waters at the edge of a mixing zone.
Applicable to aquatic life. Criteria for determining the size of the mixing
zone are that whenever possible, It shall not exceed one-third of the width or
cross-sectional area of the receiving stream, and in no case shall exceed one-
half of this volume.
Kentucky standards that apply in the mixing zone; applicable to aquatic life.
Kentucky standards that apply at the point water is withdrawn for public water supply.
ORSANCO standards apply at the point of discharge.
These limitations apply from Hay to October. From November to April, the limitations
are 2000/100 milliliters maximum and 1000/100 milliliters average.
Note: Kentucky limitations apply to all regulated water bodies in the state. ORSANCO
limitations apply only to the Ohio River.
2-65
-------
expected effluent; concentrations applicable to these standards are in Table
2.1-20. Discharge locations for the Hancock site are shown in Figure 2.1-16.
Cold-side Blowdown. Makeup flow from the Ohio River will. be
measured to control the discharge flow rate back to the Ohio River while
maintaining 6.8 cycles of operation. The discharge flow rate will vary during
normal operation. The flow rate for 1-unit operation typically will be within
the range of 0.9 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 2. cfs and will be
approximately double for 2-unit operation (1.8 to 4.0 cfe) (Figure 2.1-17).
To insure desired mixing in the river, a single 8-inch diameter
discharge port will be used to maintain discharge velocities above 4 feet per
second (fps) at flow rates above 800 gpm (Figure 2.1-18). A reducer will be
added during operating of Unit 1 prior to startup of Unit 2. The discharge
diameter will be reduced to 6 inches to maintain velocities above 6 Eps at
flow rates above 400 gpm (approximately 0.9 cfs).
Water quality parameters estimated to require dilution to meet
Kentucky standards include, for aquatic life, arsenic, and for water supply,
fluoride, barium, sulfate, selenium, and chloride. Those parameters that
currently have maximum ambient river concentrations exceeding Kentucky
standards and therefore cannot meet a standard with a mixing zone include, for
aquatic life, iron, mercury, cadmium, phenol, and cyanide, and for water
supply, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury. All parameters will meet the
44% of the acute LC^q criterion at the point where the discharge velocity is
2 feet per second. Dilution of parameters above drinking water standards will
be assured at the nearest withdrawal point more than 70 miles downriver.
Concentration of pollutants at the edge of the 100-foot mixing zone
will be less than above ambient levels and are not expected to cause
measurable impact on aquatic organisms in the Ohio River. Toxic pollutants
(other than chlorine) will not be added by KU. The Commonwealth presentlv is
evaluating the necessity of a variance to water quality standards for the 6^
inc rease.
Chlorine, added to the cooling water for biofoul ing, will, be limited
to a total residual concentration of 0.1 mg/1 and will meet water quality
standards (0.01 mm/1) by the edge of the mixing zone. Total suspended solids
(TSS), which are expected Lo be 400 mg/1 , will be within water supply
standards (750 mg/1).
Discharge temperature of the. cooling tower blowdown will average
82°F in summer and 64°F in winter, with maximums of 96°F and 69°F in
the respective seasons. At maximum plant capacity and greatest differential
in discharge and river temperature, a 2°F surface isotherm will occur after
a 100 to 1 dilution, as designed in the discharge structure.
Runoff. During plant construction, runoff discharge to Sandy branch
(Hancock site) or Town Creek (Breckinridge site) will have to meet pH and TSS
standards. During operation, all discharges to streams will be ground surface
effluents only and must meet applicable TSS standards (50 mg/liter). Expected
effluent concentrations are in Table 2.1-18.
2-66
-------
Table 2.1-20. Expected Effluent Concentrations Relative to
ORSANCO and Kentucky Standards (Sheet 1 of 3)
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND PLANT DISCHARGE VALUES
(ALL VALUES IN rag/1)
PARAMETERS REQUIRING NO MIXING 20NE
AMBIENT
RIVER WATER QUALITY1
AQUATIC2
WATER ACUTE4
SUPPLY3 LC50
PERCENT OF ACUTE LC50
DISCHARGE1
PARAMETER
MAX.
MIN.
AVG.
LIFE
44% 10% 1%
MAXIMUM
PH
8.SO
6.50
7.19
6.0-9.0 5
—
—
6.0-9.0
Calcium
65.90
21.50
41.0
—-
—
—
448
Fee. Coli. Bact.
*
#
*
2000/100ml6
—
Potass ium
2.60
2.50
2.55
—
—
17.7
Sodium
37.0
8.8
18.8
—
—
251.6
Phosphate
0.55
0.18
0.37
*
—
3.74
Magnesium
8.90
7.30
8.10
—
__
—
60.5
Ammonia
0.3923
0.0
0.104
4.024
*
—
2.65
PARAMETERS REQUIRING A MIXING ZONE
(' t -
DILUTIONS RBQOIKED FOR MIXING ZONE
AMBIENT
RIVER WATER
QUALITY1
AQUATIC2
WATER ACUTE4
PERCENT OP ACUTE LC50
DISCHARGE1
PARAMETER
MAX.
MIfl.
AVG.
LIFE
Ar.snic
0.010
0.00
0.0045
0.05
'
(1.4)
Flourlde
0.41
0.13
0.24
-—
B» IT turn
0.20
0.00
0.15
—
Suit ate
164.0
0.097
73.05
—
Chloride
53.0
0.072
23.06
--
1.0
(3.1)
1.00
(1.5)
250
(12.6)
250
19.5*7
8.6
Chlorine
Mick(f i
*
0.100
»
0.004
*
0.069
0.01
(9)
:
0.19®
18.49'
0.084
11.2)
8.14
***
*»*
***
0.185
(5.8)
0.0311
(1.1)
Selenium
0.005
0.0
0,0017
--
0.01
(4.8)
3.1li0
1.37
***
PARAMETERS REQUIRING A
MIXING ZONE
WITH EXPLANATION22
DtLUttOMS REQUIRED FOR MIXING ZONE
AMBIENT
MAX.
RIVER WATER QUALITY1
AQUATIC2
WATER
ACUTE4
PERCENT OF ACUTE LC50
parameter
MIN.
AVG*
LIFE
SUPPLY3
LC50
44%
10%
1%
Chromium
Zinc
0.10
0.130
0.00
0.0001
0.022
0.053
0.1
(8.4)
0.05
5.0
22.711
9.612
10.0
4.2
***
***
***
0.096
Cadmium
0.020
0.0
0.004
0.012
—
6.513
2.86
***
* **
Copper
0.052
0.0001
0.0236
—
1.0
0.3514
'Mi
94.51'
0.154
(2.0)
41.6
0.035
***
Lead
0.0B0
0.0
0.019
—
0.05
* * +
0.945
Manganese
0.560
0.020
0.148
—
0.05
*
—
~
Mercury
0.006
0.0
0.0004
0.00005
0.002
0.16816
0.072
***
*•*
Silver
0.00217
0.0
0.0004
—
0.05
0.04618
0.02
***
0.0005
Phenol
0.180
0.0
0.005
0.005
—
34.81'
15.3
***
***
Cyanide
0.02020
0.0
0.0031
0.005
—
0.12521
(1.1)
*
0.055
(2.3)
* **
* * *
Iron
3.23
1.50
2.58
1.0
—
—
—
"available.
** - Only value available
•
0 .068
2.79
1.36
1332
360
0.10
DISCHARGE1
MAXIMUM
0.680
0.880
0.136'
0.3 54
0.544
3.81
0.041
0.0136
1.22
0.136
22.0
Not applicable.
Indicates exceeded criterion.
2-67
-------
Table 2.1-20. Expected Effluent Concentrations Relative to
0RSANC0 and Kentucky Standards (Sheet 2 of 3)
1. Ambient river water quality concentrations, except for silver, cyanide
and ammonia, were obtained from the EPA's computerized water quality
data base, STORET, for the Ohio River around the Cannelton Dam in a
STORET run dated July 29, 1979. Ambient river concentrations for silver,
cyanide and ammonia were obtained from the EPA due to questionable data
in the July 29, 1979 STORET run. The EPA data is also from STORET.
Sufficient river data are not available for aluminum, antimony, beryllium
boron, cobalt, thallium, titanium, tin, nitrate, nitrite, organic
nitrogen, sulfite, bromide, sulfide and molybdenum to determine ambient
maximum, minimum and average river concentrations and concentrations in
plant discharges. Maximum discharge concentrations are based on maximum
ambient river concentrations at 6.8 cycles of concentration.
2. Aquatic life values obtained from Table II of 401 KAR 5;031, Surface
Water Standards.
3. Water supply values were obtained from Table III of 401 KAR 5:031,
Surface Water Standards.
4. Acute LC50 values as originally supplied for the Hancock Unit 1 EXS in
July 1980 were obtained from the U.S. EPA Proposed Water Quality Criteria
released for public comment on March 15, July 25, and October 1, 1979.
In October 1980, the EPA published the final Water Quality Criteria.
Inasmuch as the 1980 document reflects the latest information regarding
LC50 values as they relate to water quality criteria, the LC50 values
listed in this table were obtained from information appearing in it.
5. 401 KAR 5:031, Surface Water Standards, p. 3.
6. Geometric mean.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Arsenic. Fathead minnor (juvenile), p. B-13. NOTE: Only
fathead minnow value listed.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.
Golden shiner, p. 34.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Nickel. Calculation of acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope«0.83, intercepts.76, hardness=134 mg/1 as CaCOj. p. B-17.
10. Acute LC50 value for selenium is the geometric mean of LC50 values for
fathead minnow exposed to selenium dioxide. These values are presented
on page B-13 and B-14 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980,
Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Selenium.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Chromium. Calculation of Acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope=-0.83, intercept»5.98, hardness»134 mg/1 as CaC03< p. B-26.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Zinc. Calculation of acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope»0.78, intercepts. 39, hardness«I34 mg/1 as CaCO^. p. B-27,
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Cadmium. Calculation of acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope = 1.25, intercept=2.66, hardness==l34 mg/1 as CaC03. p. B-27.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Copper. Calculation of acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope=1.12, intercept=0.38, hardness=I34 mg/1 as CaC03. p. B-31.
2-68
-------
Table 2.1-20. Expected Effluent Concentrations Relative to
ORSANCO and Kentucky Standards (Sheet 3 of 3)
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Lead. Calculation of acute LC50 for fathead minnow with
slope«1.60, intercept»3.62, hardness-134 mg/1 as CaCC>3. p. B-15.
16. Acute LC50 value for mercury is the arithmetic mean of the only two
acute LC50 values for fathead minnow listed in U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1980, Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Mercury,
p. B-17.
17. This value obtained from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Silver. Calculation of acute LC50 f°r fathead minnow with
slope»1.50, intercept—3.52, har
-------
PLANT
UTt
H I V E R
MILE
' 718
MILE
' 71?
.[4193 N
[_530 42 ^
^ TAKE 006
<^4193.55 N .
*K*50.33 E
PF SK?N LOW WATER EL. 377.3 FT.
el. 38C
L WATER EL 382 3 FT.
'HIGH WATER EL 40ft3 FT
fp-piaiT Vinm level el. 407» ft.
iridusU
j*-Ponds
istriit Wait*
jSkiilT«»Ti
M'LE
716
STEHRETT C EM' ft '
i-STEIWETT HOKlj'AjL
aARSE-
i4«la.« n
"|_02C.^ E
MILE
713+
iNSWfc. - ABANDONED ROAD
\ ELEVATIONS. APE REFERRED TO
M.S. I. DATUM 1929 ADJUSTMENT
ouukll: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
Figure 2.1-16. Discharge Locations, Hancock Generating Station
2-70
-------
100:1 DILUTION (0.2 fps)
4:1 DILUTION {2 fps}
2:6:1 DILUTION (3 fps)
PROFILE 9 i OF DISCHARGE
ELEVATION 377.3 FEET
5 FEET BELOW NORMAL POOL
HATER LINE
DISCHARGE PORT
0.9 cfs 9 6.5 fps
ONE UNIT - MINIMUM aOW
NORMAL POOL ELEVATION - 382.3 FEET
DISCHARGE FLOW RATE - 0.9 cfs
RIVER FLOW RATE - 13,000 cfs
(ONCE IN 10-YEAR 7-DAY
LOW FLOW}
^ RIVER
100:1 DILUTION (0.3 fps)
9:1 DILUTION (2 fps)
2.6:1 DILUTION (6.7 fps)
PROFILE 9 S.OF DISCHARGE
ELEVATION 377.3 FEET
5 FEET BELOW NORMAL POOL
WATER LINE
DISCHARGE PORT
2 cfs 9 14.5 fps
ONE UNIT - MAXIMUM FLOW
NORMAL POOL ELEVATION - 382.3 FEET
DISCHARGE FLOW RATE - 2.0 Cfs
RIVER FLOW RATE • 13,000 cfs
(ONCE IN 10-YEAR 7-DAY
LOW FLOW)
^ RIVER -
I BLOWDOWN PIPELINE
NORMAL POOL WATER LINE
ELEVATION 382.3 FEET
/
( BLONDOW PIPaiNE
NORMAL POOL WATER LINE
ELEVATION 382.3 FEET
/
25
FEET
N5
I
^4
100:1 DILUTION (0.2 fps)
3:1 OILUTION (2 fps)
2.6:1 DILUTION (2.3 fps)
PROFILE 9 7.3 FEET
5 FEET BELOW NORMAL POOL
WATER LINE
OiSCKARGE PORT
4.0 cfs 9 10.2 fps
SLOWDOWN PIPELINE
NORMAL POOL WATER LINE
ELEVATION 382.3 FEET
TWO UNITS - MAXIMUM FLOW
NORMAL POOL ELEVATION - 382.3 FEET ,
DISCHARGE FLOW RATE - 4,0 cfs
RIVER FLOW RATE - 13.000 cfs
(ONCE IN 10-YEAR 7-DAY
LOW FLOW)
£ RIVER
Oz
C>
/
25
FEET
SOURCE:
Sargent
& Lundy (1981)
Figure 2.1-17. Ohio River Discharge Mixing Zone, Hancock
Generating Station Units 1 attd 2
-------
cr
Li
>
cc
5
O
[cleanout]
PLAN VIEW
SOURCE: Sargent & Lundy (1981)
figure 2.1—18. Discharge Port, Hancock Generating Station
2-72
-------
Water Quality Assurance. KU proposes to monitor surface water
quality and groundwater quality each month, with quarterly reports to the
Kentucky DNREP and EPA Region IV. This program is a condition of the NPDES
permit, Part III (see Appendix 8.1).
2.1.4.4 Coal and Limestone Handling System
Plans for coal and limestone management at the Hancock plant include
a dual-purpose unloading and conveyor system. Both substances will be
delivered by 1500-ton barge to dock facilities located on the Ohio River (RM
715, Hancock site; RM 703.5, Breckinridge site).
Dock Facilities. Design of dock facilities proposed for the Hancock
site is shown in Figure 2.1-19. The unloader will require open barges, which
will be positioned at the dock by tow boat. The dock facilities will
accommodate 15 full coal barges, 9 full limestone barges, and the same number
of empty barges.
In reviewing the Applicant's application for a DA permit, the
Louisville District COE has determined that the barge and fleeting facility
arrangement now proposed for the Hancock site (Figure 2.1-19) is a significant
projection into the Ohio River and will present a moderate hazard to
navigation. Construction of the barge docking facilities will vary from
somewhat more than 600 feet (downstream end) to 370 feet (upstream end) inland
from the existing river channel. With docked barges, the outer barge will
reduce the faci1ity-to-sailing line distance to 265 feet at the upstream end.
Additional potential hazard to navigation is the chance of barge
breakaway at the docking facilities The Applicant will reduce the potential
for breakaway by having a tow boat at the site whenever barges are docked
there.
During the DA permit application review, the Applicant provided the
COE with 14 potential fossil-fuel power plant sites for evaluation of
navigation impact. These potential sites included the nine preferred sites
and five others identified in the site selection study described in Section
2.1.3. The COE rated each site on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = no impact, 3 =
moderate impact, and 5 = extreme impact. The Hancock site (Ohio RM 715)
received a 5 rating and the .Breckinridge site (RM 704) received a 4 rating.
The best rating received by a site having potential navigation impact was 2.
Among the preferred sites, L-8 and L-17, which would require fuel delivery by
rail, were given a 1 rating. Among the other preferred sites, 0-22 received a
5 rating, G-l, 0-8, 0-11, were given 3 ratings, and 0-12 received a 2 rating.
Unloader and Conveyor System. The bucket-ladder type unloader will
be designed to operate at full speed to empty a coal barge in about 50 minutes
and at one-half speed to unload the denser limestone at the same rate. The
unloader will feed into a covered conveyor system with a 520-foot-per-minute
belt speed, which is within maximum recommended speed (600 fpm) for conveying
crushed stone (Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association). The conveyor
system will be self-cleaning; chute-work at transfer points will be designed
to keep material dribble from accumulating; belt cleaning devices will be
installed at critical points; and empty conveyors will continue operation for
2-73
-------
~ f3fK7UGkY
oxm>. peat
uueTufriiMh ftuwT
H ^
s uivtyt-mo1 ^
LAT. i>7 -M' VJ.5'
UHHtf-W-ttfl'
t a>Jveyo«
^NLdN?!N« PKK<
HAMox^aeMEgATiM^ sta.
MtfTS;
BUwiMlOwi <*B Ikl FTOT <
TSUTWS />-«? «E«* TO
M.5.L. W3HUH.
PROPOSED COAL AND
LIMESTONE UNLOADING
DOCK
f Situation PLan
tcM» im f«T
MMWTUWHW
JANUARY 21, 1981
Veen.
• dh*t. tuttm ui«
SMO«ei.tME
CHANMtV, L|l
i (s&to*
vnt*»
<^ml*D : y.
t£OM. * UMK1M JtJLOM»K «£«4S
•0*0 M»H:
M compacted nu iioo cv
6)«»*A* __ , i r
cjcawoe MDCIH& vx> :y.
b) nwe eecowa , S» c-r.
e)c«u»H«?siBwe**o isocr.
HANCOCK S6tJ6 WiWS 5
PROPOSED COAL AN!
LIMESTONE UNLOADII
DOCK
MMEXmiMDY
JANUARY 21, 1981
Figure 2.1-19. Proposed Coal and Limestone Unloading Dock,
Hancock Generating Station
-------
a predetermined time prior to materia) changeover to allow maximum belt
cleaning.
From the dual-purpose coal and limestone conveyance structures,
limestone will be diverted to a separate limestone conveyor system via a gate
that will open only when the unloader system is in the limestone operating
mode. The limestone will go to an active stockout pile. A yard vehicle will
transfer the material to either an inactive storage pile or to a dual reclaim
conveyor system for transfer to daybins in the limestone preparation
building. Coal will be reclaimed from inactive storage by yard vehicles and
from active storage by gravity. It will be conveyed to a crusher house and
then to pulverizers for pneumatic feed to the boilers.
Fugitive Emissions. Collection systems with parallel fabric bag
filters will be at all transfer points in the conveyor systems. Exposed
storage piles will be compacted and watered as necessary; haul roads also will
be sprayed with water as necessary. Based on 50% emissions control for wet
suppression and 50 to 99% control efficiency for the other mechanisms, total
fugitive emissions are predicted to be 35.9 tons per year. Maximum 24-hour
fugitive emissions are estimated at 425 pounds per day (see Table 2.1-12).
Fugitive dust contamination from KU's inactive coal pile is a major
concern of a bleached pulp mill (Willamette Industries) that is located
adjacent to the Hancock site. There are two means of coal dust contamination
in the pulp process: deposition of airborne coal particles on Willamette's
wood chip storage piles (located approximately 7400 feet from KU's coal pile)
and incorporation of airborne coal particles into the bleached pulp during the
drying process (occurs in a building about 6000 feet from KU's coal pile).
Unlike other forms of fugitive dust, coal particles apparently cannot be
washed completely from the chips and pulp during various stages of the pulp
process. Potential impacts to the bleached pulp attributable to KU are
discussed in Section 3.2.2.
2.1.4.5 Site Development Procedures
KU will comply with erosion control procedures and those to mitigate
impacts to archaeological resources, as stipulated in the draft NPDES permit,
Part III (see Appendix 8.1 and Subsection 3.1.3.2). Additionally, KU will
require contractors to follow appropiate, low-impact procedures for waste
materials disposal, dust and emissions control, traffic control, and noise
control. These procedures will include sale of merchantable trees; burning of
slash and unsold timber; recycling of appropriate materials; compliance.with
collection and disposal regulations for fuels, lubricants, and other
chemicals; water spraying of exposed ground; use of excavated material for
fill; and proper designation of entrance and exit roads and parking areas. A
county sanitary landfill, recently required by Kentucky law, will be used for
scraps. Site clearing will occur in stages and developed areas will be
revegetated to the extent possible.
2.1.4.6 Transmission System
The transmission facilities and system tie-in requirements described
for the Hancock (Subsection 2.1.3.2) and Breckinridge (Subsection 2.1.3.3)
2-75
-------
sites represent the most efficient way to distribute power from the station to
KU's service area. New transmission construction will be minimized, thus
minimizing costs and environmental impacts. Prior to right-of-way selection,
alternative routes will be surveyed for cultural resource potential. Land use
and other characteristics of the land surrounding alternative routes from each
site have been identified (see Section 3.0)
Right-of-way development, like site development, will follow
appropriate and required procedures to minimize impact. The proposed use of
stacked steel transmission towers for the entire system, necessitated by
unavailability of suitable alternative design, will create a significant
visual contrast with existing wooden towers in the Elizabethtown corridor.
Similar impact will not occur along the new corridor segments.
Right-of-way maintenance procedures will employ selective vegetation
removal in sensitive areas and aerially applied herbicides in other areas.
KU's herbicide plan is a condition of the NPDES permit, Part III (see Appendix
8.1).
The transmission facilities for Unit 1 will be constructed during
1988 over a period of 5 to 6 months. Those for Unit 2 will be constructed
during 1993 over the entire year. Estimated manpower and costs breakdowns for
each unit and each site are:
Overhead and Material Costs
(^Million)
Breckinridge
Site
3.053
6.966
14.846
25.368
50.233
Costs are based on adjusted dollars.
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1980).
Labor Labor Salaries Hancock
(man-months) ($Million) site
Unit 1
Substation 60 0.202 3.053
Transmission Line 303 1.018 5.116
Unit 2
Substation 60 0.393 14.750
Transmission Line 720 3.145 30.128
Total 1143 4.758 53.047
2-76
-------
2.2 NO ACTION
As discussed in Section 1.2, Kentucky Utilities is projected to
require, as a minimum after Ghent Units 3 and 4, an additional 213 MW by 1989
and, as a minimum, an additional 892 MW by 1994. Without this new capacity,
the Applicant would not be able to serve the projected load levels. Any
additional load growth after 1994 will accentuate the need for this capacity.
At this time, KU knows of no source of additional capacity of suffi-
cient magnitude from neighboring utilities at a comparable cost. The
Applicant's purchase contract with OMU and EEI is for surplus capacity after
OMU and EEI take what they need. As their load grows, EEI's and OMU's needs
increase and KU gets progressively less surplus capacity. KU's need for
additional capacity to serve even the same KU load will increase each year as
the other utilities' loads grow.
The Applicant will have,- increasingly less ability to serve its loads
if load growth continues and additional capacity is not added. The nature of
a power system is that no more load can be supplied than the existing, connec-
ted generation can supply. Blackouts are the result of a greater load than
generation capability.
Rotating blackouts and load control are two common concepts of
reducing the customer's load. The Applicant's distribution system is not
designed, because it is not practical to do so, to allow a distribution
substation or feeder to be de-energized while at the same time leaving an
essential service energized (e.g., a hospital served from that feeder or
substation). Time, radio, and other forms of remote load control can be used,
as for example, in KU's off-peak water heating system. However, these
controls are dependent upon public acceptance, are subject to malfunction, and
would have to control successively more load as the population and number of
customers increase. Peak load pricing could be used to reduce the average
daily peak load, but it is doubtful if it would reduce the system peak loads
experienced during periods of extreme temperatures. Further, the social and
political acceptance of such a strategy is questioned. The social conscience
allowing peak load pricing when the temperature is sub-zero or in the high
901 s is questionable since these are exactly the weather conditions that
produce the system peak loads experienced.
In general, the effects of insufficient electric generating capacity
could ultimately influence the economy of the service area. Any quantitative
analysis of effects would be difficult to perform since each consumer (resi-
dential/commercial/industrial) would be affected differently. In time though,
without additions to the generating system and with an increasing consumer
base, no reserve capacity would be available. Further increases in the con-
sumer base would require, on a continuing basis, all consumers to reduce their
electrical consumption so that new consumers could share in the limited supply
of electrical power. Since new industry or major commercial developments
could not be assured of a viable source of electrical power, the tendency
would be to not locate in the affected regions.
Reductions in existing industrial or commercial production resulting
from inadequate electrical power supplies would lead to reductions in existing
2-77
-------
employment. Because new industrial or commercial development would he
unlikely, unemployment would not decrease and affected workers would be less
likely to expend their limited resources on goods and services.
It is recognized these effects would not be evident for several
years. However, blackouts during peak load conditions could occur on a move
frequent basis when the reserve capacity is reduced below an accepted level
(approximately 20% of the total system capacity). This level of reserve
capacity is projected to be reached in 1987/1988 (see Section 1.7.1).
The immediate effects of the no-action alternative (nonissuance of
an NPDES permit) would not significantly influence the environmental setting
of the project area. In fact, the existing environment would be expected, at
least for the near future, to retain its rural setting. Impacts (adverse and
beneficial) associated with the project (as discussed in Section 3.0) would
not be realized. Air increments and water resources would not be consumed,
vegetation would not be disrupted, barging traffic would not increase (due to
this project), vehicle traffic would not increase (due to this project), and
Hancock County would not realize tax monies that would be generated.
In the long term (within the life of the proposed project), some
industrial development of the site is likely because of its location on a
major navigable river, access to a rail system, and availability of water
resources. The proposed site represents highly desirable industrial real
estate and has been designated as a potential industrial site by the Kentucky
Department of Commerce and the Green River Area Development District. The
no-action alternative might allow the officials of Hancock County to attract
industrial development to the proposed site that is more favorable in the
county's perspective. Thus, it is unknown how in the long term the existing
environment would be affected.
2-78
-------
2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE COMMONWEALTH
OF KENTUCKY
The no-action alternative pertains to nonissuance of the NPDES
permit. Other permits can be denied. Decisionmakers also can defer action or
issue permits with conditions.
2.3.1 - Deny Permits
The effects of this alternative were basically described in the no
action scenario above. Major permits required for the project include those
previously mentioned (NPDES, PSD, DA) and a Certificate of Environmental
Compatibility, Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, Construction Permit,
Operations Permit, Water Quality Certificate, and Floodway Construction
Permit, all from Commonwealth agencies. Denial of any one of the permits
would preclude some of the impacts described herein. However, if the
Applicant's premise of need for the proposed generating station is accepted,
denying the project would cause tfhe other impacts described above.
2.3.2 Defer Decision
Decisionmakers have the option of not approving permits until other
information is known. There will be economic costs of deferral, primarily in
capital expenditures. The initial (1978) projection for the cost of
constructing Hancock Units 1 and 2 was $1.3 billion. The present (1981)
projection is $1.8 billion, based on an estimate of 10% annual inflation.
Kentucky Utilities may recoup these costs should the Public Service Commission
allow them to be passed along to customers.
Environmental impacts will not occur during the time that the
decisions are deferred. After the deferral period, these impacts will be
similar or identical to those described herein, depending on length of
deferral and changes in existing conditions.
The energy-related effects of a decision to defer Federal or
Commonwealth action were mentioned relative to denying permits. Obviously,
deferral of decisions will cause a delay in the availability of energy from
Hancock Units 1 and 2. If the Applicant's forecasts are correct, a source of
energy (e.g., short-term conservation, short-term curtailment) would be
required to meet loads now projected for 1989 through 1994, when Unit 1 would
have been operating. If the decision at the end of the deferral period is to
deny the permits, a vigorous program will have to be initiated to find
replacement resources over the short and long term.
2.3.3 Issue Permits With Conditions
If proposed Ohio River intake and discharge structures were
unsuitable because of adverse effects on erosion or navigation, the Corps of
Engineers could require change in those structures before issuing permits for
construction. Similarly, the COE could issue a permit that would require
modifications of the existing proposal for barge facilities.
2-79
-------
EPA could require construction or operational modifications to
protect the environment from effects of airborne emmissions or water quality
alterations, prior to issuance of the permits or as conditions to them.
The Kentucky Public Service Commission could influence the time
phased capacity increase by allowing price structures that promoted
conservation or implemented curtailment policies.
There are a number of other permit stipulation?; that could affect
the project. Where construction or operational modifications are requireds
the length of time necessary to design them and evaluate them may produce
effects similar to those described above.
2-30
-------
2.4 EPA's PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based upon a positive need for power determination from the Kentucky
Public Service Commission (KPSC) and EPA's evaluation of the impacts of the
proposed project and alternatives, EPA would find the project alternative
proposed by KU to be environmentally acceptable. The alternative preferred by
EPA would therefore be as follows:
Management: Additional generating units
Fuel: Coal
Site: Skillman Bottoms or Holt Bottoms
Waste heat rejection; Mechanical draft cooling towers with
offshore slotted screens (cooling water to be drawn from the Ohio
River)
Air emmissions control:
Particulates—electrostatic precipitators
Sulfur Dioxide—limestone scrubber
Nitrogen oxide—boiler design
Residual solid waste disposal: Stabilized waste disposed
onsite
Transmission facilities: Tie-in lines to corridors south of the
site
If, based on projected demands, the KPSC should determine the
Proposed Hancock County facility is not needed, EPA's preferred alternative
would be nonissuance of an NPDES permit.
The assessment of environmental impacts associated with alternative
siting options indicates that, overall, location of the power plant in
Breckinridge County (Holt Bottoms) could be environmentally and
socioeconomically preferable to siting the power plant in Hancock County
(Skillman Bottoms). However, both sites are environmentally acceptable.
The major significant issues that must be factored into the siting
determination are the cumulative impact of a 1300 MW (net) power plant and a
25,000 tons of coal per day synfuel plant in ttte Holt Bottoms area and the
nonenvironmental but potential incompatibility of the power plant and
Willamette Industries' paper mills in the Skillman Bottoms area.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Department of
Energy, has placed earnest money on the Holt Bottoms property proposed for the
synfuel plant. This particular tract was originally considered by KU as the
Breckinridge site alternative. The present Breckinridge site alternative is
north of the original site and on less favorable property. Additionally, the
cumulative operational impacts of these two projects would likely cause a
2-81
-------
severe stress on the air resources of Hie ari J more 88 for
a 1939 startup date. This would allow approximately 7 years for Willamette
and KU to develop and implement a program acceptable to both parties, which
would protect each party's interests.
The assessment of environmental impacts associated with KU's
proposed project included development of mitigative measures to reduce
potential adverse environmental impacts of the project. Specifically, EPA
recommends that:
(1) A groundwater monitoring program he implemented prior to
operation so that should any significant contamination of
groundwater occur, corrective measures may be instituted to
insure no further significant leaching.
(2) An erosion and sedimentation control program be implemented to
prevent silt and soil-ladden runoff during the. construction of
Units 1 & 2.
(3) The wastewater treatment ponds he lined with two (2) feet ol
compacted clay to reduce potential leachate contamination to
the groundwater regime.
(4) No herbicides be used prior to or during initial mechanical
clearing of proposed transmission corridors and that use in
corridor maintenance be limited to EPA approved products only.
(5) Runoff from the solid waste disposal ar^as be monitored to
ensure no significant impacts to surface water quality.
2-82
-------
(6) All consultation processes relative to significant onsite anci
transmission corridor cultural and archaeological sites be
completed prior to plant construction and that any required
excavation or mitigation be performed as recommended by the
parties (EPA, KU, Kentucky Heritage Commission, Department of
the Interior, Advisory Council) to such consultation.
Pending a determination of need for power from the KPSC, EPA would
propose to issue an NPDES permit to KU for Hancock County Generating Station
Units 1 and 2. A draft of the proposed NPDES permit is appended to the Draft
EIS (Appendix 8.1). The project authorized by the NPDES permit is that
described in the Draft EIS and KU's proposed project and shall incorporate all
measures identified as conditions of the permit (Part III conditions).
2-83
-------
2.5 MITIGATIVE MEASURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
In addition to measures listed in Section 2.4 that are c nuiitlons
for protecting the environment, other measures may be necpssary to mitigate
the potential for impact of Hancock Generating Station co.nl dust on' Wj 1 larrotte
Industries' bleached pulp and fine paper plant. Kentucky Utilities' currently
proposed mitigation for fugitive dust includes various equipment and
procedures for the coal and limestone handling system that have from 50% to
99% control efficiency. Proposed procedures for controlling fugitive dust-
emitted from the inactive limestone and coal piles are. compaction and vet.
(water) suppression, which are estimated to provide *>0% control . It is
believed that greater control efficiency for the inactive coal pil* could
further reduce the potential for impact on Willamette's products.
Three studies were done in an attempt to determine and describe
potential impacts of coal dust on Willamette's bleached pulp product. It
should be noted that Willamette currently is expanding operations to include
internal processing of the bleached pulp product, which, in the past, has all
been sold to other processors. Fine white paper production was not considered
in the impact analyses. The primary factor considered was contamination of
Willamette's wood chip pile that is- used for bleached pulp by fugitive dust
from KU's coal and limestone handling operations. Basically, because of the
apparent inability of the pulp producing process to effectively remove coal
particles, fugitive coal emissions were the ultimate concern.
The three impact. studies, conducted by Willamette, Kentucky
Utilities, and NAI., used three different methodologies. The important
differences in methodology were:
Study Computer Model Meteprology ¦ Emi ssi on Factor
Willamette Not used Local Not calculated
KU ISC model Evansville, IN .">0% control
Not a function
of wind speed.
NAI ISC model Local 0/- control
A function of
wind speed
The KU and NAI modeling further differ in that only the inactive
coal pile source was considered by NAI, while KU modeled a total of 15 sources
the largest of which was the inactive coal pile. The difference in the
estimated coal dust deposition predicted by the ISC model run bv NAI and KU
was for the most part due to the differences between the local" meteorology
used by NAI and the Evansville meteorology used by KU. 'finds in the critical
130 to 150 degree sector are reported by Evansville about ?X of the time and
by local meteorology about 157, of the time. NAI' s model run thus .predicted
greater deposition. The Willamette analysis did not employ computer modeling
of the coal duSl emxssxons but used local, mot e or o1og y t o estimate the n unib e r
of days per year that, the wood chip pile would receive contamination from the
coal storage area and based impact: on various levels of assumed concentrations
of coal dust.
2-84
-------
Neither of the studies that used air modeling showed a potential for
impact from KU on Willamette's bleached pulp due to significant increases in
dirt count. As explained in Section 3.2, dirt count is a function of visible
particles remaining in the pulp mat after a cleaning process, and it is the
quantifiable basis for pulp mat quality. The air modeling studies indicated
that coal dust would not increase dirt count sufficiently to change the pulp
grades However, none of the studies was capable of assessing the potential
for possible loss of brightness of the pulp mat due to the presence of
subvisible particles. There is no quantitative standard for calculating tint
change. There remains, although limited, a potential for degrading the pulp
quality due to loss of brightness. Additional measures for coal dust
emissions control are available and are discussed below.
A list of possible emission controls applicable to KU's inactive
coal storage operation is given in Table 2.5-1. Data summarized in the table
indicate that enclosures are among the most effective means of reducing
fugitive emissions, or in this (fase, protecting the wood chip pile should that
be considered. Power Engineering (June 1981) reports existing coal-storage
barns having 23,000- to 100,000-ton capacities; dimensions reported for a
50,000-ton barn were 588-foot length and 64-foot depth. KU's proposed
inactive coal storage capacity of 1.4 million tons occupying 22 acres probably
could not be contained in a single barn, and space as well as cost constraints
for suitable enclosures would be undesirable. Although not of the same
construction as a barn, the proposed enclosure (silo) for KU's active coal
storage of 16,000 tons (2 days supply at normal load) to 30,000 tons (2 days
supply at full load) will cost between $3 and $4 million in 1981 dollars,
according to costs reported by Power Engineering. With smaller per-unit-area
cost, a reduction in planned storage capacity possibly could make barn
enclosure for the inactive coal pile feasible. An alternative is to consider
enclosure for Willamette's wood chip pile, which is approximately 100,000
tons. A serious drawback for enclosure of either is fire and explosion
potential.
Partial enclosures or other types of wind-screening do not
effectively prevent wind erosion or permit capture of the storage emissions as
does total enclosure. Wind screens apparently would not be suitable to
Protect the wood chip pile either, since dust-ladden wind could go around or
over them. Natural or man-formed land masses for controlling wind erosion of
the coal pile do not appear feasible at the Hancock site. Location of the
coal pile adjacent to potential wind barriers would be possible only if the
pile were small enough to preclude eddying effects between the barrier and the
coal.
Based on the proposed size of the inactive storage pilechemical
wetting or encrusting agents appear to be the most practical mechanisms for
attaining maximum control efficiency. These agents apparently can be applied
at transfer points and retain their effectiveness in subsequent storage
operations. Chemical wetting agent application costs from $0.01 to $0.5 per
ton, while foams cost $0.02 to $0.10 per ton. As a drawback, Power
Engineering reports that water and chemical suppression may affect coal
handling and burning.
2-85
-------
As stated in KPA' p pre Cerred at U:rnat i vr , receipt ef. co.i I ot th<»
Hancock sits is scheduled for la88, and several years are available for
advanc ing technology and determining mitigation. In addi t ion 11» the no." si hie
measures for controlling fugitive emissions from the inactive coaL storage or
for protection of the wood chip pile, h means of upgrading the coaj oust:
removal efficiency of the pulp producing process could he enotlur alterative.
Table 2.5-1. Possible Emission Controls Applicable to
Kentucky Utilities Inactive Coal Storage
Efficiency,
Emission Points Control Procedures Percent
Loading onto piles Enclosure 70-99
Chemical wetting 80-90
agents or foam
Adjustable chutes 75
Movement of pile Enclosure 95-99
Chemical wetting agents 90
Watering SO
Traveling booms to no estimate
distribute material
Wind erosion Enclosure 95-99
Wind screens very low
Chemical wetting agents 90
or foam
Screening of material no estimate
prior to storage, with
fines (particles less than
100 microns) sent directly
to processing or to a storage
silo
Loadout Water spraying 50
Gravity feed onto conveyor 80
Stacker/reclaimer 25-50
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1977). Technical Guidance for
Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. EPA
450/3-77-010.
2-86
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Hancock, and Breckinridge sites and associated transmission corri-
dors are primarily in rural surroundings that are part of a larger region
containing 3 population centers: Evansville, Indiana and Owensboro and Louis-
ville, Kentucky (Figure 3.0-1). This region is expected to contribute most of
the proposed project's labor force because neither skill requirements nor
sufficient workers are available in the project counties. Environmental impact,
regardless of which site is developed, will be most noticeable in the 3 counties
surrounding the sites (3-county project area) and moderately so in
County, which contains some of the existing Elizabethtown corridor that will,
be widened for the Unit 2 transmission line (4-county project area).
The following sections contain summaries of existing conditions and
impacts on the human environment (Section 3.1), 3.2), W
resources (Section 3.3), and water resources (Section 3.4) of the Project
area. These and site-specific impacts are tabulated at the endI of each se^ion.
The t«>xt for each section is divided into subsections that closely follow
those in the Technical Appendix. Assumptions used ^ound in the
population and socioeconomics of the project area and region are found
Technical Appendix, along with other supporting information.
As mentioned in Section 2 of this document, site development plans
for the Breckinridge site have not been pursued to the same extent as those for
the Hancock site. Project-related surveys of groundwater quality have not been
done o^the Breckinridge site and archaeological surveys are incomplete. The
USDA Soil Conservation lervice survey of soil
on the Breckinridee site. Nevertheless, most of the salient effects o x
project can be estimated and significance o£ impact associated vith each site
ject can De escima that effects on certain environmental ele-
evaluated. It sometimes Is stated that ettec ^ developad. ^ ip]>u<,,
ments will be the same r®8a known or, in some instances, appropriate,
only to the level of detail that is Known or,
Tho assessment addresses, to the extent practical, the proposed
The impact asses , olant (H-Coal) adjacent to Kentucky
development of Ashland 0 s ^ Location of the H-Coal facility there is
tilitles proposed Breckinr 8® ^ ^ h Commonwealth of Kentucky has secured
a preferred alternative at present and the <£££ t# indications are that
a purchase option on t e an t area wouid be most impacted by simultaneous
the human environment of the p j power plant. Further, many of these
development of the H-Coal an QPf site is deveioped for the
cumulative impacts will occur reg;ard laborshed projected
Power plant. Most of the ^ ^fcause many synfuel workers are «r
Derr^anC°C^^Prf^eC^p«»r^ bounty, Indiana and other locations vest of the
pected to commute from Perry -JLxiated with stressed highways, housing,
Breckinridge site, the In Hancock County. Thus, all
P ice protection, etc., synfuel plant will not be solely incremental
adverse impacts associated with the y beneficial impacts attributable to
Jo «!'. Breckinridge ait^tive, ¦a£££ficl^ £ con8truction ^
KU will be overshadowed by the larger project v
force and up to 1500 operators)#
tt,ete are 9 energy P»^cts proposed^,
EvansvlH^and Setters 30 miles of Evansville. Concurrent or overlapping
3-1
-------
u>
I
Figure 3.0-1. Region of the Hancock and Breckinridge Sites
and the 4-County Proiect Area
-------
development of all would require a peak construction work force in 1986 of
more than 26,000. Only in 1988 will the Hancock project require a significant
part (12%) of the combined construction needs.
3.1 HUMAN FACTORS
Because industrialization is ongoing in the lower Ohio River Valley,
contractors, skilled labor, and materials necessary to support the Hancock
project are available in the region. This means that construction of the
proposed power plant and transmission system will not unduly strain the regional
economy and socioeconomic infrastructure. However, competing development may
slow response to KU's relatively small labor demand. Further, the communities in
the immediate vicinity of the Hancock and Breckinridge sites do not have services
or facilities adequate to deal with a major population influx. Thus, many of
the actual impacts to the humffn environment of the area will depend, in kind
and magnitude, on the response of the regional labor force to the demands of the
projects.
3.1.1 Population and Socioeconomic Conditions
Project-related population changes of sufficient magnitude to notice-
ably affect community infrastructure will occur only in the 3 counties surround-
ing the Hancock and Breckinridge sites. Unlike population changes, socio-
economic effects of the project will be more regional in nature since most of
the work force is expected to commute and substantial ($57 million) materials
and services are projected to be purchased from regional suppliers. No distin^
guishable changes in population or socioeconomic conditions are anticipated
from transmission system development.
3.1.1,1 Population
Baseline. Current (1980) population in the 3-county project area
is 43,783. Hancock County is least populated (7,710), followed by Breckinridge
(16,862) and Perry (19,211) counties. Growth since 1970 has been greatest in
Breckinridge County (14%), followed by Hancock (10%) and Perry (0.5%) counties.
Population density within 5 miles of the Hancock site is considerably greater
than that within 5 miles of the Breckinridge site (Figure 3.1-1). Cloverport
and Hawesville, Kentucky and Cannelton, Indiana are within this distance of
the Hancock site, and Tell City, Indiana, which is the largest close-by town
to either site, is adjacent to Cannelton. Stephensport, Kentucky, a. small
community, is just east of the Breckinridge site. Hawesville and Cannelton
are county seats; the county seat of Breckinridge County, Hardinsburg, is
about 22 highway miles southeast of the site. -These 3 counties combined have
less than 1/10 the combined populations of Owensboro (53,839), Evansville
(129,665), and Louisville (298,161). Louisville is the center of the largest
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) in the region (906,240).
Hardin County is the most populated (69,000+) within the 4-county
project area. Elizabethtown is the largest town (14,0004-), but Fort Knox is
the largest population center (37,000+). Most of the county's population is
located in Elizabethtown and locations north of there toward Louisville, so
that population density in the western part of the county containing the
Elizabethtown corridor is characteristic of rural areas and similar to that in
the 3-county project area.
3-3
-------
Figure 3.1-1. Residential Density Within 5 Miles of the Hancock (left circle) and
Breckinridge (right circle) Sites
-------
The project area and especially the sites are readily accessible by
railway (Louisville and Nashville) and waterway. Road access to the Hancock
site is via U.S. 60 and KY 1406. KY 144 leads to the Breckinridge site from
U.S. 60 and from the north. Westward, U.S. 60 goes to Owensboro, and eastward
it };oes to Fort Knox and then north to Louisville. The only four-lane stretch-
es are between HawesviLle and Lewisport and between Fort Knox and Louisville;
otherwise the highway is relatively difficult to travel, winding through rugged
terrain and frequently congested during peak travel periods. KY 86 goes east-
ward off U.S. 60 to Elizabethtown and provides access to that part of the
Elizabethtown corridor not accessed via U.S. 60. An alternative route to the
sites is 1-64 westward from Louisville through southern Indiana. Indiana
Route 37 southward from there to Tell City is newly upgraded but the single
river crossing in the 3-county project area - Cannelton to Hawesville - will
be a point of significant congestion during power plant construction. Large-
scale air services are limited to Louisville, although Evansville and Owensboro
have smaller commercial facilities. Tell City has interstate trucking service
and local bus lines service most of the project area towns.
Housing availability in the 3-county project area reflects population
migration characteristics, including little transience and turnover. Housing
starts have decreased recently, the rental market is limited (quantity and
quality), and there are fewer than 100 motel units in the vicinity of the sites,
including those in Tell City. Mobile homes have become popular but no trailer
parks exist. As indicated by relatively small population growth, most of the
3-county project area is still experiencing moderate to significant outmigration
that began when the river port boom ended. The closest towns with much available
housing are Owensboro and Elizabethtown.
Impacts. It is expected that somewhat more than 80% of the Hancock
Project construction work force will commute. Inmigration will be limited, so
that during the period 1982 to 1994, inmigrants attributable to the Hancock
project will increase population of the 3-county project area a maximum of
1.6% over current population (Table 3.1-1). The greatest increase will occur
in 1992, when inmigrant construction workers and operating personnel and depen-
dents are expected to be moire than 700. Somewhat lesser increases will occur
in 1987-88, associated with construction workers only, and in 1991 and 1993.
After 1994, operation inmigrants will permanently increase current area popula-
tion size by approximately 0.7%. It is expected that adequate numbers of
potential workers are available in the 3 counties to provide an indirect work
force sufficient to supply goods and services for the temporary and permanent
inmigrants.
Assuming greater inmigration will occur in the county of project
development, Hancock County will experience relatively greater growth than the
other counties should the power plant be built there because it is the least
populated county. Projected population growth in Hancock County from 1980 to
1990 is 6% without the project, which is less than Kentucky as a whole. Should
the plant be constructed in Breckinridge County and many inmigrants desire to
live in Cloverport near the plant, the town's population could increase
significantly because most of the county population is near Hardtnsburg and
eastward.
Housing demands of temporary and permanent inmigrants apparently can
he met, except for a shortfall of rental units in Hancock County. A greater
3-5
-------
problem could be the adequacy of motel and other temporary housing units in the
project area. At present, owners indicate about 50% occupancy of available
units, but expected transient construction personnel, visiting equipment
installers, inspectors, etc. will exceed available capacity. The ability of
Owensboro to offset shortfalls of permanent and temporary housing demand will
be substantially reduced by development of other proposed projects. Development
of the H-Coal project would induce construction of permanent and temporary
units but, prior to balance of supply and demand, competition for available
units would be great and prices would escalate significantly.
Existing rail, barge, and other commercial transportation is not
expected to be impacted by the Hancock project. Neither is impact expected on
road transportation due to the transmission facilities. However, as indicated
above, poor traveling conditions on U.S. 60 are expected to worsen considerably
because of increased auto traffic. As in the case of housing, road construction
probably would be induced by H-Coal development but there could be a period of
major impact prior to upgrading.
3.1.1.2 Socioeconomic Conditions
Baseline. Perry and Hardin counties have long-established and diverse
industrial-bases. Hancock County recently has expanded its industrial base
to account for most of its economic activity and make it the leader in per
capita and median household income. Industrial diversity there is still less
than in Perry County, but greater than in Breckinridge County, where industrial
activity remains limited. The two largest industrial employers in the project
area are Southwire companies in Hancock County and William Tell companies in
Perry County. Unemployment is high in Perry and Hancock counties (10.3 and
8.1% in 1978) and about at the national average in the others.
In line with their diversified industrial base, Perry and Hardin
counties have the highest per capita retail sales. Retail sale activity in
Hancock County is out of line with industrial activity, with per capita sales
1/2 and total volume 1/4 that of Breckinridge County. Retail sales and
agriculture each account for more than 30% of Breckinridge economic activity.
Only in Hancock County is income generated greater than income,
received, indicating significant commuting to the county. Income generated in
Breckinridge is far less than that received by the residents (S28.6 million
versus $81.4 million), indicating a large work force commuting to other counties.
Similarly, 1000 workers commute from Perry County to others, especially to
Hancock County.
All of the Kentucky counties of the project area (where the power-
plant and transmission facilities will most increase tax bases) enjoy favorable
balances between revenues and expenditures. To offset revenue loss because of
the relatively large number of nonresident workers, Hancock County has a 1%
occupational tax. County and municipal services provided by taxes in each
county (police, water, sewage treatment, etc.) generally are adequate for the
current population but some are only marginal. Schools in Hancock and Hardin
counties have student/teacher ratios somewhat above the Commonwealth average,
while that in Breckinridge County is somewhat lower. The status of government
services in Perry County, which will be affected during project construction,
is similar to that of the Kentucky counties; student/teacher ratio is lower
3-6
-------
than the Indiana average.
The demand for social services among the project area counties is
generally high. The level of services correlates somewhat with the overall
level of-economic development, with Breckinridge County indicating the greatest
need.
People in Perry, Breckinridge, and Hancock counties tend to have a
strong sense of community and attachment to their land and lifestyle. Similar
attachment is weaker in Hardin County with its larger military and suburban
populations. Much of the effort to attract industrial development to the three
smaller counties is motivated by a strong desire to maintain economic viability
so that people are not forced to leave in order to survive. Industrialization,
in turn, has led to an influx of new residents, which is perceived as an
acceptable tradeoff necessary to viability. There is, however, a careful
weighing of industrial benefits versus lost opportunities associated with
development, and the communities (especially Hancock and Perry counties) are
quite selective in their solicitations.
Impacts. Maximum direct employment for the Hancock project probably
will occur during 1992, with a total of about 1046 jobs (916 construction
workers, 130 operators) and direct salaries and wages of $84 million (Table
3«l-l). Within the 17-county laborshed, the number of prospective workers
represents 0.15% of the total labor force in 1978, 3.2% of those unemployed,
and 6.5% of the estimated construction labor pool of 16,000 (estimated by
applying state construction worker percentages to each county's labor force).
^ construction work force required during 1992 exceeds the approximately 875
unemployed construction workers in the region in 1978, as does the peak con-
struction work force required in 1987-1988 (981 workers). In all other project
years the required work force could theoretically be obtained within the region.
The peak years could offset regional unemployment significantly, although
skill requirements could reduce the offset somewhat. Competing projects may
not seriously impact labor availability for the Hancock project, but the proposed
Pattern of development emphasizes the importance of the Louisville area as a
labor source and de-emphasizes the potential importance of Owensboro and
Evansville.
The peak direct income projected for the Hancock project in 1992
represents an increase of 0.3% in regional income over what would be expected
without the project. Secondary employment and income resulting from the project
is Projected to accrue on the basis of one indirect job for each direct jo*b
and 90% of the income. The peak combined income from both direct and indirect
Hancock project employment will be $167.5 million in 1992; this will represent
about 0.5% of the total regional income.
For projecting regional and project area socioeconomic effects, a
constant contribution of construction labor was assumed:
3-7
-------
4-county project area (Hancock,
Breckinridge, Hardin and Perry
counties)
28/,
Jefferson County, Kentucky hit
(Louisville)
Daviess County, Kentucky 8%
(Owensboro)
Other Kentucky counties 9%
Vanderburg County, Indiana 9%
(Evansville)
Other Indiana counties 3/,',
Additionally, as mentioned previously, greatest inmigratlon is expected to
occur in the county of development, so that sources of effects basically are
flip-flopped between Breckinridge and Hancock counties when each alternative is
considered (Table 3..1-1).
The peak direct income from the project under the Hancock alternative
will increase projected 1992 effective buying income (EBI: income after taxes,
contributions, fines, fees, legal penalties) in that county by 4.4% ($7.8
million). Adding 90% induced income from the project would increase that to
about 8%. Significant increases will not be noticed until 1986, peaks will
occur in 1988 and 1992, and then direct project EBI will level off at about
2.25% of the county total from 1995 through the life of the project, if no
other changes in the economic structure occur. Per capita income will not be
raised significantly during operation because the average project-related EBI
is expected to be the same as the projected average EBI in the county witho.it
the project.
Under the Breckinridge alternative, direct income will increase
projected 1992 Breckinridge County EBI by 2.5£. Direct project EBI during
operation of the plant will represent 1.2% of county EBT. The significance of
the project on the Breckinridge site is that it will increase projected average
EBI in that county for the life of the plant. Further, the project would
create jobs in a sector of the economy that currently is small.
Because most structural materials for the project will be purchased
outside the region, and because the project is not expected to induce satellite
industry, benefits to regional industry will not be widespread. Effects on
agricultural activity also will be localized and dependent, on plant site.
Unlike industry and agriculture, however, businesses in both the region and
project area will benefit to a certain extent, based on work force distribution
and availability of support functions. Total potential expenditures in the 17-
county laborshed could be as much as $233.33 million during construction,
exclusive of any expenditures for heavy equipment and construction materials.
The secondary effects of these expenditures can be assumed to be the generation
of an approximately equal number of indirect dollars.
3-8
-------
The 4-county project area may receive as much as $117.62 million of
direct expenditures. Patterns of dispersal are expected to follow present ones
(e.g., more retail sales will occur in Perry and Hardin counties) since the
project is not expected to alter distribution of goods and services. Concurrent
development of the H—Coal facility, however, would probably lead to additional
business establishment in Hawesville as well as in Cloverport and alter shop-
ping patterns.
Taxes from the project are expected to eventually sustain public
costs associated with it, but there may be a lag of several years between need
for and receipt of additional revenues. The relative increase in local property
taxes resulting from this project would be more significant in Breckinridge
than in Hancock County because Breckinridge relies more heavily on property
taxes for total revenue; other tax impacts that would occur at the state and
Federal levels would be comparable.
Social services probably will not be adversely impacted as a result
of the proposed project because the net effect will be to improve the overall
economy in the project area. Strain on emergency medical services will be
reduced by onsite first aid. However, there will be greater risk of road
accidents during the construction phase of the project, and traffic congestion
could slow access to hospitals in Hardinsburg, Tell City and Owensboro for
accident victims and others. Police protection also could be impacted during
construction unless personnel are added. Other municipal services are not
expected to be significantly affected.
3.1.2 Land Use
Baseline. Agricultural land comprises somewhat more than 1/3 of
the project area, with cropland (predominantly soybeans, much corn, patches of
tobacco) more extensive than pasture. Hilly locations, some partially
are used for pasture, and bottomlands are used for crops. Woodlands which
predominate in the uplands, are the most extensive land use ia the 3 counties
surrounding the sites. Commercial and industrial activiti®8 ^
near the Ohio River. Residential locations tend to extend inland and up the
hills, as shown in Figure 3.1-1.
Mineral resources include coal, petroleum, shales, and _clays in
Hancock and Breckinridge counties and stone (shale, sandstone and limestone)
in Perry County. Hancock County •» ^ of coal in 1978'"i
SMS/Lrtrof on"County produces 300 to 500 barrels
r%rLSyadyhaseP: neeS
ounty s recent c p uools are * in the Hancock transmission
corrldor'aM^everal^/econdary recovery pool^are in the Breckinridge corridor.
Along the Elizabethtown corridor, there is no oil or gas and little quarrying.
Reflecting their proximity to the river, both sites are predominantly
agricultural (Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3):
3-9
-------
- tt
* \ \ y ^'
&*&* sr-" '.? p
r ¦ _ :• ><• *' . -
r r'j
u 1
LOWLAND HARDWOODS
' 2
UPLAND HARDWOODS
" 3
CONIFEROUS FORESTS
4
TRFf FARMS
5
OLD FIELDS
6
WETLANDS
7
CROPLAND AND PASTURE
a. CULTIVATED FIELDS
(1) CORN
(2) SOYBEANS
(3) TOBACCO
(4) HAY
b. FALLOW FIELDS
8
CORRIDORS
9
RESIDENTIAL
10
COMMERCIAL
11
INDUSTRIAL
1?
WATER
mm
SITE BOUNOARY
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-2. Land Use/Land Cover, Hancock Site, 1979
3-10
-------
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)'
Figure 3.1-3. Land Use/Land Cover, Breckinridge Site, 1979
-------
Acres (% of Total)
Land Use/ Land Cover
Hancock
Breckinridge
Agricultural
1509 (65)
1430 (58)
Woodlands
662 (28)
959 (38)
Old Field
105 ( 5)
52 ( 2)
Wetland
4 «1)
0
Corridors
14 «1)
8 «1)
Residential
20 ( 1)
22 ( 1)
Water
11 «1)
23 ( 1)
Crop yields are higher on the Hancock site, as is timber yield. Little land on
the sites is used for livestock production, although it is common on the
Breckinridge transmission corridor and fairly so on the Hancock corridor. The
Hancock corridor is 78% woodlands (Figure 3.1-4); the terrain generally is
hilly and rugged; houses are widely scattered; highway access is limited; and
there are no commercial or industrial activities. The Breckinridge corridor is
40% agricultural (Figure 3.1-5). It is more open and accessible than the
Hancock corridor, so that existing transmission facilities are quite visible
and the landscape in general is less sensitive to intrusion.
The Elizabethtown corridor also is predominantly agricultural. There
are several small communities near it, with Hardinsburg and the edge of
Elizabethtown at the terminus the largest residential concentration. Entry
from highways is good, as is development of farm roads and other proximate
accesses. More than a dozen streams are crossed by the corridor, with the most
sensitive water-body crossings located between the Hancock and Breckinridge
corridors (Clover Creek complex) and near Vertrees in Hardin County (Hicks Lake
wetlands complex).
Hunting and fishing are common recreation in the project area,
including on the sites and corridors. There are numerous ballfields, small
parks, and picnic areas near Hawesville, Cannelton, and Cloverport, as well as
a large municipal recreation complex in Cloverport and newly developed, multi-
purpose Vastwood Park near Hawesville. Commercial and sport fishing occur ori
the Ohio River, although according to the Ohio River Basin Commission (ORBC),
both are 50% below the expected level because of turbidity, debris, and river
traffic. The two largest recreational facilities in the vicinity are Hoosier
National Forest, which is across the Ohio River from the sites, and Rough
River State Resort Park, which is on the southern boundary of Breckinridge
County. Owensboro is the closest town having a variety of music, art, and thea-
ter opportunities.
Both sites are adjacent to locations of recreational and environmental
significance: Jeffry Cliff at the Hancock site and Town Creek at the Breckin-
ridge site. Town Creek has been given priority status by the ORBC as a wetland
embayment of sufficient significance to preserve. Jeffry Cliff has been pro-
posed as a recreation site by area planners. In both cases, funding has not
been identified.
Breckinridge County is in Kentucky's Lincoln Trail Area Development
District (ADD), while Hancock County is in the Green River ADD. Hancock
County has an Urban Planning Commission, which has instigated zoning only in
3-12
-------
Vii;.-
, •> \
V. ***£•#¦>„. ,f
*v£ ••«.$•• -a
•¦w0«S -«rP » t X¦¦. .? -
~ -1
f w
>
& V.'
*;«
•t> J \V lh- '•
,;-"V l . ... . J* .. ;. 1
W.|l *
^4'*
~ AGRICULTURAL AREAS
» FORRESTO AREAS
o M,liS 1
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-4. Agricultural Land Use, Hancock Transmission Corridor, 1979
3-13
-------
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-5. Agricultural Land Use, Breckinridge Transmission Corridor, 1979
3-14
-------
Hawesville and Lewisport. Perry County has countywide zoning and subdivision
rules. Breckinridge County has no zoning. In cooperation with various ADDs
and other agencies, The Kentucky Department of Commerce has designated low,
level locations in the project area, including those on both sites, as potential
industrial land.
Impacts. The project will expand industrial land use and preempt
agricultural and woodland land use primarily (Table 3.1-1). Impact to the
recreational potential of Town Creek embayment should be temporary from activity
associated with constructing the generating station. Impact to Jeffry Cliff
recreational potential would be long-term because the plant site virtually
surrounds currently used access points. Impacts to mineral resource potential
along either corridor probably can be avoided by appropriate center line place-
ment, although this will be more difficult, in consideration with other aspects
of ROW alignment, on the Hancock corridor. The project is not expected to
significantly expand or create new residential land use in any of the project
area counties because relatively few permanent inmigrants are anticipated.
Cloverport and/or the residential area between Hawesville and Lewisport are
expected to increase somewhat.
3.1.3 Cultural Factors
3.1.3.1 Visual Resources
Baseline/Impacts. Both the Hancock and Breckinridge sites are
consistent with the landscape continuity of their geographical setting in that
both are characteristic of Ohio River valley lowlands in western Kentucky.
Aesthetic differences between the 2 sites are generally due to variations in
extent and location of contrasting landforms, visual boundaries, and adjacent
land use. The Hancock site, with Jeffry Cliff (Figure 3.1-6), riparian vegeta-
tion associated with 3 streams, and a greater extent of gently rolling topo-
graphy, has greater visual contrasts and diversity than does the Breckinridge
site (Table 3.1-1). It also is in view of U.S. 60, Indiana route 66 across
the river, and Kentucky route 1406 (Figure 3.1-7). In contrast, much of the
Breckinridge site is not visible from Kentucky route 144 (Figure 3.1-8) and
none can be seen from U.S. 60 or from a major road in Indiana. Croplands and
woodlands on the Breckinridge site form large blocks, so that the site generally
lacks the mosaic pattern created by the 3 streams and other forms on the Hancock
site. The most incompatible land use is the paper plant adjacent to the.Han-
cock site.
The Hancock transmission corridor exnibits a continuity of wooded
ridges with limited visual contrast. Visibility of the corridor is limited to
a few roads, and except for areas cleared for farming, the landscape is relat-
ively undisturbed. The Breckinridge corridor, like the Hancock site, has
scattered ridgetops that provide broad vistas of farmlands. Visibility is
high because of the amount of farmland and number of roads. Existing transmis-
sion lines in the Hancock corridor are generally screened by woods, whereas
those in the Breckinridge corridor are clearly seen. Landscape of the Eliza-
bethtown corridor is mostly gently rolling hills and valleys, with one rugged
area southeast of Cloverport providing the most contrasting landforms.
3-15
-------
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-6. View of Jeffry Cliff, 1980 (from Hwy. 1406)
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-7. View of Jeffry Cliff, 1980 (from Skillman Road)
-------
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-8. View of Breckinridge Site from Highway 144, 1980
3.1.3.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources
Ar-oWlnHcal Baseline. The Hancock and Breckinridge sites were
occupied in prehistoric ti^fTom Paleo-Indian to Mississipian and historically
upied in prefti nresent. The prehistoric settlement pattern generally
from about 1807 to the PresenL' ine P lower river terraces and on the edges
consists of large sites situated as base camps> contain
s.r'from sma11 actlvlty
areas or campsites to base camps with deep ep
A total of 95 sites with prehistoric components was examined on the
Hancock site. Of these 28 ^ th* ^Kentucky
Ntilities^asseasment'of these sites Ire contained in the NPDES permit stipo-
latlons.
Aft ar-rhapnloeical sites (two of which had
On the Breckinridge site, 68 recommended for further
been previously documented) were bu y Breckinridge site eliminated
study. A change in the proposed boundaries CFigure 3.1-10).
lo of these 15 prehistoric sites -i M n_ 0f the revised Breckinridge site
Other prehistoric sites may exist in portions of the revised
3-17
-------
Figure 3.1-9. Significant Archaeological Sites, Hancock Site, 1980
3-18
-------
Figure 3.1-10. Significant Archaeological Sites, Breckinridge Site, 1980
-------
that were not included in the cultural survey (approximately 850 acres) , although
most of these acres are uplands. The Holt Bottoms Archaeological District
south of the Breckinridge site is the only archaeological site in the project
area that is on the National Register of Historic Places.
A complete cultural survey of the Unit 1 transmission corridor and
an archaelogical survey of the new right-of-way added to the Elizabethtown
corridor will be done when the center line of the new corridor is determined
and prior to beginning construction along the Elizabethtown corridor.
Historic Baseline. Evidence of historic sites and standing struc-
tures, dating from the early 1800s is found generally on the upper terraces
and ridges of both sites. An apparent outmigration from the areas occurred in
the 1950s and 1960s leaving many houses abandoned and in poor condition.
Recent houses have been constructed on some of the more desirable abandoned
house sites.
Twenty-four standing structures were surveyed on the Hancock site.
None was determined by the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
to be eligible for nomination to the National Register. Rock shelters at Jeffry
Cliff are reported to have been used as campsites for Morgan's raiders during
the Civil War. There are 7 historic cemeteries on the site (Table 3.1-1).
Ten structures on the Indiana side of the Chio River that are in view
of either the Hancock or Breckinridge site were submitted to the Indiana State
Historic Preservation Officer for evaluation. Three structures overlooking the
Hancock site and one across from the Breckinridge site were determined to be
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Across
from the Hancock site are Lafayette Springs, which is a rock bluff with a
marker commemorating the location where Lafayette spent the night after the
steamer Mechanic sank in the Ohio River, May 9, 1825; the Mason House, an unoc-
cupied two-story frame Italianate house located near Rocky Point Marina; and
the Wilbur House, an occupied two-story frame Italianate structure located
near the Cannelton Lock and Dam. The potential National Register candidate
across from the Breckinridge site is a one and one-half story frame Carpenter
Gothic house believed to have been built in the 1880s.
Nineteen standing structures were surveyed on the Breckinridge site,
but changes in KU's boundaries eliminated 7 of them. Among the remaining
structures, 6 are presently occupied houses, 4 are unoccupied or abandoned
houses (one of these abandoned house locations contains a group of 10 individual
houses previously used by No. 45 Lock and Dam employees), one is an abandoned
church, and one is the powerhouse associated with the former No. 45 Lock and
Dam. None was determined by the Kentucky SHPO to be eligible for nomination
to the National Register. There are 3 historic cemeteries on the site.
Two structures on the Breckinridge site, the Joseph Holt House and
the Holt Chapel (Figures 3.1-11 and 3.1-12), are on the National Register of
Historic Places. The Holt House, which is presently unoccupied and in fair
condition, was constructed in 1850 and expanded in the 1870s; it exhibits
Italianate Villa features. The Holt Chapel, built in 1871, is a Gothic Revival
structure that is now abandoned and deteriorating.
3-20
-------
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (3980)
Figure 3.1-11. Joseph Holt House, Breckinridge Site, 1980
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-12. Holt Chapel, Breckinridge Site, 1980
3-21
-------
Fifteen structures of possible historic value were surveyed along the
Elizabethtown corridor. One of these, the Pirtle-Klinglesmith House, was built
circa 1808 and was designated a Kentucky Landmark in 1972 by the Kentucky
Heritage Commission. A second structure, the Stamper Pirtle House (Figure
3.1-13), was determined by the Kentucky SHPO to be eligible for nomination to
the National Register. The Stamper Pirtle House is a two-story, five-bay
Italianate structure that is believed to have been built in the late 1800s. It
is located less than one mile from the Pirtle-Klinglesmith House on highway 86
in Howe Valley, Kentucky. It is roughly 300 feet from the existing corridor,
while the Pirtle-Klinglesmith House is about 1100 feet away.
Impacts~ Evaluation of the project area's archaeological and histor-
ical resources and assessment of impacts is based on criteria defined in 36
CFR 800. Each of the cultural sites will be indirectly affected by land mod-
ification activities. The predominately rural character of the plant site
area will be changed to an industrial setting and the presence of transmission
lines in rural areas will create an out of character visual element. Construc-
tion of buildings, roads, pipelines, and docks on the plant site will disturb
archaeological and historic sites on lowland areas and along the Ohio River,
while landfills will alter those sites in uplands. Because of extensive pre-
construction evaluation and salvage of known sites and instructions to work
crews to report undiscovered sites, loss of unknown sites is not expected.
Any unknown sites in locations not excavated for construction will be left for
future discovery.
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.1-13. Stamper Pirtle House, Elizabethtown Transmission
Corridor, 1980
3-22
-------
There will be no impact on National Register historic sites on the
Hancock site. Seven of the potential National Register archaeological sites
are in locations where facilities are proposed (see Figures 2.1-2 and 3.1-9):
15HA124 is the location of pond C; L5HA131 is in the main facilities area;
15HA138 is by the cooling tower location; 15HA144, 15HA146, and 15HA152 are
within the cooling tower make-up pipeline and blowdown pipeling right-of-way;
and 15HA156 is at the bridge and access road to the barge unloader. Eight of
the archaeological sites are in locations to be used during landfill operations:
15HA111, 15HA114, 15HA116, 15HA117, 15UA118, 15HA180, 15HA181, and 15HA182.
The remaining sites possibly would be affected by construction activities in
general and/or landfill activities. Two cemeteries, Lake Cemetery and Flake
Cemetery, are located in one of the landfill areas. The Younger-Brashear
Cemetery is near the main facilities area.
On the Breckinridge sit.e, the Holt Chapel is likely to be affected by
general construction near the SO2 removal equipment (see Figures 2.1-7 and
3.1-10. The Holt House is not likely to be directly affected by construction,
although its location on Highway 144 makes it subject to impacts from increased
traffic, noise, and fugitive dust. Four of the potential National Register
archaeological sites are in locations where facilities will be constructed:
15BC90 is near the SO2 removal equipment; 15BC93 is in the area of the inactive
coal pile; 15BC99 is in the area of the coal and limestone barge unloading
facilities; and 15BC19 is in the area of the inactive coal pile, limestone
diverter house, stockout pile, and transfer house. The remaining site is on
the Ohio River and, although near the barge facilities, is less likely to be
directly affected by construction activities. The three cemeteries are located
near construction areas and may not be directly disturbed. A slave cemetery is
adjacent to the access road to the makeup pump house, the Burk-Stephens Cemetery
is near a landfill area, and Holt Cemetery is on Highway 144, which will be the
wain access to the site.
The Stamper Pirtle House on the Elizabethtown corridor will be
subjected to short-term increased traffic, noise, and fugitive dust during
local construction of the Unit 2 transmission system. For the long-term, the
addition of another transmission line (especially one that will create an
adverse visual contrast with the existing line) will intensify the aesthetic
impact on its viewshed.
The Indiana SHPO has determined that there will be no adverse impact
from development of either site on the Indiana historic structures eligible for
nomination to the National Register.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800, EPA Region IV completed nomination
forms for the eligible historic structures and initiated consultation with the
Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places.
3-23
-------
Table 3.1-1.
The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 1 of 13)
Affected Environment
Population
Population Size
and Distribution
Source of Impact
or Effect
Immigration of project
workers and dependents:
Peak inmigration (714)
in 1992, including tem-
porary (480) and perma-
nent (234) residents.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Assumed distribution in 3-
county area would mean maxi-
mum population increase in
1992 of 5.5% over 1980 Hancock
County population level.
Assumed distribution in 3-
county area would mean maxi-
mum increase of 2.5% in
Breckinridge county population
over 1980 level.
Increase of as much as 25% in
the portion of the county in
which the site is located.
Curat ion/Significance
During construction period
(1982-1994), KU project will
temporarily increase popula-
tion in the 3-county project
area by as much as 1.6% over
current population.
Permanent inmigrants
by 1994 ( 324).
u>
I
ho
JS
Housi ng
Concurrent development
of H-Coal project.
Inmigration of con-
struction and operation
personnel.
Approximately 4% increase in
county population.
Greatest concentration of new
residents in county expected
west of site from llawesville
to Lewi sport.
Maximum combined influx of
2700 construction workers and
dependents in 1986 would in-
crease 3-county project area
population by 4.5% over KU
increase.
Potential for one-third of
H-Coal operating inmigrants to
settle in Hancock County.
Maximum demand for 86 purchase
units in Hancock County, 29 in
Perry County, and 12 in Breck-
inridge County.
Rental unit maximum demand
of 41 in Hancock County, 41
in Perry County, and 17 in
Breckinridge County.
Approximately 2% increase in
county population.
Expected location of new resi-
dents in Cloverport area.
Same.
Potential for at least one-
third of operating inmigrants
to settle in Breckinridge
County.
Maximum demand for 86 purchase
units in Breckinridge County,
29 in Perry County, and 12 in
Hancock County.
Rental unit maximum demand of
41 in Breckinridge County, 41
in Perry County, and 17 in
Hancock County.
After 1994, project will per-
manently increase project area
population by approximately
0.7%.
Influx of new population may
slow outmigration from both
counties and cause greater
overall rate of population
growth.
Approximately 4 times greater
temporary increase in project
area population from inmigra-
tion of construction workers
and at least 5 times greater
permanent increase from opera-
tion personnel.
H-coal development will over-
shadow population changes
caused by the KU project.
Based on 1970 housing avail-
ability, a shortfall of 16
rental units in Hancock with
Hancock alternative and a few
rental units there with the
Breckinridge alternative.
Rental demands probably can be
met in other counties, but
locations may be undesirable.
Purchase demand apparently can
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 2 of 13)
Affected Environment
Housing (Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Duration/Si gnificance
be met under any alternative,
but desired quality may
necessitate new construction.
Inmigrant operation
personnel.
Transients and visitors
associated with the
project.
Net purchase demand of 57
units in Hancock County.
Demand for motel, trailer, and
similar units.
Net purchase demand of 57
units in Breckinridge County.
Same.
Strain on project area's 100
motel units likely; virtually
no other similar facilities
avail able.
Concurrent development
of H-Coal project.
Significantly increased com-
petition for housing demand.
Same.
Will induce large-scale housing
construction, but will initi-
ally raise prices of available
units.
OJ
1
NO
Ul
Transportation
Construction work
force.
Operation work force.
Construction and opera-
tion of the power
plant.
Concurrent H-Coal
development.
Maximum increase of 550 cars
per day on U.S. 60 and Hwy
1406.
Same on U.S. 60 and H\i(y 144.
Increased usage of Hwy 1406
by 60% over present.
Increased highway, barge, and
rail traffic.
Greatly increased usage of
U.S. 60.
Double existing usage of Hwy
144.
Same.
Greatly increased usage of
U.S. 60 and Hwy 144.
Hancock alternative would
increase U.S. 60 usage near
Hawesville by 50% and Hwy 1406
usage by 100%; major impact due
to U.S. 60 conditions. Breck-
inridge alternative could have
less impact on U.S. 60 traffic
if some commuters from Louis-
ville use H»
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 3 of
Hancock Project,
13)
Affected Environment
Transportation
(Cent.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Transmission construc-
tion.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Access road construction.
Disruption of road travel.
Same.
iocioecononic
Conditions
Regional Employ-
ment and Income
Peak construction work
force in 198S (981).
Employment of 113 Hancock
County workers with effective
buying income (EBI) of $4.7
mil 1 ion.
Same.
I
ro
Peak employment in
1992 (916 construction
workers, 130 opera-
tors).
Employment of 208 Hancock
County workers with (EBI) of
$7.8 mill ion.
Maximum increase in Hancock
County income directly from
construction will be about
4.4%.
Same.
Maximum increase in Breckin-
ridge County income directly
from construction will be
about 2.5%.
Operating personnel
from 1994 throughout
project (180)
72 local hires; 108 inmi-
grants; all assumed to reside
in Hancock County.
Project EB! will represent
2.25% of county EBI.
Same.
Project EBI will represent
1.2% of county EBI.
Durat i on/ Si gni f l cance
Will increase road miles along
Unit 1 corridor. Disruption of
traffic will be controlled and
no impact expected.
Approximately 28% of the con-
struction work force is ex-
pected to come from the 4-
county project area, the rest
coming from the other counties
in the 17-county region. Peak
direct salaries $63.5 million.
Peak work force requirements in
1988 and 1992 will exceed the
approximately 875 unemployed
construction workers in the 17-
county region in 1978. Re-
quired work force for all other
years could be obtained within
the region.
Peak direct income from the
project. ($84 million) repre-
sents 0.3% increase in 17-
county regional income.
Breckinri.dge alternative will
be of greater benefit to that
county than will the Hancock
alternative to Hancock County:
project-related average EBI is
$44,000; projected average
Hancock Co. EBI without
the project is the same; pro-
jected average Breckinridge
Co. EBI without the project
is $32,450. Industrial sector
is small in Breckinridge Co.
and large in Hancock Co.
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 4 of 13)
Affected Environment
Business
Source of Impact
or Effect
Direct expenditures by
KU, inmigrants, and
conmuting workers.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Us
I
NJ
^4
Industry
Agriculture (see
land use)
Taxes
Presence of power
plant.
State income taxes.
Federal income taxes.
County and local taxes.
Increased local and regional
business activity.
Estimated direct increase in
retail business activity in
project area from plant con-
struction = $117.62 million.
Indirect business activity
would increase at the rate of
90%.
Hot expected to induce satel-
lite industries.
Estimated payment range during
construction of $30 thousand
in 1982 to $3.6 million in
1992.
Estimated payment during
operation of $6 million.
Estimated payment range dur-
ing construction of $174,000
(1982) to $21 million (1992).
Estimated payment during
operation of $35 million.
Personal taxes. Hancock
County's occupational tax will
accrue an estimated $3.1 mil-
lion during construction of
the plant, (payments range
from $5.7 thousand in 1982 to
$687 thousand in 1992).
Facilities taxes. Estimated
local taxes on KU facilities:
Unit 1 (1988$) = $640,000
Unit 2 (1992$) = $167,000
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
No occupational tax in Breck-
inridge County.
Same.
Duration/Significance
County business activity would
increase in the project area in
proportion to present distribu-
tion of goods and services.
Not expected to induce change
or new business buildup.
Hot expected to preclude other
industry either, although
local PS0 increment consump-
tion high.
Total payment of $16.3 million
from construction.
Based on 1989 constant dollars
for 35 years.
Total payment of $95.3 million
from construction.
Based on 1989 constant dollars
for 35 years.
Peak represents a 41% increase
over total Hancock Co. 1979
revenues. However, continued
increases in county revenues
(1981 occupational tax alone =
$1 million) will reduce this
percentage substantially by
1992.
Increase in total county
revenues higher in Breckinridge
County, and increase in local
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 5 of 13)
Affected Environment
Taxes (Cont.)
Source of Impact Environmental Consequences
or Effect Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Both units (1992$) =
$1,069,000.
Effect of completed facility
on current tax revenues:
local tax base = 75% increase
local property tax revenues =
330% increase
total county revenues = 21%
increase.
Effect of completed facility
on current tax revenues:
local tax base = 47% increase
local property tax revenues =
200% increase
total county revenues = 51%
increase.
Duration/Significance
tax base greater in Hancock
Co.
Although the increase in pro-
perty tax revenues is lower in
Breckinridge Co., the relative
increase from the KU project
is more significant in Breck-
inridge Co. since it relies
more heavily on property taxes
for total revenue.
State taxes.
i
r-'o
cc
Social Services
Construction and
operation of generating
station.
Estimated state taxes on KU
faci1i ties:
Unit 1 (1988$) = $1,483,000
Unit 2 (1992$) = $ 940,000
Both units (1992$) -
$3,033,000
Completion of facility ex-
pected to increase the
county's state tax base by
150%.
Reduced need for social ser-
vices due to reduced unemploy-
ment.
Increased tax revenues from
the project will increase
funds available for allocation
by the Commonwealth. Poten-
tial for improved social ser-
vices.
Same.
Completion of facility ex-
pected tc increase the
county's state tax base by
200%.
Same.
Beneficial impact on the pro-
ject area by reducing demand
and improving the quality of
social services.
Concurrent development
of H-coal project.
Intensified competition for
housing and increased prices
for goods and services.
Stress from crowding, conges-
tion, and changes in community
composition.
Similar impact.
Especially a problem in
Breckinridge County where the
population is aging, incomes
are relatively low, and life-
styles are established.
Potentially adverse impact.
Increased need for tousing
assistance, food stamps, medi-
care, and general welfare sup-
port for people unable to bene-
fit from the KU and H-coal pro-
jects.
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 6 of 13)
Affected Environment
Health Care
I
K>
vo
Source of Impact
or Effect
Construction and
operation of generating
station.
Concurrent development
of H-coal and other
projects in the region.
Municipal Services
Inmigration of workers
and dependents.
increased housing con-
struction in communi-
ties; land clearing
onsite and along corri-
dors.
Generating station con-
struction.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Increased potential for acci- Same,
dents, especially during con-
struction.
Increased traffic on area Same,
highways - more traffic
accidents and slowed access
to hospitals.
Increased demand for medical Same,
services due to additional
population and reduced access
to health care centers due to
.traffic congestion.
Potential to attract doctors Same,
to the area due to increased
population and to construct
private or public health care
facilities with increased tax
revenues.
Marginally adequate number of Same.
police in the project area
counties may be seriously
stressed. Traffic congestion
and accidents could adversely
impact both county sheriffs
and community police.
New housing units are not ex- Same,
pected to significantly in-
crease risk of fire due to
small-numbers. Potential for Same,
fires onsite and along corri-
dors from slash burning acti-
vities.
Sewage and water facilities Same,
will be built onsite to ac-
commodate all construction and
operation requirements.
Use of county sanitary land- Same,
fill.
Duration/Signi ficance
Impact compounded by lack of
lospitals and medical personnel
n the vicinity of the sites.
in the case of housing and
road construction expected to
ae induced by cumulative pro-
jects, there will be major
short-term impacts until supply
and demand are balanced.
Potentially serious impact,
especially during construction
with a peak work force of up
to 1000 people stressing ser-
vices. Additional full-time
or part-time officers will be
needed.
Fire fighting services are ex-
pected to be adequate in pro-
ject area due to minimal in-
crease in risk of fire.
Municipal sewer and water sup-
plies will not be adversely
impacted by construction of the
project.
Would stress existing sanitary
landfill but counties are re-
quired by Commonwealth law to
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 7 of 13)
Affected Environment
Municipal Services
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Additional housing con-
struction.
Concurrent development
of H-Coal project.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Construction of the 70-30 Same,
additional housing units
needed will not affect sewage
treatment systems or water
supplies in the county.
Construction of possibly 300- Same.
400 housing units could impact
sewage treatment systems and
water facilities.
Education
Construction and opera-
tion of generating
station.
At peak construction, school
enrollment will increase about
4% over that of the late 1970s
in Hancock Co.
At peak construction, school
enrollment will increase about
2% over that of the late 1970s
in Breckinridge Co.
I
oj Estimated 6% increase in en- Estimated 3t increase during
° rollment during operation operation.
phase of project.
Expected student/teacher ratio
during construction = 24/1.
Expected ratio during opera-
tion = 25/1.
Expected student/teacher ratio
during construction 18/1.
Expected ratio during opera-
tion - 20/1.
Social and Coii>-
munity Structure
Iranigration of con-
struction personnel.
Present resistance to the pro-
ject in Hancock Co. may hinder
acceptance of inmigrant
workers until project is
generally tolerated.
Limited resistance to the pro-
ject in Breckinridge Co.
should facilitate acceptance
of inmigrant workers and speed
their assimilation into the
Duration/Significance
supply sufficient areas.
No adverse impacts to sewer
systems or water supplies are
expected due to KU project.
Addition of H-coal project
would substantially increase
demand and probably result in
a shortfall in water and sewer
system service in Hawesville
and Cloverport.
Fluctuations in enrollment and
disruptions from new students
coming in at odd times are
expected to be more of a pro-
blem than changes in average
numbers of students.
Although impact appears greater
in Hancock Co., previous ex-
perience with other major con-
struction projects in recent
years will reduce problems.
No undue stress expected in
Hancock.County. Possible con-
centration of impacts on
Breckinridge Co. in Cloverport
increases the potential for
adverse impacts. However, due
to low student/teacher ratio
and declining enrollment,
Cloverport schools have the
capacity for absorbing addi-
tional students.
Impact on Hancock County will
depend ori magnitude of resis-
tance, but even a small level
of resistance would make inte-
gration difficult. Effects
-------
Table 3.1-1.
The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 8 of 13)
Affected Environment
Social and Com-
munity Structure
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Hancock Site Alternative
Environmental Consequences
Breckinridge Site Alternative
community.
Duration/Si gni ficance
on community institutions may
be more dependent on i nternal
discord over the project than
on new members or participants.
Expected short-term impact.
Inmigration of opera-
tion personnel.
U>
I
u>
Land Use
Agricultural land
(see VEGETATION)
Site clearing, grading,
facilities construc-
tion.
Level of assimilation into
community structure or life
also influenced by workers'
desires to participate in the
community.
Host resistance expected to
dissipate by operation phase.
Some changes in social order
since most new residents would
be in upper income brackets.
Expected integration of
workers and their families
into social and community
organizations.
Elimination of approximately
4% of Hancock County's current
corn, soybean, and tobacco
production. Projected annual
crop value loss = $241,500.
Approximate onsite cropland
loss - 750 acres {32% of land
use).
Approximate onsite pasture
land loss = 759 acres (32* of
land use).
Again, level of assimilation
depends on workers' desires
to participate.
Similar impacts in Breckin-
ridge Co. comnunities.
Cloverport, especially, would
benefit by infusion of
even a small number of new, ,jt
relatively affluent residents.
KU project has been generally
overshadowed in Breckinridge
Co. by prospects of the much
larger H-Coal project.
Elimination of approximately
3% of Breckinridge County's
current soybean production and
less than 1% of the corn and
tobacco production. Projected
annual crop value loss =
$231,200. Approximate onsite
cropland loss = 1008 acres
(411 of land use).
Approximate onsite pasture
land loss - 422 acres (17%) of
land use).
Assimilation of newcomers into
communities will probably
intensify and continue existing
social order.
Net effect of the influx of new
people will probably be bene-
ficial to the communities and
their institutions.
Essentially irreversible pre-
emption of farmland for indus-
trial use.
The percent reduction in agri-
cultural production is greater
on the Hancock site, although
agriculture is a smaller per-
cent of Hancock County's eco-
nomic activity. (Agricultural
sales in 1972 were 6.4% of
economic activity in Hancock
County and 33.4% in Breckin-
ridge County).
Loss of pasture land during
life of project.
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 9 of 13)
Effected Envi roninent
Agricultural Land
(See VEGETATION)
(Cont.)
Woodlands
(See VEGETATION)
I
W
N5
Streams and Water
Codies (see WATER)
Recreation Areas
Source of Impact
or Effect
Clearing, grading, road
and tower construction
on Unit 1 and Unit 2
corridors.
Clearing, grading, and
solid waste disposal
onsite; and clearing
and lierbicide spraying
on corridors.
Site clearing, grading
drainage alteration.
•Inmigration of con-
struction workers,
operation personnel,
and their dependents.
Construction of indus-
trial facilities.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Estimated agricultural land
affected: Unit 1=45 acres
(22% of land use). Unit 2 =
416 acres (767, of land use).
Direct usage loss is less than
1 acre for both corridors.
Approximate woodland loss on-
site = 655 acres (28% of land
use).
Approximate woodland loss on
corridors: Unit 1 =159 acres
(78% of land use). Unit 2 =
134 acres (24% of land use).
Disruption of 3 streams and
elimination of stock ponds.
Alteration of approximately
11 acres of water land use.
Increased use of surrounding
recreational facilities,
especially Hoosier National
Forest and Rough River Dam
State Resort Park.
Decreased use of site for hik-
ing and nature study.
Estimated agricultural land
affected: Unit 1 = 126 acres
(40% of land use). Unit 2 =
384 acres (80% of land use).
Direct usage loss is less than
1 acre for both corridors.
Approximate woodland loss on-
site = 959 acres (38% of land
use).
Approximate woodland loss on
corridors: Unit 1 = 188
acres (60% of land use).
Unit 2 = 99 acres (20% of
land use).
Disruption of 1 stream and
elimination of stock ponds.
Alteration of approximately
23 acres of water land use.
Same.
Mo change due to negligible
use of site for hiking and
nature study.
Duration/Significance
Currently a minor portion of
agricultural economy of both
sites due to limited livestock
production.
Some productivity (but not
economic) loss is expected on
cropland during construction.
Agricultural productivity
losses will be temporary except
at tower locations where usage
loss will esentially be per-
manent.
Long-term preemption of most
woodland land use for indus-
trial and linear land uses.
Permanent loss of some wood-
lands due to extent of habitat
disruption. Elimination of
future timber maturation and
production on cleared lands.
Ho significant land use impact
on offsite streams and water
bodies.
Maximum disturbance of 1% of
onsite land use.
Moderate impacts on recreation
areas during 1987-1988 and
1991-1993 due to peak construc-
tion worker influx.
Permanent adverse impact on
Jeffry Cliff as recreation area
due to surrounding industrial
development and limited access.
-------
Table 3.1-1.
The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 10 of 13)
Affected Environment
Recreation Areas
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Construction of outfall
structure on Ohio
River.
General construction
activities.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Greater number of game fish
may be attracted to area and
available for fishing.
No change due to negligible
use of onsite streams for
fishi ng.
Same.
Decreased fishing in Town
Creek Embayment.
Vegetation clearing and
general construction
activities onsite.
Vegetation clearing and
maintenance along cor-
ridors.
Loss of wildlife habitat. Same.
Creation of open habitat for Same.
game and increased hunter
access.
w Mineral Resources Corridor construction. Potential interference with No anticipated impact on coal
1 coal, oil, and gas extraction. resources. Minimal potential
J*? interference with gas and oil
extraction.
Cultural Factors
Visual Resources
Onsite vegetation
clearing, grading, con-
struction of structures
and facilities, and
filling of ravines with
solid waste.
Elimination of contrasting
landforms and vegetation
patterns.
Similar impact, but fewer
visual contrasts lessen
existing aesthetic quality.
Detraction of visual unity and Same,
incompatibility with predomi-
nant rural agrarian character.
Duration/Significance
Value for fishing depends on
whether KU will allow fishing
close to facilities.
Temporary reduction in fishing
due to increased congestion
and activity during construc-
tion phase.
Essentially permanent reduction
of hunting potential due to
loss of habitat.
Hunting potential is expanded,
but increased game harvest may
reduce quantity and quality of
hunting opportunites over time.
Effect on mineral resources
dependent on routing of Unit 1
corridor, but more likely on
Hancock alternative due to
location and extent of re-
sources.
Permanent degradation of exis-
ting aesthetic quality, more
significant on Hancock site.
Although other industry is
existing near the Hancock site
and proposed near the Breckin-
ridge site, the sites and the
region still retain a rural
agrarian character. Further
industrial development will
permanently alter the character
of the sites and be an
-------
Table 3.1-1.
The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 11 of 13)
Affected Envi ronuient
Visual Resources
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Alteration of landscape is
more visible and viewed by a
greater number of people.
Alteration of landscape is
less visible and viewed by
fewer people.
High visual impact of landfill
activities and lower impact
of facilities due to nearby
presence of Jeffry Cliff and
extent of rolling topography.
Reduction of the natural char-
acter and focal attraction of
a unique landforai (Jeffry
Cliff).
Low visual impact of landfill
activities and higher visual
impact of structures due to
increased distance to uplands
and greater extent of level
topography.
Limited upland visibility and
extent of level terrain do not
produce a focal landform.
Emission of plumes from
cooling towers.
Greatest distant visual
impact.
Same.
Clearing of woodlands
on corridors.
Clearing and construc-
tion of Unit 1
Increased visibility of cor-
ridors due to marked contrast
between the low vegetation of
the corridors and the sur-
rounding forest.
Greater likelihood of negative
visual impact due to more
extensive woodlands, partic-
ularly along 'Jnit I.
Hillier terrain, more exten-
sive woodlands, and fewer
Similar impact on wooded areas
but greater extent of agricul-
tural land along Unit 1 cor-
ridor increases potential for
avoiding woodlands and reduc-
ing the negative visual im-
pact.
More open, agricultural land-
scape and greater road access
Ouration/Signi ficance
incremental step toward altera-
tion of the region.
The Hancock site is more sensi-
tive to reductions aesthetic
quality due to its larger view-
shed and greater viewer popu-
lation.
Visual contrast in size and
scale of structures is lower
on the Hancock site. Visibil-
ity and contrast of landfill
activities is lower on the
Breckinridge site.
Jeffry Cliff is the most uni-
que landform on either site.
Adjacent industrial develop-
ment would produce an incom-
patible contrast and reduce the
quality of Jeffry Cliff as a
vivid and harmonious focal
attraction.
Extent of visibility dependent
on weather conditions. Plume
may blend with natural cloud
formations at times or be dis-
tinct at others.
Greatest negative visual im-
pact will be along the Unit 1
corridor since the Unit 2 cor-
ridor is existing and predomi-
nantly agricultural. Potential
for greater impact on Hancock
corridor.
Potential for greater visibil-
ity of impacts on the
-------
Table 3.1-1. The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences or tne nancocn. rtujecc,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 12 of 13)
Affected Environment
Visual Resources
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
corridor.
Erection of steel
transmission towers
on Unit 2 corridor.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
access roads restrict the
visibility and the number of
people exposed to the visual
impact.
Visual incompatibility with
existing wooden towers.'
increase the visibility and
the number of people exposed
to the visual impact.
Same.
Archaeological
Resources
Site clearing; grading; Removal of known and potential Same.
construction of build-
ings, roads, pipelines,
and docks; and waste
disposal in landfills.
destruction of undiscovered
archaeological sites; isola-
tion from the surrounding
environment; introduction of
out-of-character visual,
audible, or atmospheric ele-
ments.
W
1
UJ
Of the 95 archaeological sites
surveyed, Kentucky Heritage
Commission has recommended
testing 33 sites (5 of which
may be outside site bounda-
ries) to determine eligibility
for National Register of His-
toric Places.
Of the 68 archaeological sites
surveyed, Kentucky Heritage
Commission has recommended
testing 5 sites (located with-
in present boundaries) for
eligibility for National Reg-
ister. (Survey of this site
is incomplete and covered
approximately 6SX of site).
Historic Resources
General construction
and landfill activi-
ties. Also, increased
traffic, noise, and
fugitive dust.
Similar disturbance as for
archaeological sites.
Distruction of structures and
historic sites representative
of architectural styles and
heritage of late 19th and
early 20th century Kentucky.
Same.
Same.
Duration/Significance
Breckinridge corridor, although
the impacts themselves will be
less severe than on the Hancock
corridor.
Adverse visual impact due to
contrast of two different types
of towers along the Elizabeth-
town corridor.
Permanent loss of a nonrenew-
able resource either through
changes in the integrity of
the setting of the property
(most sites) or potential
destruction of undiscovered
sites (few, if any).
At this time, impact appears
greater on Hancock site due to
more numerous archaeological
sites on floodplains, lower
terraces, arid rockshelters near
Jeffry Cliff. Locations re-
maining to be surveyed on
the Breckinridge site are not
expected to have singificant
archaeological sites.
Permanent loss of a nonrenew-
able resources either through
direct destruction of specific
sites or changes in the integ-
rity of the setting.
-------
Table 3.1-1.
The Human Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 13 of 13)
Affected Environment
Source of Impact
or Effect
Historic Resources
(Cant.)
Construction of Unit
2 transmission system.
Ervi romental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
None of the 24 historic sites
and structures surveyed are
eligible for the national Reg-
ister.
Of tte 7 historic caneteries
onsite, 3 will be directly
affected by construction
activities.
One historic structure has
been determined eligible for
nomination to the National
Register.
Two structures, the Holt House
and the Holt Chapel, are
listed on the National Regis-
ter.
All of the 3 historic ceme-
teries onsite will be affected
by construction activities.
Same.
Duration/Significance
The Holt structures are pro-
tected by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. They
are abandoned and in poor and
deteriorated condition, res-
pectively.
Regardless of which site is
developed, the Unit 2 trans-
mission system will intensify
the aesthetic impact, on this
structure. Short-term noise,
dust, and traffic impacts.
Cj
I
O
-------
3.2 ATMOSPHERE
3.2.1 Climate and Meteorology
Baseline. Historical meteorology of the project area is characterized
by evenly distributed annual precipitation except for noticeably smaller amounts
in late summer and winter. Annual total precipitation is 45 inches, with
snowfall of an inch or greater about 4 days per year. Annual mean temperature
is 56°F. The mean annual heating-degree-day total is 4400 and the mean annual
cooling-degree-day total is 1100. Fog sufficient to restrict visibility to
less than 0.25 mile occurs about 14 days each year, generally shortly before
sunrise. Annual mean relative humidity is 70%. Annual wind rose data show
predominately southerly winds in the project area (Figure 3.2-1). From July
1979 through June 1980, wind speed at the Hancock site averaged 5.1 mph with a
predominant direction of 215° Southwesterly). ;For the same period, the
Breckinridge site recorded average wind speed of .3.9 mph with a predominant
direction of 085° (easterly). The project area has relatively good dispersion
characteristics and episodes of slowest dilution will not present dispersion
related problems. Incidence of tornadoes in western Kentucky is moderate, and
2 were reported in Hancock County between 1950 and 1977.
Impacts. Potential effects of power plants on meteorology include
alteration of precipitation patterns. The Hancock plant is not expected to
significantly increase or decrease precipitation (Table 3.2-2) because the
quantity of heat and fine particulate emissions from the chimneys will be
insufficient relative to the energy and the addition of cloud condensation
nuclei needed to cause such change.
Presence of S0o and N0X in the chimney emissions is expected to make
a small contribution to decreases In precipitation pH now being
over much of eastern United States. A direct relationship between reduced
precipitation oH and reduced surface water pH has been documented In eastern
Canada and northeastern United States. Increased surface water acidity also
^as been Reported In Southern states but the direct relationship to increased
Precipitation acidity has not been confirmed.
The olanfs wet mechanical draft cooling towers are expected to
j plant iawiai foBKina and icing. Plume downwash from
significantly increase ground level logging ma * ¦
this type of cooling tower occurs somewhat less than 50% of the time in the
O Lype or cooj-xua ftna for natural fog, which also are those
-eastern United Sta es. fnBeing occur frequently, so that plume-induced
associated with plume-induced ^ it wiU be severe only occasionally, as
gging may be expected o e , ogJJng may occur .in subfreezing temperatures,
if natural fog. Icing rat K tto ' on the Breckinridge site, average
vH„,propo®ed position of direction Indicate that plume-induced fogging
.d speed, and predomlnan onslte locations. These same considerations
the Hancock site indicate tnat p Louisville and Nashville
jn highway 1406 (Skillman Road) and the accent ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Railway switchyard, which are withi Qr &t either
c°oling tower. Plume-induced fogging on the«iio Kive
site and plume-induced icing at the river is not expected
3-37
-------
N
14,600 OBSERVATIONS SPEED (KTS)
SOURCE: National Climatic Center (1975)
Figure 3.2-1. Annua] Wind Rose. Data, Evan lie, Indiana,
Station No. 93817, 1970-1974
3-38
-------
Drift droplets containing calcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfates,
carbonates, and chlorides predominantly will he emitted from the cooling towers
at the rate of about 2 grams per second at maximum load and considerably less
during normal load. Conservative estimates of average deposition of total
drift solids from the plant are 9000 kilograms per square kilometer-month (25
tons per square mile-month) within 50 meters (150 feet) and 400 kilograms per
square kilometer-month (1 ton per square mile-month) within 100 to 500 meters
(300 to 1500 feet). The deposition rate estimated to occur within 150 feet is
greater than Kentucky's settleable particle standard (3-month average of 15
tons per square-mile month). In closest offsite locations on either site,
however, average deposition is predicted to be well below that amount.
3.2.2 Air Quality
Baseline. The project area and vicinity is in a Class II air
quality region. Particulate levels during 1978-1979 appeared highest at a
monitoring site 12.5 miles NW of the Hancock site, where primary (health effect.)
24-hr TSP standards (260 yg/m3, U.S., KY) were violated. Six locations exceeded
secondary (welfare effect) 24-hr TSP standards (150 yg/m3, U.S., KY) - 5 near
Owensboro and 1 in Cfoio County SW of the sites. Two locations near Owensboro
exceeded the primary annual mean TSP standard (75 yg/ffi3, U.S., KY), and one
location there as well as another 3.5 miles west of the Hancock site exceeded
the secondary annual mean TSP standard (60 yg/ffl3» U.S., KY). Sulfur dioxide
standards were not violated (2 exceedences per year) during that time, although
3 locations, all in Ohio County, exceeded the maximum allowable secondary 3-hr
standard (1300 yg/m3, U.S., KY) on one occasion. Primary and secondary N0X
standards (both 100 yg/ra3, U.S., KY) were not violated either.
Ambient air quality background levels (av. for SO2&TSP) assigned by
EPA to Kentucky Utilities for estimating PSD increments, as well as maximum
values recorded during KU's 1979-1980 onsite air quality study are listed below.
Values are in micrograms per cubic meter (yg/m )•
Air Quality Hancock Site
Analyses Monitor 1/Monitor 2 Breckinridge Site
3-hr SOo 18 632/471 278
24-hr SO, 6 198/153 159
Annual mean S0£ 26 27/25 19
24—hr TSP 56 103/80 78
39/38 31
Annual mean TSP *3
1 up aooears to affect 3-hr S02 values
Presence of industry near the Hancock s reflect fugitive dust from
more so than others. TSP values on both
agricultural activities.
Impacts. The e°ls3l0"41?°°"8°t1a„d«ar«'; tatS'Vlte/" I»S« 3.2-1).
Plant is expected to meet air quail y propoSed and existing major point
Interactions of the Hancock plant an bed in Table 3.2-2. The plant will
sources of atmospheric pollutants a localized areas on and adjacent
=r,r. ^uon-u-
t0 the sites, but the Class
3-39
-------
Table 3.2-1. Maximum PSD Increment Consumption and Air Emissions on the Hancock
and Breckinridge Sites and Comparison To NAAQS, PSD and NSPS
PSD
Allowable PSD
Increment
Increment
Consumed !uq/nP)
% of Allowable
Time Period
Consumption
(ufl/nr)
Hancock Site
Breckinridge Site
Hancock Site
Breckinridqe Site
Sulfur dioxide
3 hr
24 hr
Annual
512
91
20
214
32
2
242
39
2
42
35
10
47
43
10
Particulates
(chimney)
24 hr
Annual
37
19
2
<1
2
0.1
5
0.5
5
0.5
Particulates
(chimney and
fugitive)
24 hr
Annual
37
19
32
2
-
86
5
-
NSPS
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Opacity
Nitrogen dioxide
New Source
Performance Standard
90S removal for con-
trolled emissions;
between 0.6 and 1.2
lb/106 Btu
0.03 lb/106 Btu
201
0.6 lb/106 Btu
Maximum Project Emissions Maximum Project Emission Rate
(lb/hr) . (lb/106 Btu)
Hancock Site Breckinridge Site" Hancock Site Breckinridge Site
3,637
172
<20%
3,990
4,400
172
<205
3,990
0.54
0.03
0.6
0.66
0.03
0.5
NAAQS
Sulfur dioxide
Time Period
3 hr
24 hr
Annual
Allowable NAAQS
(ng/m3)
1300
365
80
Consumption at Point of Maximum interaction
of All Sources
(ug/m3)
Hancock Site
694
51
41
Breckinridge Site
372
57
o
Source: Kentucky Utilities Company (1981).
-------
by the plant or due to the plant's interaction with other major point sources.
There will be no impact on the nearest Class I air quality area (Mammoth Cave,
Kentucky) nor on the nearest non-attainment area (Owensboro, Kentucky).
Chimney and fugitive emissions from the power plant, although not
exceeding regulatory standards, will degrade ambient air quality at either site.
At the Hancock site, this degradation could produce economic as well as
environmental effects. The effects of entry of coal particles into Willamette's
bleached pulp product system depend upon particle size, as indicated by
Willamette's description of their cleaning system specifications:
Under control conditions, with feed consistency of 0.5% and tempera-
ture of 120 - 140°F, the cleaners are capable of 80% removal of wood
shives, which have a specific gravity of 0.7 to 0.8 grams per cc.
Under these control conditions in the laboratory the cleaners are 80
to 90% efficient at removing particles with a size greater than 0.025
mm. If in actual operation, the inlet consistency to the cleaners
increases to 1%, the efficiencies drop to 40-45%. Due to operating
conditions, we are forced to run the feed consistency to our cleaners
at 0.95 to 1.0%, which lowers their efficiency.
Pulp fiber has a specific gravity of 1.27 to 1.40 compared with 1.20
to 1.50 for bituminous coal, which makes it very difficult for the
central cleaners to differentiate between coal and pulp fiber.
Based on these specifications, Willamette has assumed an 85% removal efficiency
for coal dust settling on the wood chip pile. Willamette also has stated that
economic loss from coal dust contamination could approach $187,000 (1981
dollars for each day of off-grade bleached pulp production).
To estimate impact of KU's operation on bleached pulp production,
computer modeling was used to derive days of bleached pulp degradation from #1
t0 #2 prime and days of off-grade production. For pulp production, wood chips
are removed in a bottom-to-top, pie-shaped section from one of two piles that
together contain approximately 100,000 tons at capacity and are cycled approx-
imately every 50 days. Thus, on any given day, wood chips entering the pulp
Process would contain coal dust that was deposited during the preceding 50
days.
Computer model runs based on two different methodologies (see Section
^•5) gave annual total coal dust depositon on the chip pile of 3,757 and 6-7,659
grams, respectively. Assuming that local meteorology used in the latter study
Probably is more reflective of potential conditions, results of that study are
reported. These include an average daily deposition of 185.4 grams and a
"^ximum 50—day running average deposition of 485 grams.
The impact of the coal dust would be determined by its effect on the
Reached pulp mat which is the product Willamette sells and will use later in
the new fine paper plant. Willamette's test procedures count visible dirt on
8amples of mat at regular intervals. The amount of dirt is estimated by
Comparing observed particles with a size standard and summing the total area of
al* visible dirt. The test involves wetting the mat so that subsurface particles
are counted. A total visible dirt area of 0 to 3 mm^ oer is within #1 prime
standards. Number two prime has 3.1 to 6 per dirt area, and greater
3-41
-------
than 6mm2/m2 is off grade. This test does not evaluate the effect of subvisible
particles, which, if present in sufficient numbers, may canoe a gray tint that
makes the mat unsuitable for fine white paper. Brightness degradation in the
past has been associated with fire in the wood chip pile.
Coal dust and dirt count may be related by assuming that the average
visible particle is 0.02 mm*- in cross section (from Willamette's standard
particle size chart) and IZ of emitted coal particles are in the visible range
(from ^PA's "Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines"). The area of pulp mat
obscured by one gram of coal dust would be 6,96') mm-. When considered rela-
tive to daily pulp production (2000 ft2 per minute = 267^561 m2 per day), this
results in a visible dirt count (DC) of 0.026 mm2 per m" on that day. To de-
rive DC from coal dust (CD) that falls in the chip pile, 0.026 is reduced (R)
by the percent of coal particles the cleaning process fails to remove (15%)
and the percent visible emissions (1%) (R = 0.01 x 0.15). Average back-
ground dirt count (ADC) is considered, so that:
DC = (0.026 x R x CD) + ADC
Based on ADC of 1.94, the CD deposition required to achieve a DC of
3.1 is 29,744 grams. Since the maximum 50-day running average deposition pre-
dicted by the model was 485.5 grams, the model demonstrates no impact from the
coal storage with respect to visible dirt count.
This equation does not account for possible brightness degradation
from subvisible particles and, as mentioned, there is no quantitative standard
for calculating loss of brightness. Based on emitted coal dust having a median
particle size of 20 microns (from EPA document referenced above) and considering
the cross-sectional area of a 20-micron particle (3.1416 x 10~l^m2), there will
be 55.6 mm2 of surface obscured by each gram of coal dust. A subvisible soil
ratio (SSR) can be defined as the area occupied by subvisible particles relative
to surface area of the pulp mat. The SSR is computed similar to dirt count,
using a reducing factor (RSV) of 0.15 x 0.99. For each gram of subvisible
coal dust in the pulp mat, the SSR is 0.000208 mm2/in2. SSR is derived from
coal dust that falls in. the chip pile by:
SSR = 0.000208 x RSV x CD
Unlike dirt count, SS!< cannot be compared with a standarl to determine days of
off grade due to brightness loss.
The model used to compute coal deposition (Industrial Source Complex)
is considered accurate to within a factor of two if emissions are steady state,
terrain is flat to gently rolling, and several years of local meteorological
data are available. In this case, an order of magnitude of uncertainty was
considered appropriate for estimating impact based on lack of specific knowl-
edge of numerous factors among these three, conditions. Because of the unknown
possibility of contamination from subvisible particles with .50% fugitive
emissions control now proposed by KU, alternative methods of dust control or
protection of the wood chip pile were suggested in Section 2.5.
The primary impact to air quality from the Hancock transmission system
will be localized increased particulate levels during construction. Maximum
fugitive dust emissions during Unit 1 transmission corridor construction are
3-42
-------
estimated to be 37 yg/ra^, which will have a slight to moderate impact on
ambient concentrations. Similar emissions during widening of the Elizabethtown
corridor are expected to be 15 Ug/m^, which will have a slight impact on
ambient, concentrations.
3.2.3 Noise
Baseline/Impacts. Ambient noise levels at the 2 sites have not been
measured. Higher background noise levels around the Hancock site are evident
on Highway 1406 near Willamette Industries and the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad switchyard. Noise levels at the Breckinridge site, like those else-
where at the Hancock site, are attributable to agricultural activities pri-
marily.
Estimated noise levels on each site and the impacts of noise attribu-
table to the power plant are described in Table 3.2-2. During plant construc-
tion, ambient noise levels will be affected by equipment operation and increased
traffic. Highway traffic will lighten somewhat after construction, although
truck traffic will remain substantially greater than presently, as will barge
traffic. Facility components that are expected to be the major sources of
environmental noise during operation are forced- and induced-draft fans,
safety valves, coal handling equipment, cooling towers, PA systems, boiler or
reactor feed pumps, and station transformers. The 345-kV transmission system
could have slight noise effects of a buzzing nature directly under the lines,
especially during bad weather.
3-43
-------
Table 3.2-2. The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 1 of 5)
Affected Environment
CIimate and
Meteorology
Source of Impact
or Effect
Onsi te construction
activities.
Land clearing during
construction.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Emissions and heat
released from boiler
chimneys during opera-
tion.
u>
I
¦P-
Cooling tower plumes.
Potential for increased
cloudiness due to increased
cloud condensation nuclei
from airborne particulate
matter.
Potential for increasing sur-
face temperatures during the
daytime and lowering tempera-
tures at night due to increas-
ed reflection of solar
radiation as vegetation is
removed. Resulting convection
patterns may alter surface
wind patterns.
No anticipated effect on
precipitation from heat
release.
Minor increases or decreases
in precipitation due to
formation of cloud condensa-
tion nuclei or ice nuclei
from fine particulate matter
emissions.
Potential for decrease in pll
of regional precipitation due
to airborne releases of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Plume-induced fogging and
icing will occur offsite on
Skillman Road and the adjacent
L & N Railway switchyard north
of the cooling towers.
Higher potential for fogging
and icing due to higher wind
speeds.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Little probability of offsite
plume-induced fogging and
icing, particularly along
highway 144.
Lower potential for fogging
and icing due to lower wind
speeds.
Duration/Signi ficance
Negligible possibility of sig-
nificant cloudiness or change
in precipitation.
Wind change patterns are ex-
pected to be slight and impacts
negligible. Soil flora ana
fauna will be diminished.
Effects are reduced as areas
are revegetated.
No significant effects on
precipitation from heat or fine
particulate matter emissions
from boiler chimneys.
Small contribution to overall
changes in precipitation pli,
with most impact outside the
project area; however, pro-
ject area is being affected
similarly by emissions from
other sources.
Impacts will continue through-
out station operation.
Plume-induced fogging will be
frequent. Potentially hazardous
reduction in visibility for
travelers and train operators
near the Hancock site during
occasional periods of severe
plume-induced fogging and
icing.
Plume-induced fogging on the
Ohio River at. either site will
be minor and no icing is ex-
pected.
-------
Table 3.2-2. The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 2 of 5)
Affected Environment
Climate and
Meteorol ogy
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Emission of drift
solids from cooling
towers.
Envi ronmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Expected short-term (maximum
generating capacity) deposi-
tion of 130 rag of drift
sol ids per 9 square feet-hour
within 150 feet of the towers
and long-term rate of 25 tons
per square mile-month within
150 feet.
Same.
Air Quality Construction activities Increased fugitive particulate Same,
(grading, clearing, emissions,
facilities construc-
ts tion, wood burning
I
•O
u»
ng,
vehicular traffic).
Sulfur dioxide, par-
ticulates, and nitrogen
dioxide emissions from
boiler chimneys.
Increased concentrations of
these pollutants in the atmos-
phere.
Maximum 3-hour SO2 increment
consumption is 42%, occurring
in a localized area near
southern border of site, west
of Jeffry Cliff; 20% consump-
tion will occur on portions
of the Ohio River, Hoosier
National Forest and Jeffry
CIIff.
Maximum 24-hour SOg increment
consumption will be 35%, in a
localized area on the Ohio
River west of the site; 20%
consumption will occur in
relatively extensive adjacent
locations (up to two miles) in
virtually all directions from
the site.
Same.
Maximum 3-hour SO2 increment
consumption 47% in a local-
ized area in the eastern por-
tion of the site; 25 to 35%
consumption will occur in
several adjacent locations,
including the Ohio River.
Maximum 24-hour S0g increment
consumption will be 43%, in
a localized area of the
Ohio River west of the site;
20% consumption will occur up
to two miles from the site in
virtually all directions.
Duration/Si an Ificance
Impacts are expected to con-
tinue throughout station
operation.
Onsite deposition rate within
150 feet exceeds Kentucky's
settleable particulate stan-
ard, but closest offsite rates
are much lower.
Potential for vegetation and
soils impact onsite, but no
significant impact anticipated
offsite.
Extent of impact dependent on
nature and degree of activity
and weather conditions.
Could increase TSP levels sig-
nificantly.
Continual throughout 12-year
construction period but
greatest during Unit 1 con-
struction.
Significant local increment
consumption for life of the
station; however, emissions
will meet applicable EPA
standards of performance for
new major stationary sources.
Lower S02-removal efficiency
on the Breckinridge site will
contribute to greater increment
consumption.
-------
Table 3.2-2. The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 3 of 5)
Affected Environment
Air Quality
(Con t.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Interaction with other
proposed point sources.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Interaction with exist-
ing and new point
sources.
!
.c-~
Consumption of each increment
in outlying locations is 5 to
10%.
Greatest impact with proposed
ftockport Generating Station:
Maximum 3-hour average SO2
concentration (180 pg/m3) will
occur 0.9 miles east of Han-
cock site.
Maximum 24-hour average SO2
concentration (27 pg/m3) will
occur 1.8 miles east of the
Hancock site.
Maximum combined 3-hour aver-
age SO2 ( 69^ ug/1113) will occur
at a point 0.6 miles south-
east of the Hancock site.
Maximum combined 24-tour
average SOj ( 51 ug/m3) will
occur at a point 0.6 miles
ESE of the Hancock site.
Primary interactor is Coleman
Generating Station.
Greatest long-term predicted
impact on regional air
quality is maximum annual
SO? concentration of
yg/m3 at a point 8 miles
NW of the site.
Same.
Greatest impact with proposed
Rockport Generating Station:
Maximum 3-hour average SO2
concentration (157 lig/m3) will
occur 0.7 miles west of the
Breckinridge site.
Maximum 24-hour average SO2
concentration (45 tig/m3) will
occur 1.0 mile west of the
site.
Maximum combined 3-hour aver-
age SO? concentration (372
wg/m3) will occur 0.9 miles
SE of the site.
Maximum combined 24-hour
average S02 concentration
(57 wg/m3) will occur at the
same point.
Primary interactor is Coleman
Generating Station.
Greatest long-term predicted
impacts on regional air
quality are maximum annual
SO?, TSP, and NQo concentra-
tions of 2, 0.8, and 2 yg/m3,
respectively, about 2.4 miles
NE of the site.
Duration/Signi ficance
Isopleths of 3-hour and 24-
hour SO? increment consumptions
from the Breckinridge site will
encompass relatively large
adjacent and surrounding off-
site areas.
Interactions with existing and
proposed major point sources at
both sites will not cause
violations of air quality
standards.
Air quality standards are not
exceeded.
-------
Table 3.2-2. The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 4 of 5)
Affected Environment
Air Quality
(Cont.)
OJ
I
•e-
-4
Noise
Source of Impact
or Effect
Fugitive dust emissions
from coal and limestone
handling systems.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Fugitive dust emissions
from transmission
system construction on
corridors.
Onsite construction
activities.
Operation of generating
station facilities.
Ambient particulate levels in-
creased from coal and lime-
stone barge unloading, trans-
fer, and storage.
Based on 501 control for the
open coal pile and much higher
efficiencies for other con-
trols, maximum emissions will
be 425 pounds per day and
annual average will be 36
tons per year.
Maximum 24-hour particulate
concentration from construc-
tion of Unit 1 corridor =¦
37 ug/m3.
Maximum particulate concentra-
tion from Unit 2 corridor =
15 ug/nH.
Ambient noise levels affected
by equipment operation and
increased traffic.
Estimated ambient Tevels prior
to construction:
Ld = 56 dB(A)
Ln « 51 dB(A)
Ldn outdoors = 59 dB(A)
Maximum predicted continuous
effect on offsite areas from
plant operation is 55 dB(A).
Area expected to experience
maximum effect is north of the
Unit 2 cooling tower where Ky.
1406 and the L S N railroad
switchyard are located. L(jn
outdoors in this area, which
is between the Willamette
Industries plant and the
generating station, is expect-
ed to be 61 dB(A). Both this
Ldn level and the assumed
Same.
No modeling was done since
coal dust emissions are not a
public issue on this site.
Similar effect.
Same.
Estimated ambient levels
prior to construction:
Ld = 51 dB(A)
Ln = 35 dB(A)
L,jn outdoors - 50 dB(A)
Maximum predicted continuous
effect on offsite areas from
plant operation is 56 dB(A).
Maximum level is expected to
occur south of the cooling
towers. No continuous major
sources on this site are
comparable with industrial
noises existing at the Hancock
site, and L,jn levels are
lower.
One occupied dwelling within
the maximum level area is
expected to be affected.
Duration/Significance
Air quality standards not
exceeded, but since attribu-
table to coal dust, could have
adverse effect on the bleached
pulp and paper processed at
the Willamette facility adja-
cent to the Hancock site.
Slight to moderate impact on
ambient particulate concentra-
tions from construction of
Unit 1 and slight impact from
Unit 2.
Impact during the 12-year
construction period will be
greater on the Breckinridge
site due to lower ambient
levels.
Noise will be source of annoy-
ance to residents in the
immediate area of either site.
Station-related noise levels
in areas of public access out-
side the plant boundaries are
expected to be within accept-
able ranges.
Most effects on ambient noise
levels and noise perception
will occur on or near the
project location.
Impact on background noise
will be greater on the
Breckinridge site, although
synfuel development would
preclude this. Impact on
-------
Table 3.2-2. The Atmosphere and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 5 of 5)
Affected Environment
floi se
[Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Lffect
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
existing L^ti outdoors of
59 dB(A) exceed the EPA guide-
line of 55 dB{A), which is
outdoor level in residential
areas compatible with protec-
tion of public health and
welfare. Both levels are
below the guideline of
Leq(24) = 70 dB(A) for pro-
tection against hearing loss.
One occupied residence will be
subjected to highest noise
levels from the plant, while a
few dwellings farther away but
within the maximum impact area
will experience lower noise
levels due to vegetation
barriers.
Durat ion/Signi ficance
nearby residents is expected
to be similar on both sites.
Impacts will continue through-
out the life of the generating
station.
Y" Operation of 345-kV Potential for slight buzzing Same. No significant impact expected
transmission system. noise directly under lines, throughout operation.
Co especially during inclement
weather.
-------
3.3 LAND
Land areas that will be directly affected by the power plant are in
Hancock, Hardin, and Breckinridge counties.
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology
Baseline. The three Kentucky counties of the project area lie in
two physiographic regions (Figure 3.3-1): the Western Coal Field (Hancock
County) and the Mississippian Plateau (Breckinridge and Hardin counties).
Elevations are lowest in the alluvial valley of the Ohio River and highest
near the Dripping Springs Escarpment of the Mississippian Plateau. Geologic-
ally, most of the project area i.s in the Mississippian system, with Hancock
and Breckinridge counties in the transitional zone between Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian systems.
Although elevations are somewhat higher in the Mississippian Plateau,
relief is more pronounced in eastern Hancock County, where gorge-like valleys
and steep, rocky cliffs (including Jeffry Cliff) are produced by resistant
sandstones and conglomerates along the Pottsville Escarpment. The Hancock site
boundary is adjacent to the northern section of the Glen Dean Limestone outcrop,
which is the oldest exposed formation in the county. The northern portion' of
the site is alluvium with elevations ranging from 390 to 430 feet msl.
Pleistocene terrace deposits in the northeastern portions have elevations of
400 to 450 feet msl. The southern portion of the site, with elevations up to
680 feet msl, is underlain by the Caseyville Sandstone (around Jeffry Cliff),
the Buffalo Wallow Formation, and the Tar Springs Formation (Figure 3.3-2); the
strata dip to the west.
The Hancock site has one concealed fault that extends southwesterly
and lies approximately 2000 feet west of the highway 1406 boundary. In Hancock
County, the fault extends from the Ohio River to near Goering in the central
part of the county, with the downthrow on the western side of the fault (Kentucky
Geologic Survey 1978).
The Breckinridge site is in the Mammoth Cave Plateau of the Mississip-
pian Plateau. The northwestern portion of the site is composed of alluvium
and terrace deposits ranging in elevation from 400 to 450 feet msl. Alluvium
along Town Creek extends to the east central boundary of the site. The north-
eastern portion of the site, ranging in elevation from 450 to 600 feet msl is
underlain by shale and sandstone members of the Tar Springs Formation, Glen
Dean Limestone, and Hardinsburg Sandstone Formation (F18"J-e 5 ~
eastern portion of the site ranges in elevation from 450 to 700 feet msl and
is underlain by the Tar Springs Formation, Glen Dean Limestone Hardinsburg
Sandstone, and Buffalo Wallow Formation. Elevations of the Buffalo Wallow
Format ion rise to over 800 feet msl just to the south of the site boundary
within the transmission corridor area.
Flp-vflUnns alone the Elizabethtown corridor range from 425 feet msl
near Cloverport to 905 feet msl near^ Dyer the" second
"tember^f^the*1 Mississippian Plateau, the Pennyroyal Plateau. Elevations along
ttost of the corridor range from 650 to 800 feet msl.
3-49
-------
w
I
Ut
o
SOURCE: Kentucky Geologic Survey (1966)
Figure 3.3-1. Physiographic Regions of Kentucky
-------
3-51
-------
Buffalo Wallow Formation
Mtn
*Tar Springs Formation and
Glen Dean Limestone
**Htg, shale member of Tar Springs Formation
and upper member of Glen Dean Limestone
Mtss, sandstone member of Tar Springs Formation.
Shown by heavy line where too thin to show
pattern
Mgdl, lower member of Glen Dean Limestone
I I
Hardinsburg Sandstone
Haney Limestone Member
Big Clifty Sandstone Member
Beech Creek Limestone Member
Includes equivalent of Elwren Sandstone
of Malott (1919)
\Z2
Reelsville Limestone
r^n
Sample Sandstone
n=n
Beaver Bend and Paoli Limestones
SOURCE: Kentucky Geological Survey (1956b)
3-52
-------
The most prominent fault system in the vicinity of the project is the
Rough Creek Fault Zone, which lies about 30 miles south of the sites. Fault
patterns in this zone are generally complex, with structural displacement
Indicating movement along the fault system as post-Pennsylvanian and pre-
tertiary. Magnitude-recurrence for earthquakes in the central Mississippi
Valley indicates a level of seismicity in which a given magnitude is about one
tenth as frequent as an equivalent earthquake in active seismic zones in the
western United States. The 1976 Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone Map of the
United States places the Hancock and Breckinridge sites in Zone 2, which is
indicative of moderate damage, corresponding to Modified Mercalli intensity VII
or Richter scale 5:
Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging
objects quiver; furniture breaks; weak masonry, including cracks'
damaged; weak chimneys break at roof line; plaster, loose bricks,
stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural
ornaments) fall; some cracks in ordinary masonry; waves on ponds;
water turbid with mud; .small slides and caving in along sand or
gravel banks; large bells ring; concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
On July 27, 1980, an earthquake estimated at 5.1 Richter magnitude
was centered at Maysville, Kentucky, southeast of Cincinnati, about 165 miles
ENE of the sites. The Hancock Clarion reported awareness of the tremor in the
county. Prior to this earthquake, the largest tremor in northern Kentucky,
which occurred in 1933, measured Richter magnitude 4.2.
Impacts. No significant adverse Impacts on geology are expected,
but topography of the developed site will be irreversibly altered (Table 3.3-6).
3.3.2 Soils
Baseline. The soils of the project area vary with the topography.
Soils along the Ohio River developed from alluvial and outwash deposits.
Upland soils are discontinuous loess over weathered sandstone, shale, and
limestone of varying depths and physical composition. Suitability of soil for
various uses is related to slope, fertility, and drainage of the land.
The rolling hills and uplands of Hancock County, Breckinridge County,
and western Hardin County have deep to moderately deep soils formed in residuum
from acid shales, siltstones, and sandstones. In central Hardin County, the
soils are similar except they were formed in residuum from limestone. The most
extensive soil association on the uplands in Hancock and western Breckinridge
counties is the Zanesville-Frondorf association. In eastern Breckinridge and
western Hardin counties the Caneyville-Zanesville-Frondorf association is more
common. The Crider-Cumberland association is most common in the vicinity of
^lizabethtown.
Along the nearly level floodplains and lower terraces of the Ohio
River the soils range from deep, well drained to poorly drained. The most
common association on these alluvial areas in Hancock and Breckinridge counties
is the Elk-Weinbach-Melvin association.
A description of the Hancock site soils based on a Soil Conservation
Service survey of the county revealed that many of the soil types have been
3-53
-------
designated as prime farmland soils by the Kentucky State Conservationist (Figure
3.3-4 and Table 3.3-1). To qualify as prime farmland, some of these soils must
be subject to less frequent flooding than once in 2 years during the growing
season and/or must have adequate drainage to a sufficient depth during the
cropping season to allow cultivated crops common to the area to be grown.
Otisite investigation may be needed to determine whether the soils are classifi-
able as prime farmland. Soils of the ridges in the southern portion of the
site, those associated with Jeffry Cliff, and certain soils in the northeastern
portion of the site are not prime farmland.
Although the Soil Conservation Service survey of Breckinridge County
soils is incomplete, many of the soil types identified to date at the Breckin-
ridge site have been designated as prime farmland soils (Figure 3.3-5; Table
3.3-2). Again, primarily because of flooding characteristics, an onsite inves-
tigation probably would be necessary for a determination of prime farmland
status. Breaks and alluvial land along the western and northwestern edge of
the site and soils occupying steep slopes in the eastern portion of the site
are not prime farmland.
Impacts. The existing soil resource will be essentially lost in all
portions of the site where major construction occurs (Table 3.3-6). Once the
profile is destroyed and upper layers removed, the soil cannot be returned to
its preconstruction condition. During grading, topsoil and subsoil are mixed,
and valuable organic matter in the topsoil is lost. The biological productivity
of the new surface is reduced, texture is altered, and soil moisture generally is
lowered. If done, removal and stockpiling of topsoil will save part of the
soil resource for landscaping around major facilities and for aiding revegeta-
tion of landfill areas. However, certain physical, chemical, and biological
changes occur during storage that diminish soil productivity so that loss of
topsoil resource is reduced but not completely prevented. Also, the natural
profile is disrupted even when topsoil is saved. Alteration of the profile
prevents the reestablishment of existing natural vegetation communities, espec-
ially certain forest associations.
Disposal of dry stabilized wastes in landfill areas should result in
a low to moderate probability of soil contamination. There will he virtually
no seepage of waste liquors from the dry wastes, so that leaching by rainfall
will be the primary mode of materials movement. Although no leaching data
are available on the precise waste product proposed by KU, known soils charac-
teristics of the disposal sites indicate a high probability of infiltration
from whatever leaching may occur. Waste will be deposited directly on the
soil, which is loamy in nature, in an area where average annual precipitation
is 44.4 inches. Although the soils are only moderately permeable, rainfall
is high, and the seasonal high water table is shallow in many of the soils.
When the seasonal water table is less than 9.9 feet from the soil surface, the
area is usually considered a poor site for ash and sludge waste disposal. Four
of the soil types on the Hancock site can have water tables as shallow as 0.5
feet from the surface. Only soils in the Frondorf and Wellston series having
water tables greater than 6 feet deep could have levels approaching the 9.9
foot depth. Thus, some infiltration of trace elements from solid waste landfill
areas appears likely, even though the wastes will be deposited in a dry state.
Leachates from the stabilized product generally are considered nonhazardous in
drinking water (see Section 3.4.2). Over the long term, trace element concentra-
tions in plants will increase, with the degree of physiological disturbance
dependent on existing concentrations (Table 3.3-6).
3-54
-------
SOURCE: USDA Soil Conservation Service (1974)
USDA Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist for the
Commonwealth of Kentucky (1979)
Refer to Table 3.3.1 for legend.
PRIME FARMLAND
MILE
Figure 3.3-4. Soil Associations, Hancock Site
3-55
-------
Table 3.3-1. Soil Types, Hancock Site
Depth to
Hap Unit Slope
As'.5 0-«
C»*
Co'.'
EkA2
EkB2
EkC
EkE
E1C3
FWD
FW03
FWE
FWE 3
FWF
0-2*
0-4%
0-2*
0-2*
2-6*
6-12%
12-50*
6-12*, severely eroded
12-20*
12-20*» severely eroded
20-30*
20-30*, severely eroded
30-50*
for Wellston part* see Hellston series
Snu 0-2*
SrA2 0-2*
6r62 2-6*
severely eroded
severely eroded
He4*
Hu1*3 0-4*
Ld1*3 0-2*
LoA 0-2*
LoB 2-6*
LoC 6-12*
Lo0 12-25*
LrC3 6-12*,
lr03 12-25*,
Mb1*3*1* 0-2*
#el»3^ 0-2*
OtA2 0-2*
Otfl2 2-6*
ScA2 0-2*
WhV 0-2*
U1C 6-12*
H1C3 6-12*, severely eroded
HID 12-20*
W1E 20-30*
W1E3 12-30*, severely eroded
Za82 2-6*
ZaC 6-12*
ZaC3 6-12*, severely eroded
Soil Series
Depth to
Bedrock
(feet)
Seasonal High
Hater Table
(feet)
Texture
Depth from
Surface
(inches)
Reaction
PH
Ashton
>50
>3
Silt loam
Silty clay loam
Heavy silty clay loam
0-7
7-54
54-60
7.3-7.8
5.5-7.3
5.5-6.5
Belknap
>7
0.5-1.5
Silt loam
0-50
4.5-5.5
Calloway
>4
0.5-1.5
Silt loam
Heavy s1K loam (fragipan)
0-27
27-50
5.5-6.0
5.0-6.5
Collins
>10
1.5-3.0
Silt loam
0-60
4.5-5.5
Elk
>50
>6
Silt loam
Light silty clay loam
Loan
0-B
8-36
36-50
5.6-6.0
4.5-5.0
5.1-5.5
Frondorf
1.5-3.5
>6
Silt loam
Silty clay loam
Gravelly silty clay loam
Bedrock
0-7
7-18
18-30
30
4.5-6.0
4.5-6.0
4.5-6.0
Glnat
>50
0-0.5
Silt loam
Heavy silt loam (fragipan)
Silty clay loam (fragipan)
Silty clay loam
0-20
20-26
26-40
40-52
4.5-6.0
4.5-6.0
4.5-6.0
4.5-6.0
Granada
>6
1.5-2.5
S1lt loam
Heavy silt loam
Silt loam (fragipan)
Silty clay loam
0-7
7-22
22-36
36-50
5.6-6.0
5.1-6.0
5.1-6.0
5.1-6.5
Henshaw
>20
1-2
Silt loam
Silty clay loam
Silt loam
0-9
9-45
45-60
6.1-6.5
5.0-6.5
6.1-7.8
Huntington
>50.
>3
Silt loam
0-60
6.1-7.8
Llndside
>20
1.5-3.0
Silt loam
0-50
5.6-6.5
lorlng
6-12
2-6
Silt loam
Light silty clay loam
Silt loam (fragipan)
Silt loam
0-7
7-30
3-54
54-60
5.6-6.0
5.1-6.0
5.1-5.5
5.1-6.5
Helvln
>50
0-0.5
Silt loam
0-50
6.1-6.5
Newark
>20
0.5-1.5
Silt loam
Silt loam
Si 11 loam
0-9
9-32
32-60
5.6-6.0
5.6-7.3
5.6-7.8
Otwell
>50
1.5-2.5
Silt loam
Silt loam
Heavy silt loam (fragipan)
Heavy silt loam
0-7
7-26
26-40
40-60
5.6-6.0
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
5.1-5.5
SciotovHle
>50
1.5-2.5
Loam
Loam
Loam (fragipan)
Loam
0-7
7-27
27-52
52-60
6.1-6.5
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
Welnbach
>50
0.5-1.5
Silt loam
Heavy silt loam
Silt loam (fragipan)
Silty day loam
0-8
8-24
24-40
40-50
5.6-6.0
4.5-5.5
4.5-5.0
5.1-5.5
WeiIston
3-6
>6
Heavy silt loam
Light s11ty clay loam
Heavy silt loam
Fine sandy loam
Bedrock
0-5
5-26
26-40
40-60
60
5.6-6.0
5.1-5.5
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
Zanesvllle
4-6
2-2.5
S1lt loam
Heavy silt loam
Silt loam (fragipan)
Bedrock
0-8
8-26
26-60
60
4.5-5.5
4.5-5.5
4.5-5.5
1 Subject to flooding.
2 Prime farmland.
3 Prime farmland if subject to less frequent flooding than once fn 2 years during the growing season.
* Prime farmland If adequate drainage to a sufficient depth during the cropping season to allow growth of cultivated crops
USDA Soil Conservation Service (1974); Soil Survey of Daviess and Hancock Counties, Kentucky; SCS State Conservationist for the
Conmonwealth of Kentucky (1979); Prime Farmland Soils of Kentucky. Kentucky Inventory and Monitoring Bulletin No. KY42-9-4.
3-56
-------
u>
I
ui
/S3D3
,34 5C
OHIO RIVER
0
t=
MILES
This figure is keyed to Table 3.3-4
Not Prime Farmland
i
SOURCE: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Personal communication (1980)
USDA Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (1979)
Figure 3.3-5. Soil Associations, Breckinridge Site
-------
Table 3.3-2. Preliminary Soil Types, Breckinridge Site
Map Unit
Soil Series
Texture
Slope
3041-2
Ashton
Silt loam
0 to 2%
304B2
Ashton
Silt loam
2 to 6%
054
Breaks and alluvial land
-
—
7240
Caneyville
Very rocky silt loam
12 to 20%
72603
Caneyvi11e
Silty clay
12 to 20%, severely eroded
306B2
Captina
Silt loam
2 to 6%
721C
Christian
Silt loam
6 to 123;
61C
Crider
Silt loam
6 to 12%
61D3
Crider
Silt loam
12 to 20%, severely eroded
1021»3
Egam
Si 11 1oam
Nearly level
664E
Gilpin
Silty clay loam
20 to 30%
352'*
Ginat
Silt loam
Level
10M
Huntington
Silt loam
Level
1051,3
Lindside
Silt loam
Level
414 ^
McGary
Silt loam
0 to 2%
420C3
Markland
Silt loam
6 to 12%, severely eroded
420D9
Mark!and
Silt loam
12 to 20%
1171,3,".
Melvin
Silt loam
Level
50B2
Memphis
Silt loam
2 to 6%
112 i.V»
Newark
Silt loam
Level
60C
Pembroke
Silt loam
6 to 12%
62C
Russelville
Silt loam
6 to 12%
86B2
Sadler
Silt loam
2 to 6%
348A2
Sciotoville
Silt loam
0 to 2%
348B2
Sciotoville
Silt loam
2 to 6%
44D
Shelocta
Gravelly silt loam
12 to 20%
184 V*
Stendal
Silt loam
Level
886
Weikert-Gilpin
Stony soils
15 to 50%
877
Weikert
Stony soils
15 to 50%
886E
Weikert-Gilpin
Stony soils
20 to 30%
350^
Weinbach
Silt loam
Nearly level
83C
Wellston
Silt loam
6 to 12%
83D
Wellston
Silt loam
12 to 20%
8303
Wellston
Silt loam
12 to 20%, severely eroded
343A2
Wheeling
Fine sandy loam
0 to 2%
343B2
Wheeling
Fine sandy loam
2 to 6%
345A2
Wheeling
Silt loam
0 to 2%
345B2
Wheeling
Silt loam
2 to 6%
345C3
Wheeling
Silty clay loam
6 to 12%, severely eroded
3450
Wheeling
Silt loam
—
84B2
Zanesville
Silt loam
2 to 6%
84C3
Zanesville
Silt loam
6 to 12%, severely eroded
1 Subject to flooding.
2 Prime farmland.
3 Prime farmland if subject to less frequent flooding than once in 2 years during the growing season.
Pr%ie farmland if adequate drainage to a sufficient depth during the cropping season to allow
grflwth of cultivated crops common to the area.
Sources: USDA Soil Conservation Service. Breckinridge County Kentucky Preliminary Soil Survey Data.
Breckinridge County SCS, personal communication, 1980.
SCS State Conservationist for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (1979). Prime Farmland Soils of
Kentucky. Kentucky Inventory and Monitoring Bulletin No. KY 4Z-9-4.
3-58
-------
Leaching from the uncovered, unlined coal and limestone storage piles
and retention basins also is probable. The pll range for soils in these areas
on the Hancock site is 4.5 to 6.0, making them slightly acidic and sensitive to
alkaline leachate.
3.3.3 Vegetation
Baseline. The project area is in the Western Mesophytic Forest of
the eastern North American Deciduous Forest Formation. It is a transition
region where mixed mesophytic forests that dominate eastern Kentucky become
limited in extent, and oak forests become frequent and dominant. Land use
changes, poor land use practices, and other sources of soil or topographic
alteration favor reestablishment of oak forests, so that areas of mixed meso-
phytic communities have become even more limited. The ravine slopes with deep
soils around Jeffry Cliff comprise the only habitat supporting a mixed mesophytic
community on either site.
The most extensive vegetation cover in the 3-county project area is
upland hardwoods, primarily composed of oak-hickory forests. The largest areas
of upland hardwoods are in the Hoosier National Forest and along the Hancock
transmission corridor. Lowland hardwoods, characterized by sycamore, yellow
poplar, sweetgum and red maple among others, are not extensive and often consist
of little more than a band of streamside trees. Coniferous forests, a minor
cover type, are mainly plantings of shortleaf, white, and red pine, with much
of the shortleaf pine cold-stressed because it is north of its natural range.
Cultivated fields and fallow fields (idle cropland or pasture) are
the major components of agricultural land, which is about 1/3 of the project
area and the major cover type on both sites (Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3). Soybean
cultivation is common on alluvial flats and lower terraces of the Ohio River,
while corn and tobacco are more common on gently rolling hills and plateaus.
Fallow fields, characterized by grasses and forbs, occupy poorly drained or
erosion-prone locations. When not grazed, this vegetation may be cut for hay.
Old fields, characterized by a greater number of perennial herbaceous
8pecies than found in fallow fields and presence of shrubs and trees such as
winged sumac and eastern redcedar, are sparse and widely scattered throughout
the project area. Wetlands, primarily wetland embayments created by elevation
the river following construction of the Cannelton Lock and Dam, are another
minor cover type. There are 19 wetland embayments near the sites, 12 of which
afe on the Indiana side of the river. Two on the Kentucky side are below the
Hancock site near RM 721 and two of the largest on the Kentucky side (Town
Creek and Bull Creek) are below the Breckinridge site near RM 707. Two type 5
Wetlands, which are identified by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources as inland open fresh water, are located near the Hancock site: Indian
Uke and a small lake near Muddy Branch west of highway 1406. Additionally, a
small (4 acres) freshwater marsh dominated by willows, silver maple, smartweed,
at»d buttonbush, is located inside the northern boundary of the Hancock site.
A 1979-1980 survey of the project area cover types revealed 200 plant
sPecies (Table 3.3-3). None of the plants observed is Federally designated
endangered or threatened or on the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Plant
Element List; further, no records exist of these species on either site,
either potential transmission corridor, or the Elizabethtown cotridor.
3-59
-------
Table
3.3
-3. Checklist of Plant Spec!
1979-1980 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Scientific Name
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharinum
Acer saccharum
Achillea millefolium
Actaea alba
Actinomeris alterni folia
Aesculus glabra
Aqrimonia molI is
Aqrimonia parviflora
Allium canadense
Ambrosia artemisifolia
Andropoqon virqinicus
Anemone11a thalictroides
Antennaria solitaria
Aralia spinosa
Arisaema dracontium
w Arisaema triphyllum
^ Aristida sp.
o Asarum canadense
Asimina triloba
Asplenium platyneuron
Aster lateriflorus
Aster sp.
Asteraceae
Bidens bipinnata
Boehmeria cylindrica
Botrychium obiiguuro
Botrychium virqinianum
Brachyelytrun erectum
Camps is radicans
Carex pensylvanica
Carex sp.
Carpinus caroliniana
Common Name
Boxelder
Red maple
Silver maple
Sugar maple
Milfoil (yarrow)
White baneberry
Wingstem
Ohio buckeye
Agrimony
Swamp agrimony
Wild onion
Ragweed
Broom sedge
Windflower
Pussy-toes
Hercules club
Green dragon
Jack in the pulpit
Three awn grass
Wild ginger
Pawpaw
Ebony spleenwort
Calico aster
Aster
Spanish needles
False nettle
Common grapefern
Rattlesnake fern
Bearded shorthusk
Trumpet vine
Pennsylvania sedge
Sedge
American hornbeam
Observed in the Project Area,
Scientific Name
Carya cordiformis
Carya glabra
Carya ovata
Carya tomentosa
Carya sp.
Celtis occidental is
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Cerastium vulgatum
Cere is canadensis
Chichorium intybus
Chimaphila maculata
Cinna arundinacea
Cirsium vulqare
Claytonia virginica
Convolvulus arvensis
Cornus florida
Cr.yptotaenia canadensis
Cyperus esculentus
Cystopteris bulbifera
Cystopteris fragilis
Daucus carota
Delphinium tricorne
Dentaria heterophylla
Dentaria laciniata
Desmodium paniculatum
Desmodium perplexum
Dicentra canadensis
Pi centra cucullaria
Dicotyledonae
Pigitaria filiformis
Oiodia teres
Dioscorea quarternata
Diospyros virqiniana
Dryopteris marginal is
Common Name
Bitternut hickory
Pignut hickory
Shagbark hickory
Mockernut Hickory
Hickory
Hackberry
Buttonbush
Mouse-ear chickweed
Redbud
Chickory
Spotted wintergreen
Wood reed
Bull thistle
Spring beauty
Field bindweed
Flowering dogwood
Honewort
Nut grass
Bulblet bladder fern
Bladder fern
Queen Anne's lace
Dwarf larkspur
Slender toothwort
Cut-leaved toothwort
Panicled tick trefoil
Beggar lice
Squirrel corn
Dutchman's breeches
Crab grass
Buttonweed
Wild yam
Persimmon
Marginal shield-fern
-------
Table 3.3-3. Checklist of Plant Species
1979-1980 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Scientific Name
Dryopteris sp.
Eleocharis sp.
Equisetum hyemale
Erechtites hieracifolia
Erigeron~philade1phicus
Eriqeron strigosus
Erythronium americanum
Euonymus americanus
Eupatorium coelestinum
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Eupatorium rugosum
Eupatoritin sp.
Euphorbia maculata
Fabaceae
Faqus grandifolia
Festuca sp.
Fraxinus americana
Galium aparine
Gali um circaezans
£alium sp.
6eum canadense
Gnaphalium obtusi foli um
Hepatica acutiloba
Houstonia sp.
Hydrangea arborescens
Hydrocotyle sp.
Impatiens biflora
Ipomaea~pandurata
Jug I ans cinera
Juncus dichotomus
Juniperus virginiana
Lespedeza cuneata
Lespedeza sp.
Lindera""benzoin
Comnon Name
Woodfern
Spike rush
Scouring rush
Fi reweed
Marsh fleabane
Daisy fleabane
White trout lily
Strawberry bush
Mi stflower
Common boneset
White snakeroot
Thoroughwort
Nodding spurge
Beech
Fescue
White ash
Cleavers
Wild licorice
Bedstraw
Avens
Rabbit tobacco
Liverleaf
Bluets
Hydrangea
Water pennywort
Jewelweed
Morning glory
Butternut
Forked-rush
Eastern redrodar
Sericea lespedeza
Lespedeza
Spicebush
Observed in the Project Area,
Scientific Name
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
lonicera japonica
Morus rubra
Nyssa sylvatica
Opuntia humifusa
Osmorhiza claytonia
Oxalis stricta
Oxalis violacea
Oxydendron arboreum
Panicum sp.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Phacelia bipinnatifida
Phaseolus polystachios
Phryma leptostachya
Pinus
echinata
Pinus
resinosa
Pinus
strobus
Pinus
taeda
Pinus virginiana
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago ruqelU
Plantago virginica
Platanus occidental is
Poaceae
Podophyllum peltatum
Polygala sanguinea
Polyqonaturn biflo"rum
Polygonum densiflorum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Prenanthes sp.
Prunella vulgaris
Prunus serotina
Cotmton Name
Sweetgum
Yellow poplar
Japanese honeysuckle
Red mulberry
Black gum
Prickly pear cactus
Sweet cicely
Wood sorrel
Violet wood sorrel
Sourwood
Panic grass
Virginia creeper
Phacelia
Wild bean
Lopseed
Clearweed
Shortleaf pine
Red pine
White pine
Loblolly pine
Virginia pine
English plantain
Red-stalked plantain
Dwarf plantain
Sycamore
Mayapple
Milkwort
Solomon's seal
Smartweed
Christmas fern
Rattlesnake root
Self-heal
Black cherry
-------
Table 3.3-3. Checklist of Plant Species
1979-1980 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Scientific Name
Pycnanthemum tenuifolium
Quercus alba
Quercus coccinea
Quercus falcata
Quercus muehlenberqi i
Quercus prinus
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Ranunculus arbortivus
Ranunculus recurvatus
Ranunculus sp.
Rhus copallina
Rhus glabra
Rhus radicans
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rubiaceae
Rubus alleqheniensis
Rudbeckia hi rta
-Rumex acetosella
Sabatia anqularis
Salix nigra
Sal ix sp.
Sambucus canadensis
Sanguinaria canadensis
Sassafras albidum
Schizachne purpurascens
Sedum te ma turn
Setaria sp.
Silene virqinica
Smilacina racemosa
Smilacina sp.
Coimion Name
Narrow-leaved mountain mint
White oak
Scarlet oak
Southern red oak
Chinkapin oak
Chestnut oak
Northern red oak
Black oak
Small-flowered buttercup
Hooked buttercup
Buttercup
Winged sumac
Smooth sumac
Poison ivy
Black locust
Blackberry
Black-eyed Susan
Sheepsorrel
Rose-pink
Black willow
Willow
Elderberry
Bloodroot
Sassafras
False-melic grass
Stonecrop
Foxtail grass
Firepink
False Solomon's-seal
Source: Texas Instruments Incorporated field data (1979-1980).
References: Radford et al. (1968).
Wharton and Barbour (1971).
Courtenay and Zimmerman (1972).
Wharton and Barbour (1973).
Observed in the Project Area,
Scientific Name
Smilax qlauca
Smi1 ax hispida
Smilax sp.
Solanum carolinense
Soli dago altissima
Solidago juncea
Soli dago rugosa
Solidago sp.
Sorghum halepense
Sparganium sp.
Sul1ivantia sullivantii
Tilia americana
Tradescantia subaspera
Trifolium pratense
Tri fol iurn repens
Trifolium sp.
Trillium sessile
Typha latifolia
Ulmus alata
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
Uniola lati folia
Veronia fasciculata
Verbena hastata
Verbena urticifolia
Viburnum acerifolium
Vicia vi1losa
Vicia sp.
Viola papilionacea
Viola sororia
Vitis vulpina
Xanthium strumarium
Coirmon Name
Greenbriar
Greenbriar
Greenbriar
Horsenettle
Goldenrod
Goldenrod
Goldenrod
Goldenrod
Johnson grass
Bur-reed
Sul1ivantia
Basswood
Spiderwort
Red clover
White clover
Clover
Tri11ium
Cattail
Winged elm
American elm
Slippery elm
Spike grass
Common ironweed
Blue vervain
White vervain
Arrow-wood
Hairy vetch
Vetch
Cornnon blue violet
Woolly blue violet
Frost grape
Cocklebur
-------
Vegetation stress in the project area also was surveyed during 1979-
1980. Weather-induced stress of shortleaf pine, which is most widespread in
the Hoosier National Forest, and insect-related stress (including that among
pine plantings) were the most common forms of stress observed. There is no
present documentation of stress from air pollution, although local officials
suspect some damage has occurred, especially to white pine.
Impacts. The primary impact to vegetation from construction and
operation of the generating station will be the permanent loss of existing,
vegetation on most of the site and the incremental regional loss as industrial
land use increases (Table 3.3-6). Cover types that are able to establish on
the reclaimed landfill areas will have lower economic, wildlife, and nutrient
value than those currently existing in riparian and upland areas especially.
Increased pollution levels will affect both onsite and offsite pollution-
sensitive vegetation.
Those vegetation communities that will not readily establish on the
sites because of topographic and sbils alterations include lowland hardwoods,
wet-site and marshy communities, and wetlands. Upland species and associations
that will not reestablish because of their dependency on deep and fertile as
well as moist soils include beech, maples, basswood, and yellow buckeye.
Black walnut, white oak, and northern red oak may return but will not have
suitable conditions for optimum growth and dominance in the community. All of
these disturbance-sensitive communities are either only on the Hancock site or
more extensive there (Table 3.3-6).
3.3.4 Wildlife
Baseline. The landforms and vegetation cover types provide a
Variety of habitats for the project area wildlife. Most of the common and
abundant wildlife of the project area, as well as some less common species
occur on the Hancock and Breckinridge sites (Tables 3.3—4 and 3.3—5). No
federally designated threatened or endangered species were observed on either
site, either potential transmission corridor, or the Elizabethtown corridor,
ftor do records of their presence in these locations exist. On the Hancock
site, 4 birds and one mammal on the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Animal
Element list were observed (great blue heron, great egret, black vulture,
®arsh hawk, evening bat). On the Breckinridge site, 3 birds on the Commis-
sion's list were observed (black vulture, great blue heron, and great egret).
Wildlife of the two sites generally is similar. Herpetofauna and
avifauna observed during a 1979-1980 survey varied somewhat but the numbers of
sPec.ies were equivalent. Fewer mammal species were observed on the Breckinridge
site, however, probably reflecting absence of mature hardwoods habitat similar
1:0 that on the Hancock site.
The presence of a greater number of rare (in Kentucky) species on the
Uncock site also reflects the difference in nature and condition of habitats
0I» the two sites. The black vulture, although observed flying over both sites,
w&s observed in greater numbers on the Hancock site and was observed roosting
°n Jeffry cliff as well. The marsh hawk, which is a migrant and winter resident
in the area and utilizes mostly open areas, may be an important seasonal predator
°n both sites. However, the habitat mosaic (farmland interspersed with hard-
w°ods and streams) on the Hancock site probably is more attractive to the
3-63
-------
Table 3.3-4. Checklist of Wildlife Species, Hancock Site, 1979-1980
Amphibians and Reptiles
Dusky Salamander
Long-tailed Salamander
Red-spotted Newt
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Blanchards Cricket Frog
Spring Peeper
Gray Treefrog
Green Frog
Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Pickerel Frog
Eastern Box Turtle
Painted Turtle
Fence Lizard
Five-lined Skink
Broad-headed Skink
Black Racer
Eastern Garter Snake
Rat Snake
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Green Heron
Black Vulture
Red-tailed Hawk
Marsh Hawk
American Kestrel
Bobwhite
American Coot
Killdeer
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Common Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Great-crested Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Acadian Flycatcher
Barn Swallow
Tree Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-brested Nuthatch
House Wren
Carolina Wren
Mockingbird
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Wood Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Source: Texas Instruments Incorporated field data (1979-1980).
References: American Ornithologists Union (1957) and periodic updates.
Conant (1958).
Robbins et al. (1966).
Burt and Grossenheider (1976).
Birds (Contd)
Eastern Bluebird
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Cedar Waxwlng
Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black-and-white Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Worm-eating Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Northern Parula
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Vellow-rumped Warbler
Pine Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Comnon Yellowthroat
Yellow-brested Chat
Canada Warbler
American Redstart
House Sparrow
Eastern Meadow!ark
Red-winged Blackbird
Orchard Oriole
Brewer's Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Scarlet Tanager
Cardinal
Indigo Bunting
American Goldfinch
Rufous-sided Towhee
Savannah Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Manna Is
Opossum
Short-tailed Shrew
Eastern Mole
Evening Bat
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck
Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel
White-footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Pine Vole
Muskrat
House Mouse
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Long-tailed Ueasel
M1nk
Striped Skunk
White-tailed Deer
3-64
-------
Table 3.3-5. Checklist of Wildlife Species, Breckinridge Site, 1979-1980
Amphibians and Reptiles
Red-spotted Newt
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Blanchards Cricket Frog
Spring Peeper
Gray Treefrog
Green Frog
Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Pickerel Frog
Snapping Turtle
Stinkpot
Eastern Box Turtle
Painted Turtle
Fence Lizard
Five-11ned Skink
Broad-headed Skink
Black Racer
Eastern Garter Snake
Rat Snake
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Green Heron
Mallard
Wood Duck
Black Vulture
Broad-winged Hawk
Merl in
American Kestrel
Bobwhite
American Coot
Killdeer
Spotted Sandpiper
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
Screech Owl
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Common F1icker
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Great-crested Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Acadian Flycatcher
Barn Swallow
Tree Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-brested Nuthatch
House Wren
Carolina Wren
Source: Texas Instruments Incorporated field data (1979-1980).
References: American Ornithologists Union (1957) and periodic updates.
Conant (1958).
Robbins et ai. (1966).
Burt and Grossenheider (1976).
Birds (Contd)
Mockingbird
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Wood Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Eastern Bluebird
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Logerhead Shrike
Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black-and-white Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Worm-eating Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Pine Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Cormion Yellowthroat
Yellow-brested Chat
Canada Warbler
House Sparrow
Eastern Meadowlark
Red-winged Blackbird
Orchard Oriole
Brewer's Blackbird
Coimion Grackle
Brown-headed Cowblrd
Scarlet Tanager
Cardinal
Indigo Bunting
American Goldfinch
Rufous-sided Towhee
Savannah Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Mammals
Opossum
Short-tailed Shrew
Eastern Mole
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck
Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel
White-footed Mouse
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Mink
Striped Skunk
White-tailed Deer
3-65
-------
black vulture and oLher predators that hunt in ope a areas hut roost and nest
in hardwoods. Habitat for the evening bat on the Hancock site is the Jeffry
Cliff area; observations of this species during 3 seasons indicate it is a
resident of the cliff area.
Impacts. Habitat degradation associated with noise, dust, traffic,
and other elements of human activity, as well as habitat loss associated with
forest clearing or other land use change will impact wildlife of the project
area (Table 3.3-6). The decline in wildlife diversity that generally accom-
panies habitat degradation and habitat loss will be preceded by mortality of
numerous individuals during land clearing activities. Some populations will
recover, but these generally will be widespread, common species. These impacts
will begin during construction of the plant and will continue throughout the
life of the plant as landfill areas are worked. Probable continued industrial
use of the site beyond the life of the generating station will maintain the
life support value of the land at a diminished level, reducing its long-term
biological productivity.
3-66
-------
Table 3.3-6. Land Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 1 of 5)
Affected Environment
Geology
Soils
GJ
I
ON
-J
Source of Impact
or Effect
Grading and compaction
of surface areas for
facilities development
and construction of
barge unloading facili-
ties.
Deposition of solid
waste in landfills.
Filling of ravines and
benching.
Onsite grading opera-
tions, compaction, and
erosion.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Leaching and seepage
from solid waste land-
fills, holding ponds,
and coal and limestone
storage areas.
Mechanically strengthen allu-
vial deposits.
Increased surface loadings on
subsurface geologic forma-
tions.
Alter existing topography.
Loss of topsoil, mixing of
topsoil and subsoil, reduc-
tion of biological producti-
vity.
Elimination of approximately
1050 acres of known and possi-
ble prime farmland soils.
Disturbance of an additional
1300 acres of non-prime farm-
land soils.
Whatever leaching may occur
will have a high probability
of infiltration due to soils
characteristics of the dis-
posal sites (i.e., direct de-
position of wastes on loamy
soils in a region of high
rainfall and shallow water
tables). Most soils in areas
of storage piles are fairly
acidic {pH 4.5-6.0) and sensi-
tive to alkaline leachate.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Elimination of approximately
1125 acres of known and possi-
ble prime farmland soils.
Disturbance of 850 acres of
non-prime farmland soils.
Disturbance of 500 acres of
unidentified soil types (most-
ly in upland locations not
likely to be prime farmland).
Incompleteness of soil survey
for Breckinridge County pre-
vents evaluation of soil char-
acteristics on Breckinridge
site. Host identified soils
are silt loams similar to
those on the Hancock site.
Duration/Signi ficance
Permanent beneficial effect for
long-term industrial use of the
site.
Permanent but minimal geologic
impacts.
Permanently change surface run-
off patterns and relief.
Essentially irreversible dis-
ruption of soil profile and
loss of fertility.
Permanent loss of prime farm-
land and deep, fertile, well-
developed soils necessary for
certain existing plant com-
munities. Extensive alteration
of pasture and woodland soils.
Soils generally are more fer-
tile on Hancock site because
of less severe disturbance.
Although disposal of dry solid
waste should result in low to
moderate probability of con-
tamination, soils on the Han-
cock site are highly suscept-
ible to leaching. Soil pro-
perties on the 3reckinridge
site, while expected to be
similar to the Hancock site,
are unknown at this time. Im-
pact of increased trace element
concentrations on soils depends
on present levels.
-------
Table 3.3-6. Land Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 2 of 5)
Affected Environment
Soils (Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Construction of Ponds
A, B, and C.
Environmental
Hancock Site Alternative
Present location of ponds is
on Belknap soils, which may
have bedrock as shallow as 7
feet.
Consequences
Breckinridge Site Alternative
Unknown - soils character-
istics not available.
Duration/Signi ficance
Possible difficulty in pond
construction now planned for
12.5-foot depth.
Construction of towers
and access roads along
corridors.
Clearing woodland
vegetation.
Disruption of soil profiles,
loss of topsoil, mixing of
topsoil and subsoil, and com-
paction. Possibility for ma-
jor soil loss from local ero-
sion along steeper slopes of
the right-of-way.
Nutrient loss through erosion
due to uprooting of vegeta-
tion. More extensive wood-
lands increase erosion poten-
tial .
Similar soil disturbance al-
though less hilly topography
and greater extent of existing
access roads should reduce
erosion and amount of land
affected by road construction.
Similar impact on wooded areas
but smaller erosion potential
due to less extensive wood-
lands.
Greatest soil impacts will be
on Unit 1 corridor since Unit
2 has existing access roads and
topography has less relief.
Potential for erosion greater
on the Hancock site.
Permanent soil loss in some
areas. Greater impact on Han-
cock corridor.
U)
I
00
Vegetation
Cover Types:
Lowland hard-
wood forests
Upland hard-
wood forests
Site clearing and grad-
ing during construc-
tion; drainage altera-
tion during operation.
Site clearing and fil-
ling of ravines with
solid waste during
operation.
Loss of approximately 180
acres of lowland forests.
(8% of onsite land cover.)
Loss of approximately 47S
acres of upland forests.
(205 of onsite land cover.)
Loss-of approximately 58 acres
of lowland forests.
(2% of onsite land cover.)
Loss of approximately 901
acres of upland forests.
(36% of onsite land cover.)
Long-term loss of diminishing
cover type in the region.
Long-term loss of most exist-
ing upland associations.
Success.1onal shift from climax
stage woodlands to pioneer
stage old fields following
reclamation.
Soil and moisture dis-
turbance.
Clearing of corridors
during construction;
maintenance with herbi-
cides during operation.
Elimination of the mixed
mesophytic canmunity.
Loss of approximately 293
acres of woodlands (predomi-
nantly upland hardwoods). (39%
Of corridor land cover.)
No comparable effect.
Loss of approximately 287
acres of woodlands (predomi-
nantly upland hardwoods). (36%
of corridor land cover.)
Permanent loss of a regionally
uncommon vegetation associa-
tion.
Long-term loss of existing
woodland associations.
Shift to pioneer stage species.
Peripheral vegetation stress
-------
Table 3.3-6. Land Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 3 of 5)
Affected Environment
Upland hardwood
forests (Cont.)
Wetlands
Cropland and pas-
ture
Source of Impact
or Effect
Site clearing and grad-
ing.
Site clearing, grading
construction of facili-
ties.
Construction of trans-
mission lines.
Environraental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Loss of approximately 4 acres
of broad-leaved, deciduous,
scrub-shrub wetland.
Loss of approximately 1509
acres of vegetation. (65% of
onslte land cover.)
Affects approximately 461
acres of agricultural land.
(61% of corridor land cover.)
No comparable effect.
Loss of approximately 1430
acres of vegetation. (581 of
onslte land cover.)
Affects approximately 510
acres of agricultural land.
(64% of corridor land cover.)
w
I
On
VO
Old fields
Coniferous forests
Site clearing and grad-
ing.
Site clearing and grad-
ing.
Loss of approximately 105
acres of vegetation (5% of on-
site land cover).
Loss of approximately 7 acres
of vegetation (less than 1%
of onslte land cover).
Loss of approximately 52 4cres
of vegetation (2% of onslte
land cover).
No comparable effect.
General Vegetation
Productivity
Atmospheric emissions
during operation, In-
cluding SO2, NO2,
particulates, and salt
drift. (See Air qual-
ity).
Filling of ravines with
solid wastes and stock-
piling limestone and
Possible acute damage to SO2 Same,
sensitive species.
Potential for chronic or
latent SO? damage to vegeta-
tion. "
Possible damage to onslte
vegetation from salt deposi-
tion.
Ho anticipated major offslte
damage from NO;, particulates,
and salt drift.
Potential build-up of trace Same,
elements in vegetation due to
leaching and Increased
Duration/Significance
from herbicide spraying.
Permanent elimination of an
ecologically sensitive and
regionally limited cover type.
Essentially irreversible loss
of productive cropland due to
extensive soil disturbance.
Temporary productivity loss
during construction.
Essentially permanent cropland
loss due to soil disturbance at
tower locations. Negligible
impact.
Increased extent of old field
cover type following reclama-
tion of land fill areas.
Minor Impact due to limited
extent of this cover type. It
should be able to re-establish
at the end of the 35-year life
of the station.
Potential for moderate Impact
on sensitive vegetation onsite
from SO2, particulate deposi-
tion salt drift, and synergis-
tic effects of NO; and SO;.
Latent and chronic effects may
continue after station retire-
ment. Due to higher ambient
levels, likelihood of injury
Is greater on the Hancock site.
SO2 damage possible offsite.
Long-term gradual increase in
trace element concentrations.
Impact will depend on existing
-------
Table 3.3-6. Land Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 4 of 5)
Affected environment
General Vegetation
Productivity
(Cont.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
coal.
Vegetation removal and
burning of slash and
unmerchantable timber.
Hancock Site Alternative
concentrations in soils.
Environmental Consequences
Breckinridge Site Alternative
Organic and inorganic nutrient Same,
loss.
Aerial herbicide spray-
ing along corridors.
Probable injury to sensitive Same,
species adjacent to corridor.
Wildlife
Site clearing and fil-
ing ravines with solid
wastes from plant oper-
ation.
OJ
I
o
Loss of approximately 2300
acres of wildlife habitat that
has greater landscape diver-
sity and heterogeneity within
cover types than the Breckin-
ridge site (e.g., 3 times more
lowland hardwoods; twice the
extent of old fields and fol-
low fields; a wetland; and,
although less extensive, more
diverse upland hardwoods).
Reduction of wildlife popula-
tion on and adjacent to the
site.
Greater impact on salamanders,
lizards, birds of prey, mi-
grant perching birds, nongante
mammals, and furhearers. Also
greater impact on evening bat
and black vulture on the Ken-
tucky Nature Preserves Com-
mission Animal Element List,
Emigration of mobile wildlife
from site Into adjacent areas.
Limited opportunity for
ground-level emigration from
Site due to Ohio River,
Loss of approximately 2400
acres of wildlife habitat
that, although more extensive,
is less diverse and structu-
ally more homogeneous.
Same.
Greater impact on turtles,
wading and shore birds, water-
fowl, and white-tailed deer.
Also greater impact on the
great blue heron and the great
egret on the KNPC Animal Ele-
ment List.
Emigration of deer and other
large manuals easier due to
lack of barriers along the
southern boundary (although
this would be blocked by
Duration/Signi ficance
concentrations in soils.
Long-term reduction of natural
productivity.
Probable injury to non-target
areas from herbicide drift
throughout the 35-year mainte-
nance of the corridors.
Significant impact to uncommon
species due to permanent loss
of most of these wildlife habi-
tats and decline of wildlife
diversity.
Probable continued industrial
use of the site will maintain
life support value of the land
at a diminished level, reduc-
ing long-term biological pro-
ductivity.
Habitat degradation and loss
will permanently reduce those
populations dependent on aquat-
ic and forested habitats and
increase species adapted to
fallow field vegetation and
open, shrub habitats.
Eventual population decline
probable due to continued
habitat loss and increased
competition.
-------
Table 3.3-6. Land Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 5 of 5)
Affected Environment
Wildlife (COftt.)
Source of Impact
or Effect
Higher traffic levels,
(coupled with clearing)
Vegetation clearing and
transmission line con-
struction along cor-
ridors.
Hancock Site Alternative
adjacent industry, and high-
nays surrounding the site.
Mortality of aniaals with
United nobility (e.g. man--
Mis, reptiles, amphibians).
Increased road kills along
U.S. 60. Ky. 1406, and Skill-
nan Road.
Environmental Consequences
Increase of birds and aamuls
associated with fallow field,
shrub, and open woodland habi-
tats.
Use of lines and towers by
raptors for hunting perches
and possibly nest support
structures.
Increased wire strikes fro*
waterfowl and other bird
groups.
Compared with Breckinridge
Unit 1 corridor. More exten-
sive woodlands make inpact
on forest wildlife greater.
Riparian habitats will receive
less impact along Unit t cor-
ridor and anre Inpact along
Unit 2 corridor than on com-
parable Breckinridge corri-
dors.
Breckinridge Site Alternative
proposed synfuel facility
development).
Sane.
Increased road kills along
ICy. 144.
Saae.
Sane.
Duration/Significance
Inpact during vegetation clear-
ing for facilities construction
and landfill activities.
Greatest impact during con-
struction period.
Creation of edge habitat where
corridor crosses woodlands,
although expected to increase
the number of common bird
species, may not support
greater diversity than adjacent
habitat with greater strati-
fication.
Mammals expected to increase
along corridor are common
species having a broad range of
tolerances, high dispersal
ability, and high reproductive
rates.
Although greatest displacement
will occur during construction.
Maintenance practices will
continue impact throughout life
of the generating station.
Overall inpact greater with
Hancock alternative.
-------
3.4 WATER
3.4.1 Ohio River
Baseline. The Hancock (RM 715) and Breckinridge (RM 705) sites are
in the Lower Ohio Main Stem subregion of the Ohio River Basin, which consists
of 12,570 square miles within the last 435 miles of the river (Figure 3.4-1).
They are in the Cannelton Pool, created by the McAlpine Lock and Dam at RM
606.8 and Cannelton Lock and Dam at RM 720.7. Normal elevation of the pool is
382.3 feet rasl, assuring a 9-foot deep navigation- channel during low-flow
periods. Existing 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) (week-long low flow with an expected
natural recurrence in a 10-year period) is 12,975 cubic feet per second
(cfs). This is double the natural low flow prior to establishment of the
present system of reservoirs in the watershed and less than that expected when
planned reservoirs are completed (14,200 cfs). Average flow of the river in
the project area is 151,417 cfs, based on 3 years data from the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) monitoring station at Cannelton
Dam.
The Ohio River Basin Commission (ORBC) projects an ample supply of
water for various consumptive uses (municipal, industry, and agriculture) and
instream uses (recreation, fish, and wildlife) through 2020, but believes the
anticipated consumption at that time may reduce the low flow below that needed
to maintain water quality (14,300 cfs). Water quality problems would indirectly
affect instream uses. By 2020, the ORBC believes that power plants will be a
larger consumer than all others combined. Future power plant usage probably
will be higher than believed because when the projection was made, once-through
cooling was still a preferred alternative for a portion of future use. ORBC
believes projections for municipal and industrial use other than power plants
or synfuel plants are too high because regional growth has slowed. However,
based on 1980 Kentucky Department of Energy predictions of synfuel development
in Kentucky, synfuel industry projections may be too low and could, along with
possible greater power plant consumption, offset the high projections for
municipal and other industry consumptive uses.
Among the mitlgative measures suggested by ORBC for maintaining water
quality critical flow are use of once-through cooling and adoption of low-flow
policies by all Basin states similar to those of Indiana and Pennsylvania,
which require consumers to develop reservoir storage to meet their demands
during droughts. The first alternative appears to be unfavorable to permitting
and approving agencies, but efforts to reduce the effects of increased consump-
tion on low flow via new reservoirs appear successful. The dam and reservoir
system also serves to reduce flood elevations 2 to 3 feet for the 100-year
flood level. Other ORBC plans for maintaining water quality are development of
water and energy conservation programs and stricter requirements for waste-
water treatment to reduce pollutant discharge.
Dissolved oxygen depletion is ORBC's main concern relative to water
quality critical flow. At present the ORBC includes barium, cadmium, chloride,
chromium, copper, iron, mangnne.se, phosphorous, selenium, silver, and zinc among
the inorganic chemicals that cause no major water quality problem, although
some of these appear to be above drinking water or aquatic life standards In the
project area (see Table 2.1-20). Cyanide and mercury are considered problems
in the Upper Ohio, and lead is considered a problem in the Upper and Middle
3-72
-------
Figure 3.4-1. Ohio River Basin
3-73
-------
Ohio. Limited organic chemical data indicate phenol problems through much of
the river. This is substantiated by ORSANCO data used to develop Table 2.1-20.
Samples taken in the project area during 1979-1980 indicated that manganese may
consistently exceed ORSANCO and Kentucky standards for a drinking water supply,
and mercury was near or somewhat above Kentucky's recommended limit for drinking
water supply. Further, fish tissue analysis at the same time showed elevated
concentrations of arsenic and selenium (insufficiently high to cause toxic
effects on humans consuming leas than 2 pounds of fish per day).
Fish observed during 1979-1980 at the Hancock and Breckinridge sites
(Table 3.4-1) were predominantly forage and rough species, with game and com-
mercial fish sampled in low numbers. Although no Federally designated
threatened or endangered species were observed, 3 species on the Kentucky
Nature Preserves Commission Animal Element List were collected in low numbers:
The paddlefish (larvae), river shiner, and pirate perch (adults). Twenty-nine
total species were observed at the Hancock site and 31 were observed at the
Breckinridge site.
No mussel beds were located at either site and no individual mussels
were collected, although a more recent survey has found a small aggregation of
live mussels downstream of the Breckinridge site at RM 707. Other benthic
communities are similar at the 2 sites: tubificid worms predominate, midges
are abundant, and these and virtually all of the other benthos are pollution-
tolerant or facultative. Overall benthic densities appear greatest in winter
and spring.
Planktonic animals (including fish eggs and larvae) appear to be most
dense during June and early July. Densities and taxa generally are similar from
nearshore to mid-river and from surface to bottom, although considerable varia-
bility is not uncommon. Their planktonic nature and the turbulent nature of
the Ohio River seem to produce a rather even distribution of fish eggs and
larvae. The greatest density of fish eggs and larvae taken during the survey
was during June at RM 715 (Figure 3.4-2).
Impacts. In addition to the navigation hazard evaluations of the
two sites (extreme impact for Hancock, significant impact for Breckinridge;
see Subsection 2.1.4.4 and Table 3.4-4), impacts to the Ohio River from project-
related activities will be demands on water availability, additions of chemical
wastes and heat, and disruption of aquatic life. The magnitude of such Impacts
to water systems generally is limited through plant design and operating pro-
cedures that intend compliance with policy and guidelines of regulatory author-
ities. Consistent with currently adequate regional water supplies, explicit
controls on water demand through water rights or allocations are nonexistent.
However, indirect ones are related to water quality controls and policy of
the Ohio River Basin Commission (created along with similar Commissions by the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80)). Controls on the nation's
water quality are provided for by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974 (PL 93*^523, as amended), and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 3251 et seq.)* Pursuant to these Acts, this
project must comply with Kentucky Water Quality Standards (401 KAR 5:026, 029,
031, and 035), EPA's effluent guidelines and standards for steam electric
power generation (40 CFR 423), and standards of the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission.
3-74
-------
Table 3.4-1
Table 3.4-1.
Fish Collected at the Cannelton Lock, and Dam (RM 721)
1968-1970 and 1975-1976, and from the Project Area
(RM 702-722), 1979-1980
Common Name
Paddlefish
Longnose gar
Bowfln
American eel
Skipjack herring
Gizzard shad
Threadfin shad
Goldeye
Mooneye
Goldfish
Carp
Stoneroller
Silver chub
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
River shiner
Mimic shiner
River carpsucker
Quillback
Highfin carpsucker
Bullhead minnow
SmaJlmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
Spotted sucker
Golden redhorse
Blue catfish
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
Pfrate perch
White bass
Striped bass
Green sunflsh
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Johnny darter
Log perch
Sauger
Walleye
Freshwater drum
Scientific Name
Polvodon spathula
Lepisosteus osseus
Aroia calva
Anguilla rostrata
Alosa chrysochioris
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Hiodon alosoldes
Hiodon terigsus
Carasslus auratus
CypHnusTcarpio
CampostOroa anomalum
Hybopsi s"~storeri ana
Notemigonus crvso'Teucas
Notropls athennpldes
Notropes blennlus
Nortop
-------
3-4409
5-1509
BRECKINRIDGE SITE
. 1 RM 705
2 RM 707
HANCOCK SITE
3 RM 715
4 RM 717
5 RM 722
LINES C8NNECTING DATA POINTS
ARE SOLELY FOR EASE IN READING
THE DATA MO 00 NOT IMPLY
TRENDS NOR INIEMEDIATt VALUES.
6/17
6/22
6/29
SOURCE: Texas Instruments (1980)
Figure 3.4-2
7/13
1979
SAMPLING PERIOD
7/18
7/28
8/10
8/16
Mean Numbers (per 100m ) of Fish Eggs and Larvae, Ohio River Mile
705, 707, 715, 717, and 722, 1979-1980 (Sheet 1 of 2)
-------
lOOr
1-239
oo
s;
o
o
¦x:
u
i—
-------
The effects of the project on current and projected withdrawals from
the stretch of the river adjacent to the sites will he minor. Average with-
drawal for both generating units will be 19 cfs. Based on ORBC records and
projections for Ohio RM 605.8 to 784, this will increase present consumptive
use of the Cannelton Pool by 26.8% and represent only 3% of projected power
plant consumptive use in 2020.
Increased turbidity, suspended solids, and dissolved solids are
expected to be significant locally during three 8-month periods of constructing
docks, intake structures, and near-shore structures. This will cause temporary
avoidance of the area by some instream users and will disturb bottom communities.
However, the nearest municipal user (Evansville, IN, 70 miles downstream) should
not be impacted because suspended solids should be reduced at that point.
Minor contributions to existing high sediment load of the river will continue
for the life of the project because of barge unloading and maintenance
activities.
As described in Subsection 2.1.4.3.5.3, blowdown from the plant's
cooling towers will be the only waste stream discharged into the Ohio River
(Table 3.4-4). The effect of the plant's cooling system will be to concen-
trate existing levels of heavy metals and other substances in makeup water from
the river and raise its temperature. When discharged, the concentrated sub-
stances and heat will be diluted by mixing the effluent with river water in
a mixing zone effected by the discharge structure operating design. The mixing
zone is needed to dilute arsenic, fluoride, barium, sulfate, selenium, and
chloride below drLnking water or aquatic life standards (see Table 2.1-20).
Iron, mercury, cadmium, phenol, cyanide, chromium, lead, and manganese currently
exceed one or more Kentucky standards in river water and therefore cannot be
diluted with a mixing zone. All parameters will meet 44% LCjq values at the
point where the discharge velocity is 2 feet per second. Dilution of parameters
above drinking water standards will be assured at the nearest withdrawal point
more than 70 miles downriver.
Heat discharged to the river will vary with the plant's load factor
and time of year. Discharge temperature will average 64°F in winter and 82°F
in summer; maximums will be 69°F and 96°F, respectively. The 2°F surface
isotherm occurring during worst-case conditions after a 100 to I dilution is
not expected to have a significant impact on water quality or aquatic life.
An evaluation of the potential synergistic effects of effluents from
the power plant and Willamette Industries at the Hancock site concluded that
distance would minimize the limited potential for interaction between the pri-
marily organic effluents of Willamette and primarily inorganic effluents of KU.
Intake of makeup water will impinge and entrain some aquatic organ-
isms, mainly fish eggs, fish larvae, planktonic al^ae, and zooplankton. In
conjunction with issuance of the NPDES permit and subsequent approval to
begin operation of the proposed power plant under the permit, EPA must evaluate
the adverse impact of cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environ-
ment. The provision for this evaluation is Section 316(b) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, which requires that the location, design, construction, and
capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the beat technology avail-
able for minimizing adverse impacts. EPA tentatively has determined that the
requirements of Section 316b are met by the proposed intake. Alternative
3-78
-------
intake systems were discussed in Subsection 2.1.4.3.4.1.
Location. Proposed locations of the intake structures are RM 716 at
the Hancock site and RM 705.5 at the Breckinridge site. The two
intake pipes will extend into the river 340 and 640 feet respec-
tively. Depth of the intake screens will be 22 feet. (Me year's
data on aquatic populations were collected upstream and downstream
of intake positions at both sites. At the Hancock site, one year's
data showed greater numbers of fish, fish eggs and larvae, and mac-
rozooplankton were collected at RM 715 upstream from RM 716; at
the Breckinridge site, greater numbers of the same groups were
collected from RM 705 than from RM 707. Distribution data for fish
eggs and larvae at both sites showed no consistent trends across the
river nor with depth. Species composition of each group of organisms
was similar at all sampling locations, with commercial, game, and
rare fish in low*numbers. Threatened or endangered species are not
a factor, although declined mussel populations are. No significant
mussel beds were found at any sampling location so there should be
no impact on these bottom fauna.
Location of the intake and discharge structures at RM 716 at the
Hancock site and RM 705.5 at th« Breckinridge site shortens length of
the piping to the cooling towers to the extent possible. At the
Hancock site, the discharge pipfe extends 38 feet into the river at a
depth of 6 feet and is somewhat downstream of the intake structures.
These distances between intake structure and the discharge outfall
should be sufficient to preclude recirculation of the discharge
water and impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that may aggre-
gate in the thermal plume of the outfall. Depth of the Intake struc-
tures will be more than twice the 9-foot channel depth maintained by
the C0E.
Design. Designs of the intake structures and discharge structure
should meet guidelines that provide for environmental and cost
considerations. As discussed in Subsection 2*1.4.3.4.1, construction,
maintenance, entrainment, impingement, and cost were considerations
in the selection of intake structures. The offshore stationary
slotted screen intake structures that are proposed will have intake
velocities of 0.5 feet per second or less, as suggested by EPA. They
will be oriented and shaped such that resistance to natural water
flow is minimal. They are expected to be self-cleaning and to
have less impingement and entrainment effects than onshore traveling
screens. The intake pumps will be housed on the shoreline, so that
their motors will be above design high water level.
Construction. Construction specifications of the intake and discharge
structures are shown in Figure 2.1-12. Many of the effects of
construction on aquatic life were discussed above. As noted* con-
struction impacts overall will be minor and short-term since dredging
maintenance is not anticipated. They are expected to be of similar
magnitude to those associated with construction of onshore travel-
ing screen systems, which g«neifally require jiirlodic dredging to
remove silt build-up in front of th« sereins.
3-79
-------
The construction schedule of April through November (during three
successive years) would have less impact on fish populations if
dredging were omitted when fish larvae are most dense.
Capacity. Intake volume is minimized by use of cooling towers and
the circulating water system described in Subsection 2.1.4.3.3.1.
Since entrainraent and impingement of aquatic life also are functions
of intake volume, minimal makeup requirements will reflect minimiz-
ation of impact.
Assuming even distribution of fish fcggs and larvae and other plank-
tonic components (as Indicated by sampling results), entrainment
expected at the plant may be estimated as the percent of river flow
represented by makeup flow. Maximum entrainment, estimated as per-
cent of the 7-day, 10-year low flow, would be 0.26% of the river's
planktonic populations. Average entrainment for 7Q10 conditions
would be 0.15%. Under average river conditions (approximately 130
thousand cfs) and maximum plant load, entrainment would be about
0.02%. This normally would be expected in July and August, when fish
eggs and larvae density has declined from the June peak.
The foremost difference in impacts to aquatic biota of the river at
the two sites is in entrainment potential. Collection data from five locations
on the river showed June and July 1979 fish eggs and larvae density to be
highest at RM 715 at the Hancock site and one collection from June 1980 showed
the same. Further, except during June when collections at both locations at
the Breckinridge site (RM 705 and 707) showed higher densities than the two other
locations near the Hancock site (RM 717 and 722), densities were consistently
higher at the Hancock site locations. This indicates greater entrainraent
potential of fish eggs and larvae by an intake at the Hancock site, but no
significant impact is anticipated based on the small percentage of entrainment
expected by the intake design.
3.4.2 Groundwater
Baseline. The aLluvium of the Ohio River floodplain contains
the greatest potential source of groundwater in the project area (average .350
gpm per well). Water-bearing sandstones generally produce more than adequate
quantities for domestic use (average 100 gpm per well), and limestone aquifers
generally produce the least amount (20 gpm per well). Recharge of the alluvial
aquifer is predominantly from the river, with the hydraulic connection between
the river and aquifer ranging from poor to excellent. Recharge from precipita-
tion is estimated to range from 0.3 to 0.5 mgd per square mile, and leakage
from permeable rocks at the valley wall adjacent to sand and gravel deposits
yields about 0.2 mgd per squaro mile.
Groundwater quality in the project area is generally good. Water in
the sandstone aquifers is soft to moderately hard but it may contain undesir-
able amounts of iron. Water from the alluvial aquifer generally is harder and
contains more iron than the sandstone aquifers.
Several of the domestic and municipal wells in the project area
exhibit higher to much higher iron levels than recommended by KPA for municipal
3-80
-------
systems (0.3 mg/liter). Wells supplying Canneltori and the Hancock site
exhibit high levels of iron as well as levels of nitrates that exceed EPA's
10 rag per liter standard. With the exception of these chemicals, no pollution
problems are associated with the project area groundwater. The iron is natur-
ally occurring in the sandstone hemitites. Elevated nitrates may be due to
leachates from agricultural fertilizers.
Impacts. Potential Impacts to groundwater from the power plant in-
clude drawdown of the aquifer, reducing availability, and alteration of water
quality or water characteristics such as taste. Pursuant to the Clean Water
Act of 1977 and Safe Drinking Act of 1974, the Applicant will monitor ground-
water quality to assure no long-term impacts to the potable water. A RCRA
permit is not required for the proposed plant operations since wastes associated
with fossil fuel power plants are excluded from hazardous waste regulations.
The plant's solid wastes are, however, subject to RCRA Subtitle D criteria
(state or regional developn^nt of environmentally sound methods of solid waste
disposal and those that maximize utilization of valuable resources and encourage
resource conservation). The status of power plant wastes under RCRA Is subject
to change pending further study.
Because the major source of groundwater in the project area is the
alluvial aquifer and recharge is predominantly from the Ohio River, municipal
and industrial groundwater supplies apparently exceed withdrawals and will
continue to do so in both counties (Table 3.4-4). Stress, if any, will be
greater on supplies in Hancock County, although none is presently identified.
Location of high-capacity wells as close to the river as possible, and where
hydraulic connection is good, reduces the effects of rapid water withdrawal on
those groundwater systems farther Inland.
Although river recharge of the alluvial aquifer will preclude impact
of constructing foundations and other pavements and compacted areas on the
alluvium recharge of the bedrock aquifers in landfill locations of both sites
will be affected by deposition of cementitious waste products. Runoff will be
increased and percolation of the predominately silt-loam soils will be de-
creased. Because the bedrock aquifers contribute Uttle to autllclpal and
industrial groundwater supplies tapped In the project area, groundwater denand
is not expected to be significantly affected.
The Applicant has proposed clay liners for holding Ponds A, B, and C.
ciav liners are one of four major types of liners: compacted earth liners,
Clay liners a rl_ld liners, and flexible synthetic liners Of these,
chemical sealan, g impermeable. Clay liners usually have lower hydraulic
only synthetic \^re^mPof other compacted soil types. If naturally occur-
conductivities avaliable, montmorillonites, especially bentonites, can be
ring clays are natural soils prior to compacting into a liner,
purchased and mixed with the njtur^ a clay^oU mixture are 1.8 to 0.6 feet
Hydraulic conductiv Applicant, clay liners for the Hancock ponds will
^Titv"ofVprox^teJy 0.003 "feet per day. Unlike rigid liners
have permeability o' *PP halt concrete), clay and Other compacted earth
(e.g., concrete, gu » ^hatand seismic activity subsurface settlementy
liners are flexible enough ^^hstand 8ynthetlc llnerJ
and they remain stab d thege conditions and prevent infiltration as
also generally will f leachlng ln this case probably is
well. However, as indi<;at®f* impact. Flexible eyntl^tic liners are
not necessarv to prevent significant
3-81
-------
vulnerable to puncture (especially during Installation), aging with exposure
to sun or temperature extremes (generally conditionally guaranteed for 20
years), reaction with ponded wastes, and stresses from trapped gases or ground-
water. Chemical sealants, which reduce permeability of the natural soils,
are not always effective in their present state of technology.
Soil characteristics in many of the proposed landfill areas on the
sites indicate relatively high permeability and potential for Infiltration
of trace elements and other substances in those areas. The stabilized waste to
be deposited on the soils in the landfill areas is lower in both leachability
and permeability than sludges, so that impact's to groundwater quality probably
will be minimized.
Because few coal-fired power plants use the new stabilized waste
treatment system proposed for the Hancock plant, data on potential impact on
water quality characteristics are limited. Data from ponded, filtered runoff
from a landfill of cementitious sulfites at another power plant site in Kentucky
(the Hancock plant will produce a mixture of sulfates and sulfites) indicate
that significant increases could occur in hardness and total dissolved solids
of groundwater. Existing hardness of groundwater at the Hancock site was not
measured but values as high as those recorded from landfill runoff at the
other station (very hard category) would be rare in groundwater of the sandstone
aquifers, which are the more important of the bedrock aquifers in the project
area and proposed landfill locations. Hardness per se has no health or welfare
effects but may become a matter of economics should treatment be necessary
prior to use. Total dissolved solids may have some welfare and health effects
(in susceptible persons) in large quantities. Good tasting water generally
contains less than 750 mg TDS/liter, as reported for sandstone aquifers in the
project area.
Sulfate and chloride contents of total dissolved 3olids, which may
produce adverse effects in susceptible persons, were above drinking water
standards in several samples from the treated runoff. Trace inorganics that
often exhibited higher levels than drinking water standards were manganese and
iron. As mentioned previously, the effects of excess manganese and iron on
human health are basically unknown, although excess iron may affect the taste
and use of water and have toxic effects on aquatic life. Manganese and espec-
ially iron leachates would contribute to already high levels. Although nitrates
were not tested in the runoff and may not be a significant constituent of
either that runoff or the Hancock runoff, fertilizer application during reveg-
etation of landfill areas could Increase already high levels.
On one occasion, selenium in the treated runoff exceeded drinking
water standards. It is unlikely that sufficient selenium would be leached Into
groundwater to allow the possibility of ingestion of potentially toxic amounts
(greater than 0.1 mg per day), although this would depend on ambient levels.
It is assumed that groundwater monitoring will detect any impact on ambient
concentrations.
3.A.3 Onsite Water Resources
3.4.3.1 Hancock Site
Baseline/Impacts. Water resources of the Hancock site are shown
in Figure 3.4-3, and selected water quality parameters of the 3 streams are
3-82
-------
SITE BOUNDARY
100-YEAR HIGH WATER
ELEVATION (406.3 FEET)
PERMANENT WATER BODIES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
SOURCE: USGS Topographic Maps
Sargent & Lundy (1980)
Figure 3.4-3. Water Resources, Hancock Site, 1979
3-83
-------
shown in Table 3.4-2. Present water quality of the streams is representative
of relatively unpolluted upland streams of the eastern deciduous forest. No
specific water quality problems are apparent and values of the parameters
analyzed mostly are within standards of the Kentucky DNREP. One dissolved
oxygen observation from Indian Creek (4.1 mg/1 in August 1979) was near the
DNREP standard for instantaneous minimum concentration (4 mg/1), and in May
1980, all 3 streams exhibited pH values below the 6.0 standard. At various times
during construction and operation of the plant, total dissolved solids, sus-
pended solids, and turbidity will increase in the three streams, affecting
water quality but not impacting biota significantly (Table 3.4-4).
Dominant fish groups in the Hancock streams are minnows and shiners.
The bluegill apparently is the most abundant of the few game fish present, and
there is no significant fishery except recreational bank fishing on Indian
Creek. Dominant bottom fauna are midges and oligochaetes. Diversity of benthos
is higher onsite than in the adjacent river, reflecting better water quality
and greater variety of habitats. Free-swimming and drifting macroinverte-
brates are dominated by midges, naldld worms, true bugs, and isopods. Al-
though macroinvertebrate populations of the onsite streams are indicative of
better water quality than that of the adjacent Ohio River, pollution-sensitive
species are relatively uncommon, indicating less than excellent quality.
Diversity of aquatic biota is greatest in Sandy Branch, which will receive
greatest lnpact from site development (Table 3.4-4).
Borings data indicate aquifer thickness above the Glen Dean Lime-
stone underlying the northern part of the Hancock site ranges from 50 to 150
feet, with the thicker portion along the northwestern part of the site. The
aquifer above the Buffalo Wallow Limestone, which underlies lower elevations of
the southern part of the site, varies from 15 to 40 feet in thickness. The
klluvlal aquifer at the site dips to the west, with a corresponding increase in
thickness. Observed water table levels also decline to the west, indicating
water movement in that direction.
There are 3 streams along the Hancock transmission corridor: Indian
Creek, Blackford Creek, and Sugarcamp Branch. All water quality parameters
observed in each stream (Table 3.4-3) were within Kentucky standards.
3.4.3.2 Breckinridge Site
Baseline/Impacts» Water resources of the Breckinridge site are
shown in Figure 3.4-4. Selected water quality parameters of Upper and Lower
Town Creek are shown in Table 3.4-2. Town Creek apparently has generally good
water quality and no major pollution problems. Values of the parameters analyzed
ate within Kentucky standards except for pH, which was below the standard (6)
during 4 of 7 sampling months. Total dissolved solids levels apparently are
higher in upper Town Creek than in the lower part but are still within the
range expected for small Kentucky streams. Effects of construction and opera-
tion of the power plant on water quality will be as described for the Hancock
Bite* although more significant because of better water quality of upper Town
Creek (Table 3.4-4).
Dominant fish groups in Town Creek are minnows and shiners, although
bluegill may become quite abundant in the summer. Bank fishing is common on
lower Town Creek at the embayment, although game fish generally appear limited
3-84
-------
Table 3.4-2.
Water Quality of Streams on the Hancock and Breckinridge Sites, 1979-1980
Indian Creek Muddy Branch Sandy Branch
1979
1980
1979
1980
1979
1980
Parameter
*"9
Sep
Dec
Apr
*2L
Jun
Jul
Aug
Se£
Pec
BeL
Jun
Jul
Aug
Se£
Dec
Apr
Ha*
Jun
Jul
UtCOCK SITE
Dissolved oxygen (mg/t)
4.1
6.4
7.0
12.4
8.9
8.8
8.5
6.3
6.5
5.6
13.2
9.2
7.2
8.0
8.5
6.3
6.2
13.6
11.2
8.4
8.4
Temperature (°C)
22.2
20.5
5.4
12.7
15.9
20.8
29.2
21.0
21.5
5.4
12.2
16.1
21.2
28.0
21.5
21
5.5
14.2
14.3
16.8
27.8
P«
6.3
6.9
6.0
6.7
5.3
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.4
6.8
5.5
6.4
6.8
6.0
7.3
6.1
6.4
5.6
6.4
6.6
Total dissolved solids
(¦g/O
229
98
173
236
257
247
134
135
85
192
110
128
127
138
159
97
99
165
182
166
151
Total suspended solids
(¦9/t)
12
50
149
13
15
30
123
5
15
68
17
9
9
11.
14.7
2
24
55
6
6
6
58
Turbidity (NTU)
11
47
68
_ •
6
14
38
7
24
44
_ *
7
7
65
3
22
36
_ *
5
3
34
Biochemical oxygen demand
(mj/t) (BOO5)
1.2
2.3
3.0
1.7
2.2
2.5
4.4
3.8
1.8
2.3
1.1
1.6
1.3
3.5
0.9
2.3
2.1
1.0
1.3
3.0
3.7
Velocity (ft/s)
<0.1**
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.6
Conductivity (wmhos)
285
200
310
360
360
340
330
210
210
320
360
360
320
370
210
220
410
400
350
370
390
Upper Town Creek Lower Town Creek
1979
1980
1979
I960
Parameter
*sa
Dec
Apr
HML
Jun
Jul
M
S*£
Pec
*en
Ha1
Jun
Jul
RECKINRIOGE SITE
Dissolved oxygen (mg/t)
5-9
6.3
6.6
11.2
10.1
7.2
8.9
7.7
6.5
6.6
13.0
9.1
10.8
8.0
Temperature (*C)
21.5
20.0
5.5
11.6
14.1
17.4
27.9
27.5
21.5
5.2
16.2
17.3
20.9
31.0
pK
5.4
7.1
5.1
6.1
5.6
6.3
6.8
5.8
7.2
5.3
5.9
5.7
6.6
7.1
Total dissolved solids
(mf/0
209
262
238
286
303
297
212
211
178
151
225
236
223
137
Total suspended solids
(mg/t)
n
4
93
15
12
22
9
67
63
52
46
51
52
54
Turbidity (NTU)
27
22
69
_ •
4
12
15
48
43
32
_ *
5
43
50
Biochemical oxygen demand
(mg/*) (BOO5)
3.1
2.2
3.3
1.2
1.7
2.2
3.3
4.6
3.0
3.1
4.5
3.9
3.6
4.3
Velocity (ft/s)
1.0
0.5
3.3
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.8
«0.1** <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Conductivity (utftos)
310
«
240
390
410
380
360
380
296
220
380
380
340
320
360
^Saiiptcs held too long for analysis (delved In transit).
<0.1 ¦ no measurable velocity.
Sow**: Texas Instruments Incorporated field data (1979-1980).
-------
Table 3.4-3. Water Quality of Streams Crossed by the Hancock
and Breckinridge Transmission Corridors, 1980
Hancock
Blackford Creek
Sugarcamp Branch
Upper
Indian Creek
Parameter
Hajr.
July
July
Ha1
Juljf
Dissolved oxygen (09/1)
12.4
6.8
12.2
8.7
11.6
7.9
Temperature (°C)
12.8
20.6
12.9
17.5
12.1
18.5
PH
6.7
6.8
6.6
7.1
6.6
6.8
Total dissolved solids (ing/t)
13
133
209
104
226
143
Total suspended solids (ng/t)
123
17.2
1.5
4.6
8.0
104
Turbidity (NTU)
9
10
2
8
11
43
Velocity (ft/s)
1.0
0.3
1.2
0.7
1.5
0.8
Conductivity (pnhos)
180
235
300
185
345
320
Breckinridge
Little Beach Fork
Bull
Creek
Clover Creek
of Clover Creek
532.
July
Hay
July
Hay
July
10.4
7.1
11.7
6.6
11.2
8.6
13.0
20.0
13.2
21.0
11.8
20.5
6.7
7.0
6.4
7.3
6.5
6.8
242
169
300
157
383
145
19.5
80
11.5
36.8
2.5
44.4
14
24
13
43
9
28
0
0
0
0
1.0
0.7
305
270
290
145
390
220
Source: Texas Instruments Incorporated field data (1979-1980).
-------
OJ
I
c»
-«i
SOURCE: USGS Topographic Maps
Sargent & Lundy (1980)
Figure 3.4-4. Water Resources, Breckinridge Site, 1979
-------
in variety and number. Notable differences in the benthic raacroinvertebrate
community of Town Creek and those of the Hancock, site streams are the greater
overall density in Town Creek and a greater variety of pollution-sensitive
species. As might be expected, the most diverse component of the community
occurs in Upper Town Creek where substrate and other habitats are more diverse.
Total mean density (and probably diversity) of drifting and free-swimming macro-
invertebrates also is greater in Town Creek.
Although many pollution-tolerant and facultative species are among
the Town Creek macroinvertebrates, overall good water quality is Indicated by the
comparatively large numbers of pollution-sensitive mayflies and midges as well
as comparatively diverse stonefly and caddisfly components. A primary factor
in the status of Town Creek is that cultivation and agricultural pollutants are
limited in the upper watershed. The inq>act of site development on diversity of
aquatic biota will be more significant In Town Creek than In Sandy Branch on
the Hancock site (Table 3.4-4).
Much of the bedrock underlying the Breckinridge site Is Hardinsburg
Sandstone, which dips to the west and northwest beneath the alluvial aquifer.
Elevation of the Hardinsburg Sandstone varies from 270 to 340 feet msl. The
thickness of the aluvlum above bedrock varies from 100 to 150 feet. The observed
water table levels show a definite decline to the west and northwest, Indicat-
ing movement of water in those directions.
Streams along the path of the Breckinridge transmission1 corridor are
Bull Creek, Clover Creek, and Little Beach Fork of Clover Creek. Water quality
parameters observed in each stream (Table 3.4-3) are within Kentucky standards.
3.4.3.3 Elizabethtown Transmission Corridor Aquatic Resources
Baseline/Impact. From the proposed tie-in point south of the Hancock
site, the Elizabethtown corridor crosses 18 waterbodles - 17 streams and 1
pond/marsh complex. One of the streams, Clover Creek, Is crossed at 5 points.
Within the corridor at all stream crossings, virtually all tree canopy has
been removed. Significant herblclde-related stress is present among riparian
vegetation and streamside mosses and lichens Inside and adjacent to the
corridor at the Tar Fork of Clover Creek and Clover Creek crossings.
The largest stream crossing Is Tar Fork of Clover Creek. This
drainage and those of Clover Creek and the Rough River are the most extensive
watersheds crossed by the corridor. Each of the stream crossings that is south
of the sites is similar to most of the streams previously described, with
silty/sandy substrate and little to no measurable flow. Most crossings east of
the potential Breckinridge corridor exhibit greater flow and sandy/bedrock
substrates* Erosion Is noticeable on most streams but is greatest where live-
stock occur. Siltatlon Is not a problem in the faster streams. None of the
stream crossings will require a Department of Army permit.
During construction of the Unit 2 transmission line, turbidity,
suspended solids, and dissolved solids will increase in these water bodies.
Impact will be short-term and should be minor using spanning techniques and
erosion control procedures as proposed. Hicks Lake, a pond/marsh complex near
Franklin Crossroads between Howe Valley and Cecilia in Hardin County, appears
to be the most ecologically sensitive water body to be crossed. Hicks Lake
3-88
-------
wetland area will be crossed by either Unit 2 transmission system, whereas the
Tar Fork of Clover Creek complex would be crossed only by the Hancock Unit 2
transmission system.
3-89
-------
Table 3.4-4. Water Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 1 of 5)
Affected Environment
OHIO RIVER
Navigation
Source of Impact
or Effect
Construction of targe
docking and intake
facilities.
Envi (-omental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Hater Availability
Barge traffic.
Withdrawal of cooling
water makeup from Ohio
River.
Docking facilities will be
located fro* approximately
600 feet (downstream end) to
370 feet (upstream end) Inland
from the existing river chan-
nel line.
With docked barges, the
facility-to-sailing line dis-
tance trill be reduced to 265
feet at the upstream end.
Potential for barge breakaway
at the docking facilities.
Intake structures will be 450
ffcet away from sailing line
and 22 feet deep.
Increase of St over current
traffic through Camel ton Lock
and Dam.
Maxima/average withdrawal of
Ohio River 7Q10 Is expected to
be 0.26/0.15%.
Project withdrawals essenti-
ally represent conswptive
use.
Specific docking and Intake
facility designs have not
been proposed for the
Breckinridge site.
Same.
Hater availability for aquatic
biota, wildlife, recreation.
Saw.
Duration/Significance
The Louisville COE has deter-
mined that the proposed
Hancock facility Mill present
a moderate hazard to naviga-
tion. COE ratings of the
Hancock and Breckinridge
sites relative to navigation
impact were extreme and
significant, respectively.
The potential for breakaway
barges will be reduced by
having a tow boat at the site
whenever barges are docked.
Intake structures should have
no significant impact on navi-
gation.
Minor impact.
Minor impact.
The project will represent a
26.81 increase over recent
total withdrawals in this part
of the Ohio River, which is
within ORBC expectations that
predict a tenfold increase in
consumptive use in this area
by 2QZ0. By then, this project
wilt represent only about 31 of
the predicted increase In power
plant consumptive use.
No significant impact.
-------
Table 3.4-4. Water Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 2 of 5)
Source of Impact
Affected Environment or Effect
Hater Availability
(Cont.)
Hater Quality Site preparation and
construction of docks,
intake structures, dis-
charge structures,
near-shore buildings,
etc. along Ohio River.
Operation of barge
facilities.
Environmental
Hancock Site Alternative
and water volume for naviga-
tion.
Increased turbidity, suspended
solids, and dissolved solids
in the Ohio River.
Streambed and onshore disturb-
ances will add organic mater-
ials, nutrients, and inorganic
particles to the water colunn.
Potential for spills of coal,
limestone, oil, and other
diearicals.
Consequences
Breckinridge Site Alternative
Sane.
Sane.
Duration/Significance
Increased turbidity, expected
to be greater than increased
suspended solids, probably will
cause temporary avoidance of
the area by fish, waterfowl,
and secondarily, fishermen and
hunters; will be most severe
from April through November
1984-1986.
Impact on aquatic biota, wild-
life, and recreation is expect-
ed to be minor and short-term
due to existing turbidity and
limited number of game fish and
pollution-intolerant species in
the Ohio River.
Barge movement will cause some
Instream erosion, and constant
turbulence will resuspend
ambient silt and prevent
disposition in the area.
Contributions to existing
high sediment load will be
for life of the project.
Increased suspended sol ids
from coal and limestone spills
would have greatest impact on
downstream municipalities using
river water for domestic sup-
ply. However, the 70-mile dis-
tance to the nearest such user
(Evansville) should reduce this
to an insignificant impact.
Oil and chemical spills would
have greater impact, although
the possibility of these spills
and impact will be minimized
Disturbance of streambed will Same.
Increase silt load in the Ohio
River downstream from the
facility.
-------
Table 3.4-4. Water Resources and Envlronneatal Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 3 of 5)
Affected Environment
Hater Quality
(Cont.J
Source of Impact
or Effect
Effluent discharge to
the Ohio River.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
O*
I
SO
N>
Heat discharge to the
Ohio River.
Synergistic effects
fro* other industrial
discharges along the
Ohio River.
Discharge rate at maximum
capacity will be 3.7 cfs.
Parameters requiring 100:1
dilution in a 100-foot nixing
zone to meet water quality
criteria include fluoride,
barium, sulfate, selenium,
and chloride. Parameters
that will not meet water
quality criteria with a
mixing zone include iron,
manganese, mercury, phenol,
cyanide, cadmium, lead, and
chromium. Total suspended
solids expected to be 400
mg/1.
Temperature of effluent will
vary with time of year and
load factor.
Maximum/average simmer temper-
ature is expected to be
96/8ZT; maximum/average win-
ter temperature 69/64°F.
At maximum capacity and tem-
perature differential {27°F),
a 2*F isotherm is expected to
occur after a 100:1 dilution.
Nixing of discharges from KU
and the Willamette Industries
paper plant.
Assumed same.
Assumed same.
No discharges are presently
located on the Ohio River in
proximity to the proposed dis-
charge point.
Possible mixing of discharges
from proposed H-Coal facility,
although no discharge is cur-
rently planned from H-Coal.
Duration/Significance
by adherence to planned oil
handling and spillage pro-
cedures.
Only those parameters currently
above KY standards in river
water will exceed standards
at the edge of the nixing
zone. These parameters will
meet standards at a point
where discharge velocity is
2 feet per second, so that
no measurable impact on
aquatic life or water supply
is expected.
Ho significant impact 1s ex-
pected.
No significant Impact is ex-
pected from combined discharges
of KU and Willamette due to
the 4 mile distance between
discharges and the minor poten-
tial for chemical reaction be-
tween an effluent dominated by
organic materials (paper plant)
and one dominated by Inorganic
-------
Table 3.4-4. Water Resources and Environmental Consequences of the Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 4 of 5)
Affected Environment
Hater Quality
(Cont.J
Aquatic Biota
Source of Impact
or Effect
Placement of barge
facilities and Intake
and discharge struc-
tures.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Barge traffic.
Intake of cooling water
makeup.
elimination of a limited area
of aquatic bottom habitat
and creation of structure for
fish and certain benthlc
organisms.
Continuous disturbance of bot-
tom sediments could stress
benthic community in the im-
mediate vicinity of the dock.
Entralnment of aquatic organ-
isms, mainly fish eggs, fish
larvae, and planktonic algae
and zooplankton.
Same.
Same.
Same.
U>
I
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater use from
onsite wells.
Maximum/average use is expec-
ted to be 1046/802 gpm
(1.5/1.1 mgd).
Groundwater consumption in
Hancock County averages 26 mgd
known pumpage.
Potential lowering of alluvial
aquifer water table from com-
bined withdrawals of the power
plant and the existing Willa-
mette facility.
Same.
Known pumpage averages 0.3 mgd
in Breckinridge County.
Potential lowering of alluvial
aquifer water table from com-
bined withdrawals of the power
plant and the proposed H-coal
facility.
Groundwater recharge Reduced recharge of bedrock Same.
aquifers in landfill areas.
Increased runoff and decreased
percolation from deposition of
cenentitious waste products.
Duration/Signi ficance
materials (power plant).
Hinor impact throughout the
life of the power plant. Habi-
tat diversity currently limited
by river management.
Minor impact during the life of
the power plant due to predomi-
nance of pollution tolerant
species.
Potentially greater entrainment
at the Hancock site if higher
densities of fish eggs and
larvae are present as shown in
one year's collecting data.
Impact is minimized by intake
structure specifications (see
text).
Ho significant stress is expec-
ted since the major groundwater
source is the alluvial aquifer
which is recharged by the Ohio
River.
Stress, if any occurs, will be
greater on supplies in Hancock
County.
Rapid recharge from the Ohio
River should preclude signifi-
cant impacts from combined
withdrawals on either site.
No significant impact expected
on groundwater supplies since
these bedrock aquifers con-
tribute little to municipal
supplies tapped in the project
area and much recharge of these
aquifers probably occurs
-------
Table 3.4-4
Water Resources and Environmental Consequences of Che Hancock Project,
Hancock Site and Breckinridge Site Alternatives (Sheet 5 of 5)
Affected Environment
GROUNDWATER (Cant.)
ONSITE HATER
RESOURCES
I
Source of Impact
or Effect
Possible leaching of
effluents from holding
ponds, coal and limes-
tone storage areas, and
landfill areas onsite.
Construction activi-
ties, landfill activi-
ties.
Environmental Consequences
Hancock Site Alternative Breckinridge Site Alternative
Channelization of on-
site streams.
Clearing and construc-
tion along Unit 1 and
2 corridors.
Aerial herbicide appli-
cation during corridor
maintenance.
Potential for altering ground-
Mater characteristics.
Existing high levels of iron
and nitrates could be in-
creased by the project..
Higher levels of total dis-
solved solids, turbidity in
Sandy Branch. *id
-------
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
This section addresses those environmental elements, other than air
and water quality, that have been identified by Federal or other agencies for
special management procedures. Most of these elements have been mentioned in
preceding sections. Their status in the Hancock project area is summarized in
this section, and laws, regulations, or other directives applicable, to each
element are cited.
3.5.1 Historic and Archaeological Resources
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq!)
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593)
The National Historic Preservation Act protects historic and cultural
properties that are eligible for or on the National Register of Historic Places.
It established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and requires that
Federal agencies involved in Federal, Federally assisted, or Federally licensed
actions afford the Council an opportunity to comment on actions that affect
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior or designee to undertake data recovery or
preservation activities if an action may cause irreparable loss of significant
paleontologlcal, historic, or archaeological data. Executive Order 11593
directs Federal agencies, in consultation with the Advisory Council, to insti-
tute procedures to assure their plans and programs contribute to the preserva-
tion and enhancement of nonfederally owned historic and cultural properties.
Regulations implementing the National Historic Preservatipn Act (36 CFR 800)
require Federal agencies to consult with State Historic Preservation Officers
(SHPO) to determine effects that an action may have on historic and cultural
properties* Accordingly, EPA Region IV consulted with State Historic Preserva-
tion Officers of Indiana and Kentucky to determine the status of standing
structures and archaeological sites in the project area.
Archaeological and historical resources are nonrenewable. The
impacts of disturbing archaeological and historical resources range from direct
destruction of specific sites to changes in the integrity of the setting or
feeling of the property that contributes to its significance (36 CFR 800).
Other possible adverse effects include isolation of the site from the surround-
ing environment; introduction of out of character visual, audible, pr atmos-
pheric elements; neglect; or transfer or sale of the property without adequate
preservation restrictions.
Each of the cultural sites of the developed areas will be indirectly
affected by land modification activities: the predominately rural character of
the plant site area will be changed to an industrial setting, and the presence
of transmission lines in rural areas will create an out of character visual
element. Construction of buildings, roads, pipelines and docks on the plant
site will disturb archaeological and historic sites on lowland areas and along
the Ohio River, while landfills will alter those sites In uplands. Because of
extensive preconstruction evaluation and salvage and mitigation during construc-
tion, if warranted, loss of undiscovered sites is not expected.
3-95
-------
Numbers of significant archaeological sites aad historical standing structures
within view or on either the Hancock or Breckinridge site are:
Hancock Site
Indiana side of Ohio River: 3 standing structures were determined by
the Indiana SIIPO to be eligible for
nomination to the National Register# It
was further determined that the Hancock
project would have no adverse impact on
these structures.
Hancock site: 33 archaeological sites identified on
the Hancock site were recommended by the
Kentucky SHPO for testing to determine
eligibility for nomination to the Nat-
ional Register. 5 of these sites are
now believed outside the site bound-
aries.
No standing structures surveyed on the
Hancock site were determined by the
Kentucky SHPO to be eligible for nomina-
tion to the National Register.
7 historic cemeteries occur on the
Hincock site.
Brfecklntldgfe Site*
Indiana Side o£ Ohio River: 1 standing structure was determined
by the Indiana SHPO to be eligible for
the National Register.
Breckinridge site: 5 archaeological sites identified on the
Breckinridge site were recommended by
the Kentucky SHPO for testing to deter-
mine eligibility for nomination to the
National Register.
2 standing structures on the Breckin-
ridge site are on the National Register:
the Holt House and the Holt Chapel.
The Holt House will not be directly
affected by construction activities but
will be subject to impacts from in-
creased noise, traffic, and fugitive
dust. The Holt Chapel is in a location
that will be part of the plant facility
complex.
No standing structures surveyed on the
Breckinridge site were determined by the
Kentucky SHPO to be elibgible for nomina-
tion to the National Register.
3-96
-------
3 historic cemeteries occur on the
Breckinridge site.
*The archaeological survey of the Breckinridge site was only 65%
complete, so that other significant archaeological sites may be pres-
ent. Because that part of the site yet to be surveyed is in upland
rather than lowland areas near the river, it is believed that few,
if any, additional significant sites will be identified.
One standing structure along the Elizabethtown Corridor was determined
by the Kentucky SHPO to be eligible for nomination to the National Register.
Its viewshed will be affected by construction of the Unit 2 transmission line
regardless of which site is developed. The aesthetic impact on its viewshed
will be intensified by the addition of the new line for the long-term and it
will be subjected to increased fugitive dust, traffic, and noise during short-
term construction activities.
3.5.2 Prime Farmland
Although not protected by Federal law except on lands proposed for
surface mining (Public Law 95-87), prime and unique farmlands are addressed by
USDA Soil Conservation Service policy (7 CFR 657). SCS has expressed concern
about any action that tends to impair the productive capacity of American
agriculture and has set policy to make and keep current an inventory of prime
farmland and unique farmland, in cooperation with state and local agencies.
SCS personnel specifically the State Conservationists, are to provide leader-
ship for inventories of important farmlands for the state, county, or other
entitv and prepare a statewide list of soil mapping units that meet the
criteria for prime farmland («» identified in 7 CFR 657).
The SCS State Conservationist for the Commonwealth of Kentucky issued
„ „Mn.)nar« llstine of Prime Farmland Soils of Kentucky in May 1979 (Kentucky
a preliminary listing KY 42-9-4). The ll.t, which will be finalized
J",7 l^lV.clon wlth other states, as provided for in SCS policy,
° nine soil types that must meet specified flooding and/or drainage
criteria to qualify aa prime farmland. According to SCS policy, onaite surveys
® official determination of the status of these soil types.
Basically^candidate "for prime farmland status are those that have
^oductiv; qualities and occupy relatively level terrain.
Prime farmland soils occurring on the project site will be destroyed
by construction and landfill activities.
v
-------
drainage criteria for a determination of prime farmland. Altogether, identified
possible and known prime farmland comprises about 45%, or 1125 acres, of the
site. The SCS survey has not been finalized on about 20% of the site, so that
extents of known and possible prime farmland cannot be estimated.
3.5.3 Wetlands
Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
Like the Executive Order pertaining to the protection and enhancement
of the cultural environment, this and similar orders were issued in furtherance
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies conducting activities and
programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related
land resouces planning, regulating, and licensing activities, to avoid, to the
extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the destruction or loss of
wetlands. It further requires Federal agencies to avoid support of new
construction in wetlands if a practicable alternative exists. Wetlands as
defined by the Order generally Include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas
such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural
ponds.
Hancock Site. Wetlands inventoried by the Kentucky Department of
Fish and Wildlife that are associated with the Hancock site are Indian Lake and
a small lake near Muddy Branch. Both are Type 5 wetlands, which are inland
open fresh water (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). A wetland that has not
been inventoried by Kentucky lies Inside the northern boundary of the site.
This is a shallow marsh that ranges in extent from approximately 4 acres during
spring to about 1 acre during summer. The existing hydrological regime in all
of these locations will be altered by project control over natural drainage
patterns and runoff.
Breckinridge Site. The Breckinridge site is associated with one
wetland embayment inventoried by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Town Creek Embayment. In its study of the natural, historical, and recreational
resources of the Ohio River Basin, the Ohio River Basin Commission (1978)
recommended that the Town Creek Embayment be investigated within 1 to 5 years
to determine applicability of the area as a Commission project for conservation.
It will be affected by alteration of natural drainage patterns and runoff.
3.5.4 Floodplains
Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)
Executive Order 11988 was issued in furtherance of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975) as well as NEPA. In addition to
directing Federal agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize impact
of floods on human safety, the order also requires that Federal agencies evaluate
the effects of actions they may take in a floodplain to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse effects on the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains. Floodplains defined by the order are, at a minimum, those areas
subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in a given year.
3-98
-------
Hancock Site. The 100-year floodplain elevation at the Hancock site
is 406.3 feet msl. Elevation of the 1937 flood of record at the site, adjusted
for recent lock and dam construction, is 407.9 feet rasl. Areas within the 100-
year floodplain on the site include locations north and east of the Louisville
and Nashville R.R. and locations bordering Sandy Branch (see Figure 3.4-3).
The floodplain associated with Sandy Branch will be destroyed as the "upper
stream is channelized to accomodate site runoff. Construction of onshore
berms and structures associated with the coal and limestone unloading system
and the intake and discharge systems will occur in the floodplain between
river miles 715 and 716.5.
Breckinridge Site. At the Breckinridge site, the 100-year floodplain
elevation is 412.3 feet msl. Adjusted elevation of the 1937 flood of record is
414.3 feet msl. Areas within the 100-year floodplain on the Breckinridge site
include locations west of the Louisville and Nashville R.R. and locations
bordering Town Creek (see ^Figure 3.4-4). As on the Hancock site, the flood-
plain along Town Creek will be destroyed as channelization and other modifica-
tions are done to accomodate site runoff and in this case, to construct land-
fill areas. Onshore berms and structures associated with the coal and lime-
stone handling system and the discharge system will be constructed in the
floodplain at river miles 703.5 and 705.5.
3.5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources
Pish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
One of the provisions of the Act requires Federal agencies involved
in actions that will impound, divert, deepen, or otherwise control or modify
for any purpose a natural stream or other water body to take action to protect
fish and wildlife resources that may be affected. Federal agencies Involved
in such actions are to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
appropriate Commonwealth agency to determine measures to conserve and improve
wildlife resources that may be affected by the actions.
Hancock Site. The Hancock site has three streams: Indian Creek,
Muddy Branch, and Sandy Branch. All have natural riparian habitat and none has
been channelized. Sandy Branch, as mentioned, will lose its natural character.
It is the only known habitat on the site for the pirate perch, a species that is
in danger of extinction in Kentucky. Topographic changes associated with
landfill operations will alter runoff patterns and headwaters of Muddy Branch
and Indian Creek. Water quality changes in these streams are expected to be
greater total dissolved solids, iron, and manganese. These are expected to
have no impact on existing biota.
Breckinridge Site. The single stream on the Breckinridge site is
Town Creek which also has natural riparian habitat and has not been channelized,
although pool elevation of the Ohio River has flooded its mouth. Town Creek
will be altered significantly to form a channel for site runoff. Its headwaters
will be altered as topography is changed during landfill operations* Pollution-
intolerant bottom organisms will be displaced, perhaps indirectly affecting
fish and wildlife resources through the food chain.
3-99
-------
3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
The Act protects threatened or endangered plant and animal species
and their critical habitat as designated by the Secretary of the Interior.
Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402) require Federal agencies to
consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service If listed species or habitat
essential for their survival may be affected by Federal projects, plans,
licenses, and other activities. Accordingly, KPA Region IV consulted with FWS
to confirm the status of threatened and endangered species in the project area.
No threatened or endangered plants or animals listed by DOI were
observed during vegetation and wildlife surveys on the Hancock and Breckinridge
sites. Records of Federally listed species in western Kentucky do not Include
Hancock, Breckinridge, and Hardin counties (FWS, personal communication 1978;
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission 1979).
During development of this EIS program, the Kentucky Department for
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection requested that species listed on
the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission's Plant and Animal Element List be
addressed. These plants and animals are among the elements of natural diversity,
both biological and physical, that are considered threatened with extirpation
from the state if something Is not done In their behalf. It Is the Intent of
the Commission to identify, map, and monitor these elements to maintain the
natural world in the diverse state in which it developed. Observations during
onsite surveys of species on the Animal Element list will add records to those
currently in the Commission's files.
Hancock Site. Observations indicate that the evening bat is a
resident of Jeffty Cliff and associated woodlands. These locations also provide
roosting sites for the black vulture. Sightings of other listed wildlife
species on the site included the great blue heron, the great egret, and the
marsh hawk. One fish on the Commission's list, the pirate perch, was seined
from Sandy Branch. Larvae of another, the paddleflsh, were collected at Ohio
River Mile 717. Known onsite habitat of the pirate perch probably will be
destroyed, but habitat requirements and Kentucky distribution Indicate Muddy
Branch and Indian Creek could support the species. Impacts on the evening bat
and black vulture are uncertain and depend upon their tolerance of activity
near the cliff. No significant impacts are expected to the other species.
Breckinridge Site. Three birds on the Commission's list were sighted
on or near the Breckinridge site: the black vulture, the great blue heron, and
the great egret. Larvae of the paddleflsh were collected at Ohio River Mile 707
and an adult river shiner was collected at the same location* No impacts are
expected to the bird species based on observations of occasional site usage.
Impacts to the fish species are expected to be slight based on minimal entrain-
ment and impingement due to cooling water Intake and discharge.
3-100
-------
4.0 THE PROJECT'S UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS,
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES, AND CONFLICTS
Development of the proposed action will involve a number of tradeoffs
and commitments of resources. Although the proposed action includes many state-
of-the-art environmental impact control procedures and technologies, certain
impacts are unavoidable, while others are considered insignificant' compared
with the cost of eliminating them. Most unavoidable adverse impacts and resource
commitments represent tradeoffs between the objectives of the project and its
use of the environment; however, emissions and effluent controls represent
tradeoffs of impacts among air, water, and land resources. Construction and
operation of the generating station and transmission facilities per se do not
conflict with the objectives of Federal and other governmental plans, but pro-
posed location of the generating station on the Hancock site is objectionable
to local government and apparently to certain components of Commonwealth gov-
ernment as well. Location of the generating station on the Breckinridge site
could interfere with Commonwealth and Federal plans.
4.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Construction and operation of Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and
2 and proposed transmission facilities will have long-term impacts on more than
2500 acres of land (including cultural resources), associated water resources
(including the Ohio River adjacent to the site), and the atmosphere and bio-
logical resources within the influence of the emissions plume. Short-term
impacts will occur in certain areas of the human environment until sufficient
monetary returns are available or assured for upgrading tax-supported facilities
and activities (including road construction) and until sufficient time has
elapsed to allow acceptance of the project.
On the generating station site, existing soil structure, topography,
drainage patterns, vegetation, and cultural significance will be destroyed.
The area of the plant facilities probably will be permanently converted from
agricultural and woodlands land uses to industrial land use. Landfill areas,
although perhaps available for other uses in the long term, will not support
equivalent agricultural or woodland uses for at least several decades after
plant shutdown.
Loss of the existing terrestrial characteristics and drainage pat-
terns would involve more than 1000 acres of known and possible prime farmland
soils on either site, loss of riparian vegetation on either site, and loss of
special growing sites for wetlands and mixed mesophytic forest vegetation on
the Hancock site. The larger Breckinridge site (2480 acres vsv 2350 for the
Hancock site) contains about 75 acres more known or possible prime farmland
than does the Hancock site, but riparian and other disturbance-sensitive
sites are more extensive on the Hancock site. This includes the number of
known archaeological sites requiring additional investigation prior to site
development (28 on the Hancock site vs. 5 on the Breckinridge site) and the
visual character of the site. The Breckinridge site includes two structures
on the National Register of Historic Places but both are abandoned, and one
has deteriorated (the Holt Chapel) and the other (the Holt House) is in poor
condition. Completion of the soil and archaeological surveys on the Breckin-
ridge site would not be expected to change the relative status of the sensitive
sites because areas remaining to be surveyed are primarily in recently dis-
turbed uplands.
4-1
-------
The stream to be used for collecting runoff from the plant facilities
locations will lose its present natural character and become a channel that
will have significantly diminished life-support value. On the Hancock site,
this would be Sandy Branch, diich has a greater diversity of habitats and
apparently better water quality than the site's other two streams. However,
channelization of Town Creek, the only stream on the Breckinridge site, probably
would be a greater impact on onsite water resources, as indicated by a
greater diversity of pollution-sensitive aquatic biota in its upper reaches.
There is no indication that drift from streams on either site contributes
significantly to aquatic communities of the Ohio River.
Intake of cooling water will entrain and impinge small quantities of
aquatic biota of the Ohio River for the life of the generating station. Con-
struction of the barge docking and unloading facilities will temporarily but
severely disturb bottom communities of approximately one mile of shoreline.
Operation of these facilities will create constant turbulence, and impede
reestablishment of Intolerant species, although few. One year's sampling
data indicate that somewhat greater quantities of fish eggs and larvae and
other planktonic fauna likely to comprise much of the entrained and impinged
biota may occur at the Hancock site. No Federal threatened or endangered
species would be impacted at either site. Species on the Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission's Animal Element List could be entrained or impinged at
either site, producing slight impacts on their populations.
An additional impact from the barge docking and unloading facility as
now proposed at the Hancock site will be the facility-to-sailing line distance,
which the Louisville COE has determined will present a moderate hazard to
navigation on the Ohio River. COE ratings of the Hancock and Breckinridge
sites relative to navigation impact were extreme and significant, respectively.
Neither drinking water nor aquatic organisms are expected to be
impacted appreciably by pollutants in the plant's discharge to the Ohio River.
Eight water quality parameters currently exceed Kentucky standards in ambient
river water and therefore cannot meet standards at the edge of a mixing zone-
Concentrations of these pollutants will be less than 6% above ambient levels
at the mixing zone edge. Although the cooling water discharge will not add
pollutants, there will be slight contributions to accumulations of heavy metals
in river sediments from fallout of trace elements in chimney emissions.
Although air quality standards apparently will not be violated by
chimney emissions or by fugitive dust emissions from the coal and limestone
handling system, background levels of S02, TSP, and N0X will be increased in
the vicinity of the plant and small contributions will be made to potential
vegetation stress from these substances, acid precipitation, and trace element
deposition* It is expected that the possible impact of fugitive coal dust on
the bleached pulp product of Willamette Industries adjacent to the Hancock
site will be mitigated by appropriate control mechanisms.
Removal of SO2 and suspended particulates from the boiler flue gas
will generate about 1.17 million tons of stabilized solid waste each year for
the life of the plant. In addition to causing impacts to terrestrial resources
mentioned above, onsite disposal of this waste will degrade surface water
quality and groundwater quality, althougjh possibly not impacting standards
4-2
-------
and/or human health. Should groundwater that is used for domestic purposes be
affected) treatment for total dissolved solids and hardness may be necessary.
Background noise levels will be increased significantly, especially
at the Breckinridge site, although levels off the plant site are expected to
remain below standards that protect hearing loss. Impact on nearby residents
will be similar at the two sites, based on projected locations of greatest
increase in noise levels.
During peak construction on either site, there will be significant
impacts on traffic crossing the Ohio River between Cannelton, Indiana and
Hawesville, Kentucky and on that along U.S. 60. This will exacerbate the strain
expected on project area police protection. Rental housing demand during these
periods probably cannot be met with existing units, especially with the Hancock
site alternative. Project area motels and other temporary housing units will
be stressed regardless of which site is developed. The 3-year hiatus between
peak construction work forces for Units 1 and 2 will be a distinct disadvantage
to project area governments and businesses planning for the project.
The most significant social impacts of the Hancock site alternative
probably have already occurred. Resistance to the project in that county has
been evident since the project was announced in late 1978, and roles, reputa-
tions, and attitudes have been formulated around it. The acceptance of inmi-
grant construction workers may be hindered by perceived or real resistance,
although most resistance should dissipate by the time operating personnel
arrive. Similar impacts have not occurred in Breckinridge County, nor are
they expected, although some landowners on both sites are opposed to giving up
their land.
Development of the Unit 1 transmission system will degrade landscape
scenic quality and create incompatible visual contrasts, especially in hilly
woodland areas. Impacts will be greater along the Hancock corridor. Use of
steel towers for Unit 2 transmission from either site will create a significant
visual contrast with the existing wooden towers along the Elizabethtown cor-
ridor.
Fugitive dust, burning of slash, and vehicle emissions will contribute
to short-term local air pollution along the corridors. Ambient noise levels of
the predominantly rural locales also will be increased significantly during
construction, and a slight buzzing sound may be associated with transmission,
especially during inclement weather.
Streams and other water bodies along the transmission"corridors will
have short-term increases in turbidity, suspended solids, and dissolved solids.
Several crossings of Clover Creek and tributaries by the Elizabethtown corridor
between the Hancock corridor and Breckinridge corridor would make this and most
other impacts associated with Unit 2 transmission somewhat greater with the
Hancock alternative.
Impacts to archaeological resources along the corridors will be
determined by onsite surveys once alternative rights-of-way have been proposed.
4-3
-------
4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAIN-
TENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Construction and operation of Hancock Units 1 and 2 and transmission
facilities will make available 1300 MW of electrical energy for Kentucky
Utilities customers. During the plant life, local and regional economic activ-
ity will be enhanced. A significant economic stimulation will occur locally
during the construction phase, when the greatest influx into the project will
occur. The temporary influx will, however, strain existing police protection
and housing especially, and stress social structure. The Hancock site altern-
ative has already impacted local social characteristics. Social productivity
is expected to be stimulated during the operational phase. In the long-term,
the economic and social productivity stimulated by the generating station is
likely to be maintained, partly because additional industry and business will
slow the significant outmigration currently characteristic of the project
area.
The economic productivity from the generating station will be greater
than that derived from existing land uses, but as much as 1000 acres of prime
farmland will be preempted# Continued industrial use of the land would be
desirable since existing agricultural productivity cannot be restored. Exist-
ing biological productivity, especially that of terrestrial systems on the
Hancock site and Town Creek on the Breckinridge site, would not recover for
several decades, if ever.
Use of the Ohio River by the generating station will be a small
increment in reaching a consumptive use level that is projected to possibly
impact water quality critical low flow by 2020. Although discharges, emis-
sions, and other plant activities are not expected to significantly diminish
productivity of the river, they nevertheless also will represent small incre-
ments in pollutant loads. The long-term status of productivity of the river
beyond the life of the proposed project depends upon many variables not direct-
ly related to the project.
The transmission system is not expected to impact long-term agricul-
tural or biological productivity since relatively few acres of soils will be
severely disturbed.
The project will deplete national reserves of nonrenewable resources,
as described below.
4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Hancock Generating Station Units 1 and 2 will consume 105 million
tons of coal, 11.7 million tons of limestone, and 910 thousand tons of lime«
Construction and operation of the facilities also will require considerable fuel
oil, lubricating oils, gasoline, and other petroleum-based products, as well as
certain man-made or processed resources that may not be totally recyclable.
Among the processed materials are concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, other
metals, plastics, and glass. In general, concrete, road materials, and chemi-
cals will be irretrievably commited.
4-4
-------
Capital expenditures of more than 2 billion dollars are among the
socioeconomic commitments of the project. Skilled manpower used in construction
and operation will be irreversibly expended and not available for other uses.
The cultural significance of the developed site will be lost by
changing the predominately rural character to an industrial setting. Prime
farmland will be irreversibly altered as will other natural resources dependent
on existing soil structure, topography, and drainage patterns. These altera-
tions will irretrievably commit existing biological diversity, landscape pat-
terns, and land use options. An undeterminable loss of productive capacity of
soils will be an irretrievable commitment of agricultural and biological
resources.
The plant will consume relatively small amounts of surface water and
groundwater, making thera unavailable for other uses. It also will use air and
water for dispersal of pollutants and land for storage of solid waste, limiting
the availability or capacity of each for additional use.
4.4 CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL,
COMMONWEALTH, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PLANS
The major functional unit of government in the project area is the
county which is operated by a Judge-Executive assisted by 4 to 8 magistrates.
The cities of Hawesville, Cloverport, Tell City, Cannelton, and Elizabethtown
have elected mayors and city councils. Agencies that are involved In coordi-
nating olans with these governmental bodies include the Hancock County Urban
nating plans wiun « agencies of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the
Tincolng Trail Area Development District (Including Breckinridge County),
and the Green River Area Development District (including Hancock County).
As mentioned in Section 3.1.2, the Kentucky Department of Commerce,
* various planning agencies, has designated low, level
In cooperation River as potential industrial land. Locations so
locations along e ^ ^ Hancock and Breckinridge sites. However,
designated in c ^onsulted prior to site selection, the Hancock County Urban
because it wasno stated that Kentucky Utilities disregarded the Commis-
Planning Commiss (formulated with assistance from GRADD) that elicit
sion s goals and p industry In selection of industrial sites. The
cooperation from po en tation with Kentucky Utilities is necessary to
Commission feels that cons ^ fulfilled: utilization of all land re-
determine whether t a g area for their highest and best uses consistent
sources within the Plan™ J d the interest of private property owners,
with maximizing public interest
™ i Court of Hancock County; the City Councils of Hawesville
The Fiscal Co and the Mayors of Hawesville, Kentucky and
and Lewi sport in Hancoc _at.riLti0n of the generating station on the Hancock
Tell City, Indiana oppose <-° Hancock County political base is the number of
site. The primary issue o station will provide relative to the amount of
permanent jobs the generat ng anount of industrial land occupied. Hancock
air increment consumed ana dustrial base but believes that several smaller
County wishes to expand its n b8tantlaliy more people and provide greater
manufacturing plants would emp County residents and those of neighboring
employment opportunities for wouid mitigate outmigration of area residents
counties. This, the County ees , activity, most of Which is based on
as well as Increase County
•manufacturing.
4-5
-------
The Secretary of the Cabinet has expressed the concerns of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky relative to opposition to the KU plant by the citizens
and community groups of Hancock County. Additional concern has been expressed
about the impact of KU's proposal on Willamette Industries and the economic
consequences should Willamette modify plans to further expand in the Common-
wealth.
The Breckinridge County Fiscal Court has expressed approval of the
project for Breckinridge County. However, several months after KU's Breckin-
ridge alternative was announced, Ashland Oil .proposed the Breckinridge site as
a preferred alternative for locating a synthetic fuel plant (H-Coal). Ashland
Oil's proposal and the involvement of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in securing
land on the site for synthetic fuel development induced KU to change its proposed
location on the site, necessitating modifications in site development plans and
other materials prepared for evaluation of this alternative. Neither Kentucky
nor Federal age.ncies involved with the projects have explicitly stated that
development of the generating station on the Breckinridge site would conflict
with development of the synfuel plant. However, should conflict become appar-
ent, indications are that the synfuel plant would be favored for the site.
4-6
-------
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Robert B. Howard
Chief
EIS Preparation Section
Dario J. Dal Santo
Project Officer
(1980-Publication)
Clara J. Delay
Project Officer
(1979-1980)
John P. Herrmann
Project Officer
(1978-1979)
Charles H* Kaplan
NPDES Permit
Joseph 0'Conner
Water Quality
Phillip J. Murphy
Biology and Ecology
Allen Lucas
Biology and Ecology
D. Brian Mitchell
Air Resources
Lewis Nagler
Air Resources
Michael J. Harnett
Residuals Management
Howard A. True
Surface Water
Kenneth W. Harris
Groundwater
5.2 NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC./TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
Audrey M. James Program Manager (1979-^blication)
Ph.D., Zoology - Entomology, Auburn University
M.S., Biology, Georgia State University
B.S., Science Education, University of Georgia
Technical Backgrounds Terrestrial Ecology, irapaCt Assessment
Dale M. Caldwell Program Manager (1978-1979)
Ph.D., Biology, University of Alabama
M.S., Biology, University of Alabama
B.S., Biology, Mllsaps College
Technical Background; Fish Ecology; Entrainment and ISnpiageraent
Charles J. Bennett Population and Socioeconomics
Ph.D., Geography, Syracuse University
M.A., Geography, Syracuse University
B.A., Geography, Middebury,College
Technical Background: Cultural, Demographic, and Social Atuilvft**.
Environmental Planning '
5-1
-------
James T. Boswell Aquatic Resources, Water Quality
Ph.D., Biology, North Texas State University
M.S., Zoology, Northwestern State University of Louisiana
B.A., Anthropology, Northwestern State University of Louisiana
B.S., Zoology, Northwestern State University of Louisiana
Technical Background: Water and Waste Chemistry; Algal and Aquatic
Invertebrate Ecology
Roy E. Greer Wildlife
M.S., Vertebrate Zoology, North Texas State University
B.S., Biology, North Texas State University
Technical Background: Vertebrate Ecology
Ronald J. Helmedag Population and Socioeconomics
M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
B.S., Social Sciences, Illinois State University
Technical Background: Resource Economics; Demographic Research
James R. Moss Publications
M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
B.A., Zoology, University of Texas at Austin
Technical Background: Information Specialist; Technical Writing,
Editing, and Production
Merrit H. Nicewander Geology, Hydrology, Meteorology, Air Quality
M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Kansas
B.S., Engineering, United States Naval Academy
Technical Background: Environmental Engineering; Air Pollution
Control
Roberta C. Patey Land Use, Geology, Cultural Resources, Soils,
Vegetation
M.S., Ecology, University of Tennessee
B.S., Ornamental Horticulture & Landscape Design, University of
Tennessee
Technical Background: Plant Ecology; Land Planning and Landscape
and Visual Resource Management
Richard A. Porter Air Quality
M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
B.S., Mathematics and Physics, Austin College
Technical Background: Air Pollution Modeling; Communications
Electronics
5-2
-------
H. Louise Young
Land Use
Ph.D., Geography, University of Colorado
M.A., Geography, University of Colorado
B.A., Geography, East Central State College (Oklahoma)
Technical Background: Land Use Planning
5.3 OTHERS
Nancy O'Malley Cultural Resources
Department of Anthropology
University of Kentucky
M.A., Anthropology, University of Kansas
B.A., Archaeological Studies, University of Texas at Austin
Technical Backgrounds Archaeological and Historical Resource Analysis
Walter E. Langsam Historical Resources
Architectural Historian
Lexington - Fayette County Historic Commission
Ph.D., in progress
M.A., History of Art and Architecture, Yale University
B.A., Humanities, Miami University
Technical Background: American Art and Architecture; Historic
Preservation
For information on the material, contact Dario J. Dal Santo at
(404) 881-7458 (FTS/257-7458).
5-3
-------
6.0 COORDINATION
The following Federal, Commonwealth, and local officials and apencies
nd interest groups have been requested to comment on this Impact statement.
.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human
Services $
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
.2 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Honorable Wendell H. Ford
United States Senate
Honorable Walter D» Huddleston
United States Senate
Honorable Romano L. Mazzoll
United States House of Representatives
Honorable William H. Natcher
United States House of Representatives
3 COMMONWEALTH OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES
Honorable John "?• Brown, Jr.
Governor
Economic Development Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Services
National Park Service
Public Health Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources
4 LOCAL OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES
Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Department of Transportation
Geological Survey
Kentucky Heritage Commission
Green River Area Development District
Lincoln Trail Area Development District
Hancock County Urban Planning Commission
Tell City Economic Development Commission
Hancock County Judge - Executive
Breckinridge County Judge - Executive
City of. Hawe#vilie
(fl.
-------
City of Cloverport
City of Tell City
6.5 INTEREST GROUPS
Indian Lake Club
Kentucky Audubon Society
Kentucky Sierra Club
Kentucky Izaac Walton League
Save the Valley
Valley Watch
6-2
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Algermissen, S.T. and D.M. Perkins. 1976. A probabilistic estimate of maximum
acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States. USGS Open-File
Report No. 76-416.
American Gas Association. 1977. Noise control at gas pipeline facilities.
American Ornithologists Union. 1957. Checklist of North American birds. AOU.
691 p.
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witraer. 1976. A land use and
land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. USGS
Prof. Paper 964. 28pp.
Anderson, S.H., K. Mann, and H.H. Shiigart, Jr. 1977, The effect of trans-
mission line corridors on bird populations. Amer. Midland Nat* 97:216-
221.
Annon. 1978. Directory of licensed health facilities and health services
(Kentucky).
Ashland Oil Company. 1980. Personal communication.
Banks Hancock County Superintendent of Schools. 1979. Personal communication.
Hawesville, Kentucky.
Barbour R.W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. University of
Kentucky Press, Covington. 334 pp.
Barbour R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. University of
Kentucky Press, Lexington. 321 pp.
„ , r T Peterson, D. Rust, H.E. Shadowen, and A.L. Whitt, Jr.
^9Chf' Kentucky' Mrd"\ finding gold.. Ualver.lty of Kentucky Pre..,
Lexington. 305 pp.
~ i, I? a iofi2 The groundwater situation in the Lousivllle area, Kentucky,
1945-1961. Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular 10. 24 pp.
in1D personal communication with Hancock site landowner,
tiowne, Edward. 19/*. ret8UU"
Herrmann, and R.B. -Herrmann. 1967. A study of the
seisraicity of the Cincinnati Arch. Seismologleal Observatory, Xavier
University. 62 pp.
Braun E L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press,
New York. 596 pp.
* c„-n Conservation Service. 1979. Personal communication
»ce"-k£rroUr:u —-
^ .. Fire Department> 1980. Personal communication.
Breckinridge County Volunteer rire
Hardinsburg, Kentucky.
7-1
-------
Brower, J.E. and J.H. 7. ar. 1977 . Field and laboratory methods for general
ecology. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque. 194 pp.
Brown, R.F. and T.W. Lambert. 1963. Availability of groundwater in Breckin-
ridge, Grayson, Hardin, Larue, and Meade counties, Kentucky. USGS Hydro-
logic Investigations: Atlas HA-33. 3 sheets.
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 289 pn.
Cannelton City Fire Department. 1980. Personal communication.
Cannelton City Police Department. 1980. Personal communication.
Clay, W.M. 1975. Fishes of Kentucky. Kentucky Dept. Fish Wildl. Res.,
Frankfort. 416 pp.
Cloverport Industrial Foundation. 1977. Industries new frontiers.
CI overport, Kentucky. 12 pp.
Cloverport Volunteer Fire Department. 1980. Personal communication.
Conant, R. 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston. 366 pp.
Cottam, G. and J. Curtis. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosocio-
logical sampling. Ecology 37:451-460.
Cowling, E.B. 1979. Effects of acid precipitation and atmospheric, deposition
on terrestrial vegetation. The Environmental Professional 1:293-301.
Courtenay, B. and J.H. Zimmerman. 1.972. WiLdflowers and weeds. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, 144 pp.
Daniel, T.C. and R.S. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic
beauty estimation method. USDAFor. Ser. Res. Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Davis, E.A. and M.L. Moon. 1978. Modeling analysis of the Chalk Point dye
tracer experiment. In: Cooling tower environment, 1978. U. of Maryland.
Devaul, R.W. and B.W. Maxwell. 1962. Availability of groundwater in Daviess
and Hancock counties, Kentucky. USGS 'lydrologlc Investigations: Atlas
HA-27. 3 sheets.
Duedall, I.W. and J.S. Sellgmian. 1979. Chemical and physical behavior of
stabilized scrubber sludge and fly ash in sea water. Env. Sci. Tech.
13(9):1082-1087.
Durell, J. 1930. Personal communication. Kentucky Dept. Fish and Wildl.
Res., Frankfort.
Edison Electric Institute. 1978. Electric power plant environmental noise
guide. Vol. I and 2.
7-2
-------
Electric Power Research Institute. 1979 i
Hon. Centra! Electricity Research' Labor.torles. eprt SOATT-'o?!"1"1""
Elizabethtown Fire Department. I960. Personal communication.
Ellis, J.A., W.R. Edwards, and K.P. Thomas. 1969 BBOnnt,Ba„ c v ,
management in Illinois. J. Wildl. Manag. 33:*749-762. ° °bwhites t0
Emlen^ J. 1971. ^Population densities o( bird, derived from transect counts.
EnergL„":"r"d:^n»r\\\rpro:r.":l^?s"onEM,r17575-D?oai —*¦ —i0P-
A "Vl- °f «" »«"' 1" natur.!
Pood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1979. Groun«W.,.
pollution: technology, economics, and management. FAO Irrigation111
Drainage Paper, No. 31, Rome. 137 pp. ® n<*
Gallaher.J.T. and Price, W.E., Jr. 1966. Hydrology of the alluvial deposits
in the Ohio River Valley in Kentucky. USGS Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1818. 8u pp. 1
Gray, B., J. Ady, and G. Jones. 1979. Evolution of a visual impact model to
evaluate nuclear plant siting and design option. In; Our national land-
scape. U.S. Forest Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range fixp. Sta "
Berkeley. **
Green River Area Development District. 1978. A comprehensive resource manual
for Hancock County. Owensboro, Kentucky. 146 pp.
Green River Area Development District. 1980. Personal communication with
Community Developiflent Specialist. Owensboro, Kentucky.
Haggerty, D. and M. LeFevre. 1976. The growing role of natural draft cooling
towers in U.S. power plants. Power Engineering. June 1976.
Hagman, Vic and Francis Bagman, Jr. 1979. Personal communication with
Hancock site landowners.
Hancock County Sheriff's Office. 1980. Personal communication. Hawesville
Kentucky*
Hanna, S.R. 1975. Meteorological effects of the mechanical-draft cooling
towers of the Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant. In: Cooling tower envir-
onment, 1974. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Oak
Ridge.
Hawesville Police Department. 1980. Personal communication.
Hawesville Volunteer Fire Department. i?o0. Personal CoaHwnication,
7-3
-------
Hecht, N.L. and D.S. Duvall. 1975. Characterization and utilization of
municipal and utlity sludges and ashes. Environmental Protection Tech-
nology Series. EPA-f>70/2-75-033a. 33 pp.
Hinze, W.J., L.W. Braile, G.R. Keller, and E.G. Lidiak. 1977. A tectonic,
overview of the central midcontinent. Department of Geoscienc.es, Purdue
Unqversity, West Lafayette, Indiana. (Sponsored by U.S. Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission, Washington, D.C.). 106 pp.
Holzworth, G.C. 1974. Meteorological episodes of slowest dilution in contig-
uous United States. USEPA.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running water. University of Toronto
Press. 555 p.
Indiana Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1975-1979. Annual crop and live-
stock summary. Dept. of Agricultural Statistics, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Indiana Department of Commerce. 1979. Indiana county profiles. Indianapolis.
180 pp.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1980. Personal communication with
District Forester, Cannelton, Indiana.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation Department. 1976.
Indiana Inventory. Indianapolis.
Indiana Department of Public Instruction. 1980. Personal communication.
Indianapolis.
Indiana Employment Security Division. 1979. Occupational employment projec-
tions 1974-1985. Indianapolis. 61 pp.
Indiana Employment Security Division. 1979. Perry County occupational wage
survey. Indianapolis. 6 pp.
Indiana Employment Security Division. 1979. Profiles of economic regions 13
and 14. Indianapolis. 43 pp.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978a. Indiana county population projections.
Indiana University School of Business. 92 pp.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978b. Directory of Indiana hospitals.
Indiana University School of Business. 41 pp.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978c. Indiana licensed health facilities;
directory. Indianapolis. 31 pp.
Indiana State Highway Commission. 1970. Highway ma;), Perry County. Indian-
apolis .
Indiana State Highway Commission. 1975. Traffic count map. Indianapolis.
7-4
-------
Indiana State Highway Commission. 1979. Traffic flow map. Indianapolis.
Indiana 15 Region Planning Commission. 1977. Tobin and Troy Township, Perry
County. Jasper, Indiana. 2 p. '
Jackson, F.R. 1974. Energy from solid waste. Noyes Data Corporation Park
Ridge, New Jersey. 163 pp. '
Kenaga, Clare B. 1974. Principles of phytopathology, edition 2. Bait
Publishers, Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 384-387.
Kentucky Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1975-1979. Kentucky agricul-
tural statistics. USDA and Kentucky Dept. Ag., Louisville.
Kentucky Department for ^Human Resources. 1977. Average monthly workers
covered by unemployment Insurance lav. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department for Human Resources. 1979# Labor force estimates. Frank-
fort. 35 pp.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. 1979,
Personal communication from E.C. Grimm* Bur. Nat. Res., Frankfort.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. 1980.
Personal communication: Comments to EfcA Region IV on Prime Farmland.
Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1976a. Electric transmission In Kentucky
(map). Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1976b. das transmission lii Kentucky (map).
Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 197$. Industrial resources - Elisabethtown,
Kentucky. Frankfort. 42 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1976. Industrial resources - Hancock County,
Kentucky. Frankfort. 34 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1978. Industrial resources - Hardlnsburg,
Cloverport, Irvington. Frankfort. 4 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1978. Kentucky directory of'manufacturers.
Frankfort. 317 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1978. Kentucky deskboOk of economic sta-
tistics. Frankfort. 82 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce. 1978. Kentucky manufdcturlng developments
in 1978. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Education. 1979. Ifeiitiicky SchoOj1978-1979.
Frankfort.
-------
Kentucky Department of Education. 1979. Profiles of Kentucky public schools
1977-1978. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 1980. Furs purchased in
Kentucky 1977-78, 1978-79. 1 p.
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. 1978. Annual report. Lexington.
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. 1980. Personal communication.
Lexington.
Kentucky Department of Parks. 1979. Kentucky recreation facilities inventory.
Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Revenue. 1979. Annual report 1978-1979. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Tourism. 1980. Personal communication. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1976. Designated trucking highways.
Frankfort. 1 p«
Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1977. Traffic flow map. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1978. General highway map, Breckin-
ridge County. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1978. General highway map, Hancock
County. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1979. Traffic flow map. Frankfort.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1965a. Geology of the Clover port quadrangle,
Kentucky-Indiana and the Kentucky part of the Cannelton quadrangle.
(Geologic quadrangle map GQ-273). Lexington.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1965b. Geology of the Rome quadrangle in Kentucky.
Geologic quadrangle map GQ-362. Lexington.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1966. Fresh saline water interface map of Kentucky.
Lexington.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1970. Oil and gas and structure map of Hancock
County, Kentucky. Lexington.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1972. Oil and gas map of Kentucky, sheet 2, west-
central part. Lexington.
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 1978. Bouguer gravity map of Kentucky: Western
sheet. Lexington.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 1980. Animal element list. Kentucky
Dept. Nat. Res. Env. Prot. Frankfort.
7-6
-------
Kentucky Utilities Company. 1980. Annual Report for 1979. Lexington.
Kentucky Utilities Company. 1981. Annual Report for 1980. Lexington.
Kingsley, Neal P. and Douglas S. Powell. 1978. The forest resources of
Kentucky. U.S. Dept. Ag. For. Serv. Res. Bull. NE-54, Northeastern
For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, Pennsylvania. 97 pp.
Kitching, J.T., H.H. Shugort, and J.D. Story. 1974. Environmental impacts
associated with electric transmission lines. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
ORNL-TM-4498. 104 pp.
Langsam, Walter E. 1980. Architectural review of the houses of Breckinridge
and Hancock county sites. Lexington.
£¦
Laulainen, N.S., R.O. Webb, K.R. Wilber, and S.L.Blansk. 1979. Comprehensive
study of drift from mechanical draft cooling towers. Batelle Paeifin
Northwest Lab, Rep. ET-76-O-06-183O. acific,
Lincoln Trail Area Development District. 1972. Initial housing element.
Ptankfort. 123 pp.
Lincoln Trail Area Development District. 1974* Open space and recreation
plan. Elizabethtown, Kentucky. 131 pp.
Lincoln Trail Area Development District. 1977. Housing plan* Elitabethtovn,
Kentucky. 3 pp.
Lincoln Trail Area Development District. 1977. Irf77*jt$78 Data book, EUca-
bethtown, Kentucky. 79 pp.
Litton, R.B. and R.J* Tetlow. 1978. A landscape inventory framework: scenic
analyse* of the northern Great Plains. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkley USDA For. Ser. Res. Pap. PSW-135, 83 pp.
Longwell, C.R., R.F. Flint, and J.E. Sanders. 1969. Physical geology. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 685 pp.
Lynch, Kevin. 1971. Site planning. The Maseachuaatta I««fcit:ute of Technology
Press, Cambridge, pp. 157—179.
MacArthur, R.H. and J.W. MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecol-
ogy . 42s594—598.
Mason W.T., P.A. Lewis, and L.B. Anderson. 1971. Macrolnvertebrate collec-
tions and water quality monitoring in the Ohio River Baala, 1963-1967.
NTIS Pub. PB-217-702. 116 pp.
Maxwell B.W. and R.W. Devaul. 1962. Reconnaissanceof groundwater resources
in the western coal field regloii, Keafcudc*. U$G$a®ettloglcel &»r*)6y
Sutiolv Paper 1599. Lexington. 34 ppi
1* 7
-------
McGrain, P., H.R. Schwalb, and G.E. Smith. 1970. Economic geology of Hancock
County, Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey: County Report 4. Lexing-
ton. 24 pp.
Meyer, J.H. and W.D. Stanbro. 1978. Separation of Chalk Point drift sources
using a flourescent dye. In: Cooling tower environment, 1978. U. of
Maryland.
Mickley, W.L. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doc Run, Meade County,
Kentucky. Wildl. Monogr. 11:1-124.
Montell, W.L. and M.L. Morse. 1976. Kentucky folk architecture, University
Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 105 p.
Mueller-Dumbois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation
ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp.
National Association of Counties. 1978. The county yearbook 1978. Washing-
ton, D.C. 234 pp.
National Weather Service. 1976. Climate of Kentucky. University of Kentucky
for U.S. Department of Commerce. NTIS: PB-255 329. 85 pp.
Neff, S.E. and L.A. Krumholz. 1973. A detailed investigation of the socio-
logical, economic and ecological aspects of proposed reservoir sites in
the Salt River Basin of Kentucky. University of Kentucky Water Res.
Inst. Res. Rept. No. 67:1-64.
Ohio River Basin Commission. 1978. Ohio main stem: water and related land
resources study report and environmental impact statement. Cincinnati.
Old West Regional Commission. 1977. Weather modification potential of coal-
fired power plants. U. of Wyoming, Dept. Atmospheric Sciefnce, Laramie.
138 p.
Patokalake Regional Planning Commission. 1976. Perry County existing housing
tabulations. Jasper, Indiana. 47 pp.
Perry County Overall Economic Plan Committee. 1976. Perry County Overall
Economic Plan. Cannelton, Indiana. 95 pp.
Perry County Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Personal communication with
county agent. Cannelton, Indiana.
Peterson, A.P.G. and E.E. Cross. 1974. Handbook of noise measurement. Gen.
Rad., Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. 322 p.
Public Service Conpaay of Indiana. 1975. Marble Hill Generating Station -
Units 1 and 2 environmental report. Docket Nos. 50-STN-546 and 50-
-------
Ratliff, Kenneth. 1980. Personal communication.
Resource Conservation and Development Organization. 1979. Personal communica-
tion with director. Cannelton, Indiana.
Rice, P.M., L.H. Pye, R. Boldi, J. O'Loughlin, P.C. Tourangeau, and C.C. Gordon.
1979. The effects of the 'low level SC>2' exposure of sulfur accumulation
and various plant life responses of some major grassland species on the
ZAPS sites. In: The bloenvironmental impact of a coal-fired power plant,
fourth interim report, Colstrip, Montana. Corvalis Environmental Research
Laboratory Office of Research and Development, USEPA (EPA-600/3-79-044),
pp. 494591.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A guide to field identification,
birds of North Amerifca. Golden Press, N.Y. Western Publishing Co. Inc.,
Racine, Wisconsin. 340 pp.
Rochow J. J* 1978. Measurements and vegetational impact of chemical drift
from mechanical draft cooling towers. Envion. Sci. and Tech. 12:1379-
1383.
Roffman, A. and L.D. Van Vleck. 1974. The state-of-the-art of measuring and
predicting cooling tower drift and its deposition. J. Air Polli Conti
Assoc. 24:855-859.
Rubin, A.M. and P.S. Klanian. 1975. Visible plume abatement with wet/dry
cooling tower. Power Engineering. March 1975.
Ryznar, E. 1977. Advection - radiation fog near Lake Michigan, Atoos. Environ.
11:427-430.
R. W. Booker & Associates. 1970. The comprehensive plan: Hancock County,
Kentucky. H.U.D. Project No.: Ky. P-71. 182 pp.
Sales and Marketing Management Magazine. 1979. Annual survey of buying power.
New York. 100 pp.
Sargent & Lundy Engineers. 1979. Water use optimization. Prepared for
Kentucky Utilities.
Sarofln, A.F. 1977. Thermal processing: incineration and pyrolysis. In:
Handbook of solid waste managment. D.G. Wilson, ed. - Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York. 752 pp.
Schroeder, H.A. and J.J. Balassa. 1966. Abnormal trace metals in man. Arsenic.
J. Chronic Dis. 19:85.
Science News. 1980. Rare quake strikes Kentucky. 118:68.
Shannon L.J. 1975. St. Louis refuse processing plant: equipment, facility
and environment evaluations. Midwest Research Institute. May.
7-9
-------
Smith, K.R. 1974. Use of aquatic oligochaetes as a diagnostic tool in evalu-
ating water quality, _In: Organisms and biological communities as indi-
cations of environmental quality - a symposium. King, C.C. and L.E.
Elfner, eds. Ohio Biol. Surv. Info. Circ. No. 8 65 pp.
Spencer, John S. 1969. Indiana's timber. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Resource Bull.
NC-7, North Central For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul, Minnesota. 61 pp.
Tell City Fire Department. 1980. Personal communication. Tell City, Indiana.
Tell City Police Department. 1980. Personal communication. Tell City,
Indiana.
The Hancock Clarion. 1979. Court hears occupational tax. Hawesville, Ken-
tucky. 17 pp.
The Hancock Clarion. 1980. Hawesville, Kentucky. July 31.
The News. 1979. New home construction down. Tell City, Indiana.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser and J. Rodiek. 1977. Edges - their interspersion,
resulting diversity, and its measurements. USDA For. Ser. Pub. 19 pp.
Thomas, Moyer D. and Russel H. Hendricks. 1956. Effect of air pollution on
plants. In; Air pollution handbook: McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
pp. 9-1 to 9-44.
Thompson, L.S. 1977. Overhead transmission lines: impact on wildlife.
Montana Dept. Nat. Res. and Cons. Res. Rep. No. 2. 51 pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Rockport Generating Station,
DEIS. Louisville District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Personal communications. Water-
ways Management Branch, Louisville District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. Hoosier
National Forest, Indiana (map).
United States Water Resources Council. 1972. 0BERS projections (vol. 4).
Washington, D.C. 156 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. Personal com-
munication with Timber Management Assistant at Hoosier National Forest.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1969.
Soil survey of Perry County, Indiana. 70 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975.
General soils map of Kentucky, 4-R-34873.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974.
Soil survey of Daviess and Hancock Counties, Kentucky. 108 pp.
7-10
-------
United States Department of Agriculture, Soli Conservation Service, State
Conservationist foe the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 1979. Prime farmland
soils of Kentucky. Kentucky Inventory and Monitoring Bulletins No. 42-9-4
and 42-9-6.
United States Department of Commerce 1Q79 ir
ington, D.C. 250 pp. 1972" <=¦"«"" °f manufacturers. Wash-
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1978
County economic reports, July. ysis. J.y/8.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1970 . •,
characteristics of the population. Washington, D.C. 980 pp. ' *eneral
United States Department aof Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1970 n *
States census of housing, 1970, general housing characteristics ^
Washington, D.C. 101 pp. «"erxscics.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 197#; r
Business Patterns - Indiana. Washington, D.C. 85 pp. ' * County
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1977 r
and city data book. Washington, D.C. 955 pp. * * °unty
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977 c
population reports. Series P-265, No. 665, May. * " urrent
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977 p
population reports. Series P-26, No. 76-17, July. * urrent
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1978. Ho
authorized by building permits and public contracts. Washington,^.??
United States Deparment of Energy. 1980. Acid rain information book. GCA
Corp. Technology Div., Bedford, Massachusetts. GCA TR-80-87-G. *22 p
United States Deparment of Energy. 1981. Solvent Refined Coal - 1 DEIS
United States Department of Health and Urban Development. 1971. Noise
assessment guidelines.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ' 1975. Visual
Resource Management. BLM Manual 6300.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. Demo-
graphic assessment manual.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Bio-
logical Services. 1978. A biologist's manual for the evaluation of
impacts of coal-fired power plants on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
FWS/0BS-78/75. 206 pp.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classi-
fication of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States. 103 pp.
7-11
-------
United States Department of the Interior. 1977. Water for energy, Missouri
River reservoirs final EIS.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Community noise. NTIS
300.3, USEPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on levels
of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety. EPA 550/9-74-004, USEPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. 1978. Trimble
County Generating Station, DEIS. EPA 904/9-78-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Acid rain.
EPA-600/9-79-036. 36 p.
United States Geological Survey. 1969. Evansville sectional map. 1:250,000
scale.
United States Water Resources Council. 1972. 0BERS projections (vol. 4).
Washington, D.C. 156 pp.
Univetsity of Kentucky, Agricultural Extension Service. 1979. Personal com-
munication with extension agent. Hardinsburg, Kentucky.
University of Kentucky, Department of Anthropology. 1980. A cultural resource
assessment of two alternate locations of the Hancock Power Plant, Hancock
and Breckinridge counties, Kentucky. Archaeological Report 30. 377 pp.
University of Louisville. 1977. How many Kentuckians. Urban Studies Center,
Louisville-
Wharton, M.E. and R.W. Barbour. 1971. A Guide to wildflowers and ferns of
Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 344 pp.
Wharton, M.E. and R.W. Barbour. 1973. Trees and shrubs of Kentucky. The
University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 582 pp.
Whitesides, D.V. and P.D. Ryder. 1969. Effects of pumping from the Ohio
River Valley alluvium between Carrollton and Ghent, Kentucky. Kentucky
Geological Survey Information Circular 18. Lexington. 19 pp.
Williams, L.C. 1969. Mussel fishery investigations: Tennessee, Ohio, and
Green Rivers. Prepared for NMFS. NTIS Pub. 72-11317. 107 pp.
Wood, B.W., S.B. Carpenter, and R.F. Wittwer. 1976. Intensive culture of
American sycamore in the Ohio River Valley. For. Sci. 22(3):338-343.
Wright, A.H. and A.A. Wright. 1980. Handbook of frogs and toads. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York. 640 pp.
7-12
-------
8.0 APPENDIXES
-------
DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
-------
V-oS
JATES environmental protection agency
REGION IV
J'5 COURT LAND CTRCCT
ATLANTA. GEORGIA KUS
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision* of the Clean Water Act, as emended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. eeq; the "Act"),
Kentucky Utilities Company
1 Quality Street
Lexington, Kentucky 40507
is authorised to discharge from a facility located at
Hancock Generating Station
Units 1 and 2
Hancock County. Kentucky
to receiving waters named
Ohio River (001) Sandy Branch Creek (002, 005, 006 and 007),
Muddy Branch Creek (003), and Indian Creek (004)
in accordance vith affluent limitati«a. «a>it«ring ra<,uira«anta and
PAflditioni set forth in Farts I, II» and XIX hereof. The permit
and Part III page(s).
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorisation to discharge shall expire at
midnight, (5 year period)
I — Howard D.r Seller
Date Signed Acting Director
enforcement Division
-------
DRAFT
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharee and lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 001 - Cnoling tower blowdown to the Ohio River.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Flow—m 3/Day fMGD)
Temperature C( F)
Total Residual Chlorine
Additional Monitoring
Daily Maximum
Effluent Limitation
N/A
35.6(96.0)1./
See Below
See Part III.C.
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Continuous Recorder/Totalizer
Continuous Recorder
1/week 2/ Multiple Grabs
See Part III.C.
Chlorine may be discharged continuously; however, discharge of total residual chlorine shall not exceed a
maximum instantaneous concentration of 0.1 mg/1. In the event that the units cannot be operated at or
below this level of chlorination, the applicant may.submit a demonstration , based on biological toxicity
data, that discharge of higher levels of chlorine are consistent with toxicity requirements of the Kentucky
Water Quality Standards. Effluent limitations will be modified consistent with an acceptable demon-
stration.
Discharge of blowdown from the cooling system shall be Halted to the minimum discharge of recirculating
water necessary for the purpose of discharging auterlals contained In the process, the further build-up
of which would cause concentrations or amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering practice.
A report showing how conformance with this requirement will be act, including operational procedures,
shall be submitted during the systeai design stage. Additionally, annual reports shall be submitted
along with the first quarterly aionitorlng report submitted after January 1 of each year. Discharge
temperature shall not exceed the lowest temperature of the recirculating cooling water prior to the
addition of make-up.
There shall be no discharge of detectable amounts of materials added for corrosion inhibition
(including but not limited to zinc, chromium or phosphorus) or any ch«-micalg added which contain
the 129 priority pollutants.
•d "d
(V »
3*i
it
i
5S t—
O
"O
>
3)
-i
CONTINUED
2
O
O
in
-s|
ON
o
Ov
-------
DRAFT
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfaH(s) serial number(s) 001 - Cooling tower blowdown to the Ohio River
(Continued)
The company shall notify the Director* Enforcement Division In writing not later than sixty (60) days
prior to Instituting use of any additional bioclde or chemical used In cooling systems» other than
chlorine, which may be toxic to aquatic life other than those previously reported to the Environmental
Protection Agency. Such notification shall Include:
1, name and general composition of bioclde or chemical,
2. 96-hour median tolerance limit data for organisms representative of
the biota of the waterway Into which the discharge shall occur,
3* quantities to be used,
4. frequencies of use,
5. proposed discharge concentrations, and
6. EPA registration mrnber, if applicable.
The pH shall not be lest than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
1/week on a grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amountsr
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at. the following locatio >(»):
Plant discharge, except that compliance with mixing zone requirements shall be as defined in Part
III.*.
It The receiving water shall not exceed (1) a maximum temperature of 31.7°C(89°F) , except when 2 <3
upstream temgeratures approach or exceed this value f nor (2) a maximum water temperature change jl *
of 2.8 C(5.0 F) relative to an upstream control point, outside of a mixing zone which shall not n V
extend for more than 30 meters (100 feet) from the point of discharge at seven-day, 10-year low g5 ^
flow conditions.
2/ From start of chlorination of each unit, analyses shall follow each application of chlorine until §
sufficient operating experience has been obtained to assure conformance with limitations and then g
analysis frequency may be reduced to one day per week.
o
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee to authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 002, 003 and 004 - Point source runoff from stabilized
scrubber sludge disposal area to Sandy Bra»*-.h Creek, Muddy Branch Creek and Indian Creek, respectively.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by th. ,-rmitte« as specified below:
DRAFT
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
Flow—m 3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Detention Volume
Additional Monitoring
Instantaneous Maximum
H/A
50 1/
See Below
See Fart III.C.
Measurement
Frequency
1/veek 2/
1/week 2/
1/quarter
See Part
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Calculation(s)
III.C.
The runoff treatment ponds shall be capable of processing the 10-year, 24—hour rainfall event plus
all accumulated slit without overflow of the standpipe. .Not less than one/quarter , permittee shall
ascertain that available settling volume meets these requirements and shall report this finding when
submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units, and shall lie monitored 1/week If.
® p >
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. 3 » h
Sample* taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following locators): 25 ^
point(s) of discharge fro™ treatment pond prior to mixing with other waste stream.
o
»
n
~<
o
o
M
If Applicable to any flow up to the flow resulting from a 24-hour rainfall event with a probable g
recurrence interval of once in ten years. ^
2/ Sampling of the effluent and inspection of the sand filter and water level shall be con-
ducted at least two times per week during periods when the water level is within 36 inches
o£ the top of the overflow nipe. All periods of overflow shall be reported and represen-
tative samples collected for analysis.
ttotet limitations atvd monitoring requirements are not applicable during, periods of no discharge.
-------
draft
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 005 1/ - Point source runoff
from areas of construction and yard drainage to Sandy Branch Creek (also includes sewage treatment system
effluent (OSN 007) during plant construction).
Such discharges (hall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow—m 3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Detention Volume
Discharge Limitations
Instantaneous Maximum
N/A
50 2/
See Below
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
1/week 3/
1/week 3/
1/quarter
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Calculation(s)
The runoff treatment ponds shall be capable of processing the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event plus
all accumulated silt without overflow of the standpipe. Hot less than one/quarter, permittee shall
ascertain that available settling volume meets these requirements and shall report this finding when
submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor,greater than 9.0 standards units and shall be
annitored 1/week 1/.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the fullowim locatio n):
point(8) of discharge from treatment system prior to mixing with other waste streams?
1/ Serial nunfeer assigned for Identification and monitoring purposes.
2/ Applicable to any flow up to the flow resulting from a 24-hour rainfall event with
a probabl'e recurrence interval of once in ten years.
3/ Sampling of the effluent and inspection of the sand filter and water level shall be con-
ducted at least two times per week during periods when the water level is within 36 Inches
of the top of the overflow pipe. All periods of overflow shall be reported and represen-
tative samples collected and analyzed.
Rote: Limitations and monitoring requirements* are not applicable during periods of no discharge
» *
3*)
A
as *
o
a
©
o
i/i
o*
o
0*
>
X
-i
-------
DRA*r
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge $nd lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 006 1/ - Point source(s) runoff from material
storage to Sandy Branch Creek.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Not Applicable N/A N/A N/A
Runoff from the coal and limestone storage piles shall be directed to Pond "C"» except that flows
in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event may.be discharged to Sandy Branch Creek. All
periods of discharge to Sandy Branch Creek shall be ^reported.
»
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam. to Sandy Branch Creek in other than trace amounts. §
ft
as
1/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. ?
a
©
o
v»
-------
draft
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 007 1/ - Sanitary Waste Treatment System effluent
to Discharge Serial 005 during construction and subsequently to Pond "C".
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
Other Units
Monitoring Requirements
(mg/1 except
as noted)
Measurement
Sample
Daily Average Dailv Maximum
Frequency
Type
N/A
N/A
5 /week
Grab
30
60
2/month
Grab
30
60
2/month
Grab
See Below
1/week
Grab
N/A
N/A
5/week
Grab
ml) N/A
N/A
1/quarter
Grab
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
BOD.
Total Suspended Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
Chlorine Residual
Fecal ColifoTm 2/(organisms/100 ml)
Effluent shall contain a minimum of 2.0 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen at all times.
HOT £ • Subsequent to diversion of effluent to Pond "C" no limitations or monitoring requirements will
be applicable.
ThepH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
1/week on a grab sample.
'd 3>
» »» >
Then shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amountsr jjj ™ 2}
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following incatio it's)'.
Sewage treatment plant effluent prior to mixing with any other waste stream.
1/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. j<
2/ Geometric Mean "
" 7
as a>
o
o
o
Ml
o^
o
-------
draft
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning oil start of intake and lasting through expiration
the permittee shall monitor serial number 008 17 - Plant Intake
Effluent Characteristic
Flow—ms/Day^M(gD)
Temperature C( F)
Additional Monitoring
Monitoring Requirement*
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Continuous Recorder or Logs
Continuous Recorder
See Part III.C.
Approach velocity to the intake screens shall not be greater than 0.15 mps (0.50 fps) design
maximum. S m jn
3 * H
n V
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at tlte following location(s): z ^
Plant Intake ?
a
1/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. §
v-n
^4
ON
O
-------
PARTI
DRAFT
Page 1- 8
Permit N«. KY0057606
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee «h&JI achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
dijeharjea In accordance 'with the following schedule;
a. Achieve effluent limitations (001-007) - on start of discharge
b> Blowdovn reports Units 1 and 2 cooling systems (001)
(1) Initial report - during system design stage
(2) Annual reports - with first quarterly report for each year
c. Discharge plume verification (Part II1.B.)
(1) First report - 15 months after commercial date of Unit 1
(2) Second report - 15 months after commercial date of Unit 2
d. Reports of pond A, B and C levels (Part III.B.)
(1) Pond level within 12 inches of spillway but
no discharge - Quarterly with DMR's '
(2) Discharge - In accordance with Part II.A.3,c.
procedures
e> Toxic scan data (Part II1.F.)
(1) Submit data - Twelve months after commercial operation of
Unit 1
f. Metal cleaning waste offsite treatment (Part III.6.)
(1) Submit details - 180 days prior to cleaning operation
g. Groundwater monitoring program (Part III.H.)
(1) Implement - One year prior to operation of Unit 1
(2) Reports - Quarterly with DMR* s
h. Erosion and sedimentation control program (Part III.j.)
(1) Implement - On start of construction
(2) Reports -
(a) First year - quarterly with DMR's
(b) After first year - semiannually with DMR's
i. Archaeological studies and consultations (Part III.K.)
(1) Complete prior to on-site construction
1. Pond Liners (Part III.M.)
(1) Certification of permeability - 90 days before
pond operation.
2 No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the totter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement
-------
Part II
Page II-l
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Discharge Violations
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more
frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and
authorised by this permit constitutes a violation of the terms and
conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civi-l and/or criminal penalties as provided in Section
309 of the Act.
2. Change in Discharge
Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications vhich will Tesult in new, different, or increased
discharges of pollutant* must be reported by submission of a new
NPDES application at least 180 days prior t® commencement of such
discharge. Any other activity which would constitute cause for
¦modification or revocation and reissuance of this permit, as
described in Part II (B) (4) of this permit, shall be reported to the
Permit Issuing Authority.
3. Noncompliance Notification
a. Instances of noncompliance involving toxic or hazardous pollutants
should be reported as outlined in Condition 3c. All other instances
of noncompliance should be reported as described in Condition 3b.
b. If for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be
unable to comply with any discharge limitation specified in the
permit, the permittee shall provide the Permit Issuing Authority
with the following information at the time when the next Discharge
Monitoring Report is submitted.
(1) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
(2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times
and/or anticipated time when the dischsrge will return to
compliance; and
(3) Steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of
the noncomplying discharge.
-------
Part II
Page II-2
c. Toxic or hazardous discharges as defined below shall be reported
by telephone within 24 hours after permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances and followed up with information in writing as
aet forth in Condition 3b. within 5 days, unless this requirement
is otherwise waived by the Permit Issuing Authority:
(1) Noncomplying discharges subject to any applicable toxic
pollutant effluent standard under Section 307(a) of the Act;
(2) Discharges which could constitute a threat to human health,
welfare or the environment. These include unusual or extra-
ordinary discharges such as those which could result from
bypasses, treatment failure or objectionable substances
pasting through the treatment plant. These include Section
311 pollutants or pollutants which could cause a threat to
public drinking water supplies.
d. Nothing in thia permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
A. Facilities Operation
All waste collection and treatment facilities shall be ooerat^
a manner consistent with the following: f«ted in
a. The facilities shall at all times be maintained in a eood
working order and operated as efficiently as possible Thin
includes but is not limited to effective performance based on
design facility removals, adequate funding, effective Movement
adequate operator Jtaffmg and training, and adequate laboratory'
and process controls (including appropriate quality assurance
procedures); and
b. Any maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate unavoidable
interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality
shall be scheduled during noncritical water quality periods and
carried out in a manner approved by the Permit Issuing Authority.
c. The permittee, in order to maintain compliance with this permit
shall control production and all discharges upon reduction loss
or failure of the treatment facility until the facility is' '
restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided
5. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimise any
adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting from
-------
Part II
Page II-3
noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as
necessary to determine the nature of the noncomplying discharge.
6. Bypassing
"Bypassing" means the intentional diversion of untreated or partially
treated wastes to waters of the United States from any portion of a
treatment facility. Bypassing of wastewaters is prohibited unless
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The bypass is unavoidable-i.e. required to prevent loss of life,
personal injury or severe property damage;
b. There are no feasible alternatives such as use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time;
c. The permittee reports (via telephone) to the Permit Issuing
Authority any unanticipated bypass within 24 hours after
becoming aware of it and follows up with written notification
in 5 days. Where the necessity of a bypass is known (or should
be known) in advance, prior notification shall be submitted to
the Permit Issuing Authority for approval at least 10 days
beforehand, if possible. All written notifications shall contain
information as required in Part II (A)(3)(b); and
d. The bypass is allowed under conditions determined to be necessary
by the Permit Issuing Authority to minimize any adverse effects.
The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment
on bypass incidents of significant duration to the extent
feasible.
This requirement is waived where infiltration/inflow analyses are
scheduled to be performed as part of an Environmental Protection
Agency facilities planning project.
7. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in
the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner such r.p to prevent any pollutant from such materials
from entering waters of the United States.
-------
Part II
Page II-4
8. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes
during electrical power failures either by means of alternate power
sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated
effluent. Should the treatment works not include the above
capabilities at time of permit issuance, the permittee must furnish
within six months to the Permit Issuing Authority, for approval, an
implementation schedule for their installation, or documentation
demonstrating that such measures are not necessary to prevent discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated wastes. Such documentation
•hall include frequency and duration of power failures and an estimate
of retention capacity of untreated effluent.
9. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any
onshore or offshore physical structures or facilities or the
undertaking of any work in any waters of the United States.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the Permit Issuing Authority and/or
authorized representatives (upon presentation of credential*
such other documents as may be required by law) to*
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source
is located or m which any records are required to b» j
the terms and conditions of this permit; vnder
b. Have access to and copy at reasonable time* any records reoui^
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this permit;
d. Inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution
management or discharge facilities required under the permit; or
e. Sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutanta.
-------
Part II
Page II-5
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be transferred to another party under the following
conditions:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit Issuing Authority of the
proposed transfer;
b. A written agreement is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority
containing the specific transfer date and acknowledgement that
the existing permittee is responsible for violations up to that
date and the new permittee liable thereafter.
Transfers are not effective if, within 30 days of receipt of proposal,
the Permit Issuing Authority disagrees and notifies the current
permitttee and the new permittee of the intent to modify, revoke and
reissue, or terminate the permit and to require that a new application
be filed.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, (33 U.S.C. 1318) all reports prepared in accordance with
the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at
the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Permit
Issuing Authority. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not
be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on
any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties
as provided for in Section 309 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319).
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated or revoked for cause (as described in 40 CFR 122.15 et seq)
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or -conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either temporary
interruption or elimination of the permitted discharge; or
d. Information newly acquired by the Agency indicating the
discharge poses a threat to human health or welfare.
-------
Part II
Page II-6
If the permittee believes that any past or planned activity would
be cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under
AO CFR 122.15 et seq, the permittee must report such information to
the Permit Issuing Authority. The submission of a new application
may be required of the permittee.
5. Toxic Pollutants
a. Notwithstanding Part II (B)(4) above, if a toxic effluent
standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance
specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established
under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is
present in the discharge authorized herein and such standard
or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation foT such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revoked and
reissued or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent
standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified.
b. An effluent standard established for a pollutant which is
injurious to human health is effective and enforceable by the
time set forth in the promulgated standard, even though this
permit has not as yet been modified a* outlined in Condition 5a.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" part n
(A) (6), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve th®
permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321).
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable State law of regulation under authority
prcicrvcd by Section 510 of the Act.
-------
Part II
Page II-7
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor
does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations.
10. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit
shall not be affected thereby.
11. Permit Continuation
A new application shall be submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit. Wheret EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority, the terms and conditions of this permit are automatically
continued in accordance with 40 CFR 1'22.5, provided that the permittee
has submitted a timely and sufficient application for a renewal permit
and the Permit Issuing Authority is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issue a new permit before the expiration date.
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during each calendar month shall be
summarized for each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring
Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1). Forms shall be submitted at the end
of each calendar quarter and shall be postmarked no later than the
28th day of the month following the end of the quarter. The first
report is due by the 28th day of the month following the first full
quarter after the effective date of this permit.
-------
Part II
Page II-8
Signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall
be submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority at the following
address(es):
address(es):
Permit Compliance Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants r
regulations published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the^SIn^ JU
Act, as amended (40 CFR 136, "Guideline. EstablishiJ x^ ^ "J67
for the Analysis of Pollutants"). Procedures
Recording of Results
For each measurement or .ample taken pur.uant to the requirement,
of thi. permit, the permittee .hall record the following
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The person(s) who obtained the samples or measurements;
c. The dates the analyses were performed;
d. The peraon(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of all required analyses.
Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s)
designated herein more frequently than required by this permit
using approved analytical methods as'specified above, the results
of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shalI 4U0 be indicated
-------
Part II
Page II-9
6. Rfecords Retention
The permittee shall maintain records of all monitoring including:
aa&ipling dates and times, sampling methods used, persons obtaining
samples or measurements, analyses dates and times, persons performing
analyses, and results of analyses and measurements. Records shall
be maintained for three years or longer if there is unresolved
litigation or if requested by the Permit Issuing Authority.
D. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV or designee.
2. Act
"Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public
Law 95-217 and Public Law 95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "average monthly discharge" is defined as the total njass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured,! divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
such month. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding
the weights of the pollutant found each day of the month land then
dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were reported.
This limitation is identified as "Daily Average" or "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit and the average monthly'discharge
value is reported in the "Average" column under "Quantity" on
the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
b. The "average weekly discharge" is defined as the total mass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
week on which daily discharges are sampled and/or measured
divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by
adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and
then dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were
reported. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in
Part I of the permit and the average weekly discharge value is
reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. If only one
•ample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant
-------
Part II
Page 11-10
calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge" This
limitation is identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the
permit and the highest such value recorded during the reporting
period is reported m the Maximum" column under "Quantity"
on the DMR. 7
4. Concentration Measurements
a. The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal
coliform bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily
concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite
sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean
(weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during
that calendar day. The average monthly count for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected
during a calendar month. This limitation is identified as
"Monthly Average" or "Daily Average" under "Other Limits" in
Part I of the permit and the average monthly concentration value
is reported under the "Average" column under "Quality" on the DMR.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during a calendar week on which daily discharges
are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is
equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of
grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value),of
all samples collected during that calendar day. The average
weekly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean
of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This
limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits"
in Part I of the permit and the average weekly concentration
value is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on
the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. It is identified
as "Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit
and the highest such value recorded during the reporting period
is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on the
DMR.
-------
Part II
Page 11-11
5. Other Measurements
a. The effluent flow expressed as M^/day (MGD) is the 24 hour
average flow averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic mean of
the total daily flows recorded during the calendar month.
Where monitoring requirements for flow are specified in Part I
of the permit the flow rate values are reported in the "Average"
column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
b. Where monitoring requirements for pH, dissolved oxygen or fecal
coliform are specified in Part I of the permit the values are
generally reported in the "Quality or Concentration" column on
the DMR.
6. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample - A "composite sample" is any of the following:
(1) Not less than four influent or effluent portions collected
at regular intervals over a period of 8 hours and composited
in proportion to flow.
(2) Not less than four equal volume influent or effluent
portions collected over a period of 8 hours at intervals
proportional to the flow.
(3) An influent or effluent portion collected continuously
over a period of 24 hours at a rate proportional to the flow.
b. Grab Sample: A "grab sample" is a single influent or effluent
portion which is not a composite sample. The sample(s) shall be
collected at the period(s) most representative of the total
discharge.
7. Calculation of Means
a. Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is
the summation of the individual values divided by the number
of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the
Nth root of the product of the individual values where N is equal
to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is
equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms
of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the
geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one (!)•
-------
DkaFX
PART III
Page III-l
Permit No. KY0057606
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. No equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyl compounds shall be placed
An »4 a
B. Effluent discharge structure for outfall serial number 001 shall be de-
signed to assure a miniumum dilution factor of three by the time velocity
has decreased to 0.61 nips (2 fps) and a dilution factor of 100 within 30
aeters (100 feet) from the point of discharge for all plant discharge con-
ditions at the seven-day, 10-year low river flow. Subsequent to coLeri-
0pf*ti0n of facJ fleld measurements Supplemented as necessary
with modeling results) shall be conducted to (1) assure conformance with
this requirement, (2) determine three-dimensional configuration(s) of
thermal and chemical plumes and (3) assure compliance with Kentucky Water
Quality Standards requir«nents. A report detailing compliance shall be
submitted by 15 months after the commercial operation date of each unit.
C. Additional monitoring of the cooling tower blowdown (001), stabilized
scrubber sludge runoff (002, 003 and 004)t and plant intake (008) shall
be conducted to assure conformance with applicable water quality stan-
dards. Parameters shall include chloride; sulfate; total alkalinity
total hardness; total, dissolved „ settleable and susupended .solids;*
and total aluminum# arsenic, cadmium> chromium, copper, ironj lead *man-
ganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and tine. Sampling frequency
shall be twice per months for the first six month and once per month for
the next 12 months after commercial operation of Unit 1 by grab sample.
At the end of this period monitoring shall be continued at a frequency
of once per quarter unless more frequent monitoring is determined to be
necessary. Data shall be submitted quarterly with other monitoring re-
ports.
D. Discharge from Ponds A, B or C to Waters of the United States i
not permitted by this Authorization to Discharge. High level 8
alarms shall be installed to alert control room personnel when
water level is within 12 inches of the spillway invert. Records
shall be maintained of all periods when water level is within
12 Inches of the spillway invert and shall be summarized when
submitting DMR's, including the minimum depth to the spillway
invert which occurred. In the event that unauthorized discharge
occurs EPA shall be notified in accordance with procedures of
Part II.A.3.C. and sampling and analysis of parameters rioted
in item III.C. shall be expeditiously conducted and reported.
Note J No records or reporting are required for periods when
water surface is greater than 12 inches below the spillway in-
vert.
fhan fl2) months after the Commericial Operation Date of Unit 1,
more tnsn v 4. ».r\ nvm «
unacceptable level, this permit shall be modified,, or
alternatively, revoked ana
visions of the Clean Water
-------
Part II
Page 11-12
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the
aunmation of each concentration times its respective flow
divided by the summation of the respective flows.
8. Calendar Day
a. A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one
day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of
thia permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
-------
DRAFT
G " ~
Page III-2
Permit No. KY0057606
— ouaii oe provided to the Director
Enforcement Division not later than 180 days prior to any cleanine ooer-
ation which will be disposed of off site. P
The Permittee shall implement a aroundw**A»-
are removed from site prior to
ted in an environmentally accept-
ahull —' J* *
B.
—— l f cne
Permittee after consultation with and approval by the
Director, Enforcement Division, amy reduce or eliminate
the monitoring program.
T« «.h» event that changes in the monitoring program become
necessary f such changes .hall be approved by the Director,
Enforcement Div ision r and the State pirector prior to
institution.
t u shall be used prior to or during initial
clearing of proposed transmission corridors.
mechanical clearing „ k ^ liffiited tQ EpA ved
products and in strict acccordance with labelled
instructions for use.
t shall inclement a construction erosion and
•J. The Permittee , program approved by EPA not later
sedimentation onsite construction.* Monitoring
than the st 8ubmitted quarterly the first year of
reports shall semiannually thereafter. Erosion and
construction apractices shall be consistent with
sedimentation " a(ftices such as those contained in
sound engineering k Sediment Control Planning and
-Guidelines for^ Erosion^7^o:i5 (Augustf 19?2) or
Implementation, Methods to Control Pollution
•processes, Con»truction Activity," EPA-430-73-007
Resulting from an
(October, 1973).
-hall be submitted prior to issuance of the
^be suimariied therein.
-------
DRAFT
Page III-3
Permit No. KY0057606
K. Prior to commencement of onsite construction the Permittee
shall undertake and complete all studies and consultations
relative to significant onsite archaeological sites that
may be effected by construction or operation of the
proposed facility. Consultations as specified in 36 CFR
800 may include participation of EPA, the Department of
the Interior, the Kentucky Heritage Commission (KHC), and
the Advisory Council. Any excavation program will be
approved by and conducted under the guidance of the KHC.
Prior to commencement of transmission corridor clearing
and tower placement the Permittee shall complete all
archaeological surveys and test excavations of the area
within the new corridors or the expanded Elizabethtown
corridor. The protocol for the survey and, if necessary,
excavations must receive prior approval from the KHC.
Previously unidentified archaeological sites uncovered
during site preparation or construction activities will be
reported to the KHC. The Permittee will not pursue
activities which may impact these uncovered sites until
the KHC has been able to ascertain their significance.
L. Active disposal area(s) for stabilized scrubber sludge
disposal shall not be larger than 10 acres and runoff to
the FGD retention ponds shall not be from a total area
greater than 30 acres. Active areas shall be
expeditiously deactivated by covering with soil and
providing a complete vegetative cover. Subsequent to
deactivation, runoff shall be diverted from the FGD runoff
retention ponds.
M. The Permittee shall line the wastewater treatment ponds
(ponds A, B, and C) with two (2) feet of compacted clay
with a permeability not exceeding 10"~7 cm/sec to reduce
potential impacts to the groundwater regime. Not less
than 90 days prior to operation of the ponds,
certification by an independent laboratory shall be
submitted to the Director, Enforcement Division to
document compliance with this requirement.
N. Unless a preceding NPDES condition specifies otherwise,
the Permittee shall implement its proposed project in
complete accordance with the proposed action described in
the Draft EIS. This shall not preclude implementation of
additional or more stringent conditions required by local
or state governmental bodies. Should the applicant desire
significant modification to the project, such modification
must be approved by EPA prior to initiation.
-------
draft
Page III-4
permit No. KY0057606
0. The Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environment Protection
has certified the discharge(s) covered by this permit with conditions
(See Attachment B). Section 401 of the Act requires that conditions of
certification shall become a condition of the permit. The monitoring
and sampling shall be as Indicated for those parameters included in the
certification. Any effluent limits, and any additional requirements,
specified in the attached state certification which are more stringent
supersede any less stringent effluent limits provided herein. During
any time period which the more stringent state certification effluent
limits are stayed or inoperable, the effluent limits provided herein
shall be in effect and fully enforceable. (Note: Certification will
be provided prior to permit issuance. Should a certification be pro*
vided by 0RSANC0, it will be appended as Attachment C.)
-------
COLO 8101 BIOWOOW*
1-
i1
It
PRECIPITATION
56 6PM
INTAKE fc)08«t
OHIO RlVER
0.60$ CPM
C09L*NG TOWELS
UNIT I 4 t
6.6 CYCLES
Of CONCENTRATION
32,0»3 6PM
4
oc
i
u
ll
to
I*
O k
PLANT SERVICE
WATER SYSTEM
232GPM
OEMNgRAUZER
System
!0M 6PM
P60 SYSTEM
LANOFfU.
RUNOFF
BASIN AREA I
gravel
DISCHARGE
OHIO RIVER
DISCHARGE
B55W
9B^
56 GPM MUDOY 8RANCH
CS> CREEK
FGO SYSTEM
LAtOFiU.
RUNOFF
BASIN AREA 3
GRAVEL
ORAfN
DISCHARGE
36 6PM
<3>
INOfAN CREEK
FGO SYSTEM
LANOFILL
Runoff
BASIN AREA 2
GRAVEL
DISCHARGE !
DRAIN
SB CPM
(S)
fwn'MC |fiffijfr*nN*»tg»PtR*RT MOMTORtNO)
to 6PM
(I)
AIR HEATER.
FURNACE A NO
PRECIPITATOR
WASH OPERATIONS
floor Drains
OIL SEPARATOR
switchyaro.
transformer.
and FUEL OH.
storage
AREA RUNOFFS
FCD SYSTEM
OtL
separator
sewage
TKEATMEH
]
70 GPM
Slowdown
flash tank
STEau
GENERATOR
SOOT BLOWING
HS GPM
boiler chemical cleanin^
I GPM (I) C2)
SAMPLE qrains
OCMCAL
CLEANHiG
9SPOSAL
121 GPM
COAL ANO
limestone pile
RUNOFF RETENTION
BASIN
EVAPORATION ANO
LOSS WITH
FGO SYSTEM
BY-PROOUCT
.COAL PILE RUNOFF
(03 CPM
.LIMESTONE PILE RUNOFF
18 GPM
ooouwccBwH
RUNOFF FROM COAL
ANO LIMESTONE STORAGE
m excess or 10024
EVAPORATION
649GPM
WELLS
602 GPM
FILTER SYSTEM
40 GPM RCCE**£RANT ANO BACKWASH
filter backwash
28 GPM
4435 GPM
BOTTOM ASH
hopper seals
.10
GPM ' |
9
GPM
LABORATORY ORAINS
POTABLE WATER
System
SEWAGE TREATMENT
9 GPM
PLANT ANO FGO
SYSTEM BEARING
SEAL AND COOLING
WATER SYSTEM
BOTTOM ASH
HOPPER
FGO SYSTEM BY PROOUCT
STOCKOUT Pile ANO EMERGENCY
RETENSION BASIN RUNOFF
BOTTOM ASH
OEWATERtNG BINS
[LOSS WITH ASH
B GPM
precipitation
SCHEMATIC OT WATER FLOW -
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HANCOCK POWER PLANT UNITS t & 2
HANCOCK COUNTY. KENTUCKY
•NPOES knial mommas
•*Durl«t Construction Only
[f SARGEKT S LUNOY] j
Li i:j ana wwwJ
JULY 7. 19S1
*0
m
a
ss
o
~c
o
o
-J
o>
o
ON
-------
PSD DETERMINATION
-------
A preliminary determination regarding the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit was issued on October
12, 1979, and a public hearing was held on July 22, 1980.
Since the public hearing, additional information has been
submitted for the PSD record. Consequently, a public notice
(announcing the re-opening of the public comment period for
review and comment on this new information) was issued on
August 20 and 27, 1981. The comment period for the new
information is for 21 days. Following the close of the PSb
comment period, a final determination on the PSD permit will be
formulated.
-------
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
PLATEAU BUILDING, ROOM A-5
50 SOUTH FRENCH BROAD AVENUE
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
June 4, 1981
Mr. Darls J. Dal Santo
EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court!and Street *
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: 4-2-81-020
Dear Mr. Dal Santo:
We have reviewed the biological assessment on the endangered species
Impacts of Kentucky Utilities' proposed construction of a new generating
station in either Hancock or Breckinridge County, Kentucky, submitted
for our review on March 30, 1981. We apologize for the delay in providing
a timely response to your assessment and appreciate the extension of
time to June 10, 1981, to comment on the assessment.
The biological assessment is adequate and supports the conclusion of "no
effect." In view of this, we believe that you have satisfied the requirements
of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Since we do not anticipate
that this proposal will affect any listed species, formal consultation
under Section 7 is not necessary and issuance of a formal biological
opinion 1s not required.
Your interest and initiative in enhancing Endangered and Threatened
species is appreciated.
-------
8.4 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DETERMINATIONS
-------
May 13, 1981
Robert B. Howard, Chief
EIS Preparation Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Howard:
Thank you for providing the information I requested concernina
outbuildings associated with structure 17 at Kentucky Utilities'
Holt Bottoms plant site in Breckinridge County, Kentucky Sinrp
the garage and bam are less than 50 years old, structure 17
and its associated outbuildings are not eligible for listinn
in the National Register of Historic Places.
(Mrs.) Anne Armstrong Thompson
Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Don Klima, Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
Joseph Beard, Kentucky Utilities
AAT:klw
-------
//'J f//j^ee/
/f/rdy -j/W/
April 15, 1981
Mr. Robert B. Howard, Chief
Environmental Impact Statement Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Howard:
Thank you for your letter of March 18 concerning Kentucky Utilities'
proposed plant sites in Breckinridge and Hancock counties and the
Elizabethtown Transmission Corridor. Mr. Joseph Beard of Kentucky
Utilities has submitted, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency,
additional inventory forms and photographs prepared by Normandeau Associates,
Inc. as requested in our letter of February 9. We have reviewed these
materials and our recommendations are as follows:
Breckinridge County Proposed Plant Site
Structures 13, 14, 15 and 18, located in the proposed Breckinridge County
Plant site, do not meet the minimum criteria for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. Therefore, they warrent no further considera-
tion. The status of structure 17 for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places remains undetermined since the additional information re-
quested on its possible association with significant outbuildings was not
provided.
El izabethtown Transmission Corridor
Our review of the documentation supplied for the Elizabethtown Transmission
Corridor indicates that the following structures do not meet the minimum
criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12> 13, 14 and 15. The only structure within the
corridor which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places is structure 10, the Stamper Pirtle House.
-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
April 15, 1981
Page 2
With the exception of structure 17 at the proposed Breckinridge County
plant site, the State Historic Preservation Officer has applied the National
Register criteria to all standing structures identified by Kentucky Utilities
at the proposed Breckinridge County plant site, the proposed Hancock County
plant site and the Elizabethtown Transmission Corridor (enclosure). The
proposed Hancock County plant site contains no structures included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and, in
the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the existing struc-
tures at that site warrant no further consideration. The Elizabethtown
Transmission Corridor contains one structure, structure 10, which is consider-
ed eligible by the State Historic Preservation Officer. At the proposed
Breckinridge County plant site, the Joseph Holt Memorial Chapel and House are
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the State
Historic preservation Officer has determined that no additional structures
are present which meet the minimum criteria for listing in the National Register.
In accordance with the Advisory Council's Regulations for the Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR, Part 800.4) the Environmental
Protection Agency should request a determination of eligibility from the
Secretary of the Interior's designee, the Keeper of the National Register
nf HktnHr Places. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 19th and
C Streets, N.w" washington, D.C. 20240 You may use thls letter and
enclosure concerning significance as evidence of consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer.
linon receiDt of the Information requested for structure 17 at the
Breckinridae County plant site, the State Historic Preservation Officer
will apply the National Register criteria, thus completing this stage
of the review process for the standing structures. For each property
listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register by
Ihl the Reaister, the Environmental Protection Agency, In con-
suftation with^he State Historic Preservation Officer, shall apply the
Criteria of Effect.
Por vniir reauest for suggestions on phrasing of a condition to the
MDncc ?+^nnJomina the treatment of cultural resources, I offer the
fnf^win^ronments I would recommend that the first paragraph which deals
responsibilities to conduct archaeological excavatiDhs
at "all6s1 an^flcant on-site cultural sites (as identified by the Kentucky
at all sigmfica reDhrased to emphasize that the Permittee must
mIi KC JhTtem of any Memorandum of Agreement reached between EPA,
JS' V? Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic
the State HistoricPreserwicio.« ^ is not necessarily limited to
archaeological excavations and may specify other conditions such as avoid-
ance or preservation of sites.
-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
April 15, 1981
Page 3
In the second paragraph dealing with archaeological surveys within
the transmission corridor, I would recommend that the term "excavations"
in line three be changed to "test excavations". This change should
be made to distinguish between "testing" which is performed to assess
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
and "excavation" which may be performed as mitigation of Adverse
Effect under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement. As you
correctly state, the format for the survey and testing phase is subject
to review and approval by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
The third paragraph dealing with resources discovered during con-
struction and the fourth paragraph outlining EPA's responsibilities to
initiate any consultation procedures with the Secretary of the Interior
and the Advisory Council appear to be appropriately phrased.
We look forward to reviewing and approving the remaining arch-
aeological survey and testing reports for this project which are to be
prepared after the Draft EIS is issued. Should you have any questions
concerning my opinions on the standing structures or my comments on
appropriate wording for the permit condition, please feel free to contact
Thomas Sanders or me at 502/564-3741.
Very truly yours,
(Mrs.) Anne Armstrong Thompson
Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer
AAT/TNS/jap
enclosure
cc: Mr. Don Klima, Advisory Council
Mr. Joseph Beard, Kentucky Utilities
-------
Statement of the opinion of the State Historic Preservation
Officer concerning the eligibility of a property for
inclusion in the National Register.
I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency is requesting
agency
the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the
eligibility of Stamper Pirtle House for inclusion in the .
property(ies)
National Register and that my opinion may be submitted to the Secretary
of the Interior with a formal request for a determination of eligibility
on this property. This statement confirms ny consultation as part of the
determination of eligibility procedures.
x (1) In my opinion, the property is eligible for inclusion
in the National Register.
—(2) !¦: 15 not e,iaibie f-
— (3) l£:i"r°y o?»enittfer 10 defer 40 the <" the
Justification and comments:
The house, located in rural Hardin County, is an intact frame two-story vernacular
I house with features characteristic of the Victorian period ThP -
unaltered, with brackets around the cornice, pedimented hoods over all haS* ™P+!!rs
main facade. Over the central-entrance is a two-story portico with an ent™
onto the balcony at the second level—somewhat Greek Revival in feelina Th*6
dwelling represents an effective adaptation of Victorian revival stylistic
to the common I house plan found in rural Hardin County. eatures
Sianed: ^
State Historic Preservation Officer"
-------
/f'J C^s/s/ff ^/tfaee/
ffiw/tdjfif?/, J/W/
February 9, 1981
Mr. Robert B. Howard, Chief
Environmental Impact Statement Section
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Howard:
Thank you for your correspondence of January 20 concerning Kentucky
Utilities proposed plant sites in Breckinridge and Hancock counties. Our
review of the proposed Breckinridge site indicate structures 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 19 do not meet the minimum criteria for inclu-
sion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no additional
work is necessary for these sites in Breckinridge County. However, we will
need additional information on the following structures in Breckinridge
County before we can evaluate their eligibility:
Structure 14: No photograph was provided. We will need a photograph
in order to assess the structure's eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Structure 13: We need a completed historic site inventory form
"(AttachmentT. The form should address the structure's association,
if any, with the Addison Lock and Dam. We need an additional
photograph of the structure. The photograph should be a frontal
shot.
Structure 15: We need a completed historic site inventory form.
Structure 17: Are there any significant outbuildinqs associated
"with the structure? y *w.iatea
St™ctur^J8: We need a completed historic site inventory form with
information on the interior if possible.
-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
February 9, 1981
Page 2
When we receive the additional information, we will expedite our review
to determine if these structures are eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. As you know, the Joseph Holt Memorial Chapel
and House are included in the National Register of Historic Places.
Structures located on the Hancock County project site which do not
meet the minimum criteria for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places are #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19 , 20 , 21, 22 , 23 and 24. These structures warrent no
additional consideration.
Ity staff and I have reviewed the proposed Elizabethtown Transmission
Corridor. We will need an historic site inventory form on each of the
structures. We need clear photographs of #'s 2, 5 and 10. An archaeo-
logical survey should be conducted on the proposed transmission route on
all previously undisturbed land (existing highway right-of~wcy, paved city
streets, etc., need not be surveyed) to determine if there are any sites
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
We look forward to reviewing and approving the remaining archaeological
survey and testing reports for the Breckinridge and Hancock project sites
(Attachment). Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom
Sanders of njy staff at (502) 564-3741.
Very truly yours,
(Mrs.) Anne Armstrong Thompson
Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer
jap
attachments
cc: Mr. Charles Beard
Mr. Don Klima
-------
&bett/let€*fy JfW/
September 2, 1980
Mr. John Beard
Kentucky Utilities
One Quality Street
Lexington, Kentucky 4G507
Dear Mr. Beard:
The Kentucky Heritage Commission has reviewed the Cultural Resource
Assessment of Two Alternate Locations of the Hancock Power Plant,
Hancock and Breckinridge Counties, Kentucky. Our review indicates 23
structures in Hancock County and 12 structures in Breckinridge County,
in addition to the Joseph Holt House and Chapel listed in the National
Register of Historic Places in 1976,are located in your proposed project
alternatives. Our historic site surveys are ongoing and incomplete for
these two counties. Therefore, a photograph of each structure (50 years
or older) to be effected permanently (either visually or physically) by
the proposed construction should be forwarded to this office. A historic
site survey form should be completed (Items 1-22) and submitted with the
photographs for our review and comment (enclosure). This information
will assist this office in determining if there are any structures in
your project area eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
2ri + l?ces*-°S "!n I" the Advisory Council's Regulations for
enclosure) " Hlstonc and Cultural Properties (36 CFR, Part 800;
The archeological reconnaissance survey of the Hancock Countv site
(Skillman Bottoms) identified 95 archeological sites in the proposed
project area. The field investigators recommend testing 31 sites
(15 Ha-100, -102, -103, -104, -107, -111, -114, -116 -117 - 18
-124, -131, -138, -144, -146, -147, -148 -149 - 51 - 53 - 54
-155, -156, -159, -160 -170 -174, -180, -181! -ill) to '
determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places. In my staff's opinion, 15 Ha-150 and 15 Ha-152
have the potema! for deeply buried deposits and should be evaluated
further by systematic backhoe trenching to determine if these sites
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Place*
Therefore, we recommend additional archeological work for the 31
identified by the field investigators and 15 Ha-150 and 15 Ha-152 We
concur with the field investigator's recommended testing program ' The
testing program will establish if any of the 33 sites identified'in the
reconnaissance survey are eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
-------
Mr. John Beard
September 2, 1980
Page 2
Our review of the Breckinridge County Site (Holt Bottoms) Archeological
Survey indicates that the proposed boundaries of the project area have
shifted. Consequently, the following sites identified in the survey
report are outside of the current proposed project area:
1. The Holt Bottoms Archeological District listed in the National
Register of Historic Places in 1978.
2. 15 Bc-37, -39, -40, -41, -42, -43, -51, -63, -64, -72 and -76;
if the project boundaries are changed in the future to Incorporate
these sites, additional work would be needed in order to assess
their eligibility for inclusion 1n the National Register of
Historic Places.
3. 15 Be-38, -44, -45, -46, -47, -48, -49, -50, -52, -53, -54,
-55, =-56, -57, -58, -59, -60, -61, -62, -65, -66, -67, -68,
-69, -70, -71, -73, -74, -75, -77, -78, -79, -80, -81 , -82,
-83 and -95; should the boundaries of the project area be changed
to Incorporate these sites, no further work will be necessary.
These sites are not eligible for Inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
The reconnaissance survey identified five sites (15 Bc-19, -90, -93,
-98 and -99) in the current project boundaries which require further
archeological work to determine if they are eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. We concur with the author's
recommended testing strategies. Site numbers 15 Bc-84, -85, -86, -87,
-88, -89, -91, -92, -94, -96, -97, -100,-101 and -102 require no further
archeological work. There are 851 acres on the Breckinridge alternative
which have not been surveyed because Kentucky UtiHites could not gain
owner permission. These areas must be surveyed prior to final site
selection to determine if there are any sites eligible for inclusion
1n the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Officer must review and approve the survey report.
We look forward to reviewing the historic site information for the pro-
posed project area. Should you have any questions, feel free to call
Marcia Richmond of my staff at 502/564-4452.
Sincerely, r *
(Mrs.) Donna C. Hopkins 1/
Acting Executive Director and
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosures
cc- Ms Nancv 0' Ma Hey, University of Kentucky
Mr! Robert B. Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
0CH:k1w
-------
Indiana
INDIANAPOLIS, 46204
DKPARTMKNT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JAMES M. R1DKN0UR
DIRECTOR
April 20, 1981
Robert B. Howard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Howard:
I am writing in regard to additional information which you submitted regarding the
Kentucky Utilities Hancock Generating Station.
The I. E. Bland Residence, Structure #9, is a one and one-half story frame Carpenter
Gothic house, and it is our opinion that this structure is eligible for the National
Register on the basis of its architectural merit. The Hancock site will have no im-
pact on the Bland Residence, and there will be no adverse impact from the Breckinridge
site. The Wilbur House, Structure #10, is a two-story frame, Italianate house with a
truncated hip roof, brackets and corner quoins. The use of the quoins on a frame house
is fairly unusual in Indiana. It is our opinion that this structure is also eligible
for the National Register on the basis of its architectural merit. The Hancock site
will have no adverse impact on the Wilbur House, and the Breckinridge site will have
no impact on the structure.
We are returning the National Register nomination forms for Lafayette Spring and the
Mason House. We suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency use the normal
procedures for submitting the documentation to the Department of the Interior for a
determination of National Register eligibility, rather than apply to have the
properties directly listed on the National Register. As you may know, the listing
process is sometimes lengthy, and at this time we are unable to process applications
for privately owned properties due to a change in the federal preservation law and the
freeze on new federal regulations. Since it would most likely be late fall before
the nomination process could be completed, we suggest that you submit the properties
for a determination of eligibility under either the 45 or 10 day process. When you
submit the documentation to the Department of the Interior, you should include copies
of this letter and our letter of January 29, 1981.
•EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER'
-------
Robert B. Howard
April 16, 1981
Page 2
Please do not hesitate to contact Richard Gantz of my staff at the Division of
Historic Preservation (317-232-1646) should you have any questions regardinq this
matter.
Very truly yours,
JMR:rgr
-------
DIRECTOR
James M. Ridenour
January 29, 1981
Robert B. Howard
Chief of the E.I.S. Preparation Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Howard:
We have reviewed the information which you submitted regarding the proposed
Kentucky Utilities' Hancock County Generating Station, which may impact
structures and sites in Perry County, Indiana.
Of the ten properties cited in your letter, it is our opinion that Lafayette
Spring is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the basis
of its historical associations with Lafayette's visit to America in 1824.
The two story Italianate style house (#4) in our opinion retains sufficient
architectural merit to qualify it for inclusion in the National Register.
It is our opinion that properties numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not
possess sufficient merit to qualify for inclusion in the National Register.
The photographs and descriptions for properties 9 and 10 were not of a good
enough quality to accurately evaluate. It is our opinion that the Hancock
site would have no adverse impact on the Italianate house (#4) or Lafayette
Spring (#2). We believe there would be no impact on the Lafayette Spring and
the Italianate house from the Breckonridge site.
We would not he able to comment further on the likely impacts, if any, on
structures #9 and #10, without additional photographs and descriptions.
Please do not hesitate to contact us when we may of further service regarding
this project.
Very truly yours,
/J
ion Officer
JMR:RAG:dmp
LOOAL OPPORTUNITY (V, t: W
-------
INDEX
Acid precipitation 3-37
Addison Lock and Dam (No. 45) 3-20
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2-83; 3-95
Agriculture 2-27; 3-9, 12, 15, 59
Air quality 3-39ff
Emissions 2-38, 75; 3-37, 63
Increments 2-78; 3-39
Standards 2-37; 3-39, 40
Alluvium 3-17, 49, 54, 80
Alternatives 21ff
Aluminum 2-41
Applicant (Kentucky Utilities) 1-lff
Aquifers 2-56; 3-80, 81, 82, 84, 88
Archaeological resources 2-75, 76, 83; 3-17ff, 95
Arsenic 2-66; 2-74, 78
Ash (See Bottom or Fly)
Ashland Oil (See also H-Coal) 3-1; 4-6
Atmosphere 3-37ff
Auxiliary boiler 3-34
B
Barges
Barium
Batch concrete
Benching
Benthos
Big River's Electric Corporation
Blackford Creek
Blackouts
Boiler chemical cleaning
Boilers (steam generators)
Bottom ash
Breckinridge site layout
Brownouts
Bull Creek
2-1, 29, 34, 37, 73, 78
2-66; 3-72, 78
2-46
2-42
2-53, 3-74, 78, 84
1-5
3-84
2-77, 78
2-60
2-29, 34, 36
2-34, 37, 42, 60
2-29, 30
1-5
3-59, 86, 88
rn„ 2-6, 15, 63, 73, 79; 3-74, 79, 88
2—66; 3-72, 78
Cadmium 2-41 42 57
Calcium compounds ' 7„ __
Cannelton I*ck and Dam 2_27| ^ *4 ^2, 81
Cannelton, IN 2-37
Carbon monoxide 3-88
Cecelia, KY 3-20, 23, 96, 97
*-»• 82
Index-1
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
C (Con td)
Chlorine
Chromium
City Councils
Clay
Clean Water Act
Climate and meteorology
Clover Creek
Cloverport, KY
Coal
Consumption
Delivery
Emissions
Heating value
Coal and limestone handling
Cold-side blowdown (see Cooling)
Conflicts
Conservation
Construction
Costs
Schedule
Workers
Cooling
Alternatives
Blowdown
Lake
Once-through
Towers
Water
Copper
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Cultural resources (see Archaeological,
Historical, or Visual Resources)
2-66
2-66; 3-72, 78
4-5
2-57; 3-81
1-18; 2-6, 55; 3-74, 78, 81
3-37, 38, 39
3-12, 86, 88
2-27; 3-3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15
2-9, 10, 11, 73, 75, 81; 3-9
2-34
2-73ff
2-75, 82, 84ff; 3-41, 42
2-10, 31
2-29, 34, 37, 73ff; 3-23
4-1, 5, 6
1-10; 2-7, 8, 9, 79, 80
2-29, 32, 33
2-1, 5
2-29, 33
2-46ff
2-56, 60
2-49
2-53
2-29, 46, 81; 3-23, 37, 79
2-1, 44, 46
3-72
xv
DOE
DOI
Discharges
Dissolved oxygen
Dock facilities
Dredging
Drift
Dust
Dyer, KY
1-1; 2-9, 10
2-83; 3-59, 95
2-56, 63ff; 3-78
2-66; 3-72
2-73
2-55
3-39
2-75; 3-23, 39, 41
3-49
42, 43, 66
Index-2
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
E
ECAR
EPA'8 preferred alternative
Earthquakes
Eastern Interior Coal Region
Effective buying income (EBI)
Electric Energy, Inc.
Electrostatic precipitators
Elizabethtown, Kentucky
Emissions control alternatives
(see also FGD)
Employment „
Endangered and threatened species
Energy alternatives
Entralnment
Environmental concerns
Erosion
Bvansville, IN
1-8
2-81ff
3-53
2-9
3-8
1-1, 10, 13, 15; 2-77
2-29, 37
xv, 2-1, 27, 29; 3-3, 5,
2-37ff, 86
3_6
3-59, 63, 74, 100
2-9f f
2-53; 3-78, 79, 80
3-95f f
2-75, 79; 3-82, 88
3-1, 2, 5, 7, 78
FGD and waste stabilisation system 2-29, 34, 37ff, 60; 3-23
Fabric filters 2-37
Faults J-JJ. 53
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2-12
Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1-18; 3-74
(see also Clean Water Act) ^
Fiscal Court, Hancock County J-5
Pl8h ' 2-53; 3-74, 75, 84
Fiah and Wildlife Coordination Act 3-99
Fish eggs and larvae 76» 77» 78» 79» 80
E00d?}aln til, 3-78
Fluoride r ..
Ply ash J-37,
Fogging and icing
Port Knox, KY '
Fugitive emissions (see coal emissions
or 4u«t)
G
Geology (see Physiography and geology) ^ ^
Geothermal energy . i.i' % «• 2-77
Ghent Generating Station » 3-12. 4-5
Green River Area Development District 2 78, 3 12, 4 5
Groundwater 2"37' 425 3"80ff
1 2-44, 45, 46, 56; 3-81
Withdrawal
Index-3
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
JL
H-Coal (see also Ashland Oil)
Habitat degradation
Hancock site layout
Hardinsburg, KY
Hawesville, KY
Heat dissipation alternatives
(see Cooling alternatives)
Hicks Lake
Highways
Historic resources
Holding ponds
Holt Bottoms
Holt Chapel
Holt House
Hoosier National Forest
Hospitals
Housing
Howe Valley, KY
Hydrocarbons
Hydropower
Herbicides
3-1, 6, 9
3-66
2-1, 3
3-3, 5, 9
2-27; 3-3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15
3-12, 88
3-5, 15
2-76; 3-2Off, 9 5
2-57ff, 82; 3-81
2-27, 81; 3-20
3-20, 21, 23, 96
3-20, 21, 23, 96
3-12, 59
3-9
3-5
3-22, 88
2-37
2-9, 14
2-76, 82; 3-88
I
Impingement
Income
Indian Creek
Indian Lake
Indiana SHPO
Industry and business
Inflation
Inmigration
Intake and discharge structures
Interconnections
Iron
2-53; 3-78, 79, 80
3-6, 7, 8, 9
2-27, 63; 3-84, 85, 86
3-59
3-23, 95, 96, 97
3-6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 66, 72, 81
1-10; 2-79
3-5
2-53f f, 66, 81; 3-23, 78, 79, 80
1-1, 10
2-41, 66; 3-72, 78, 81, 82
J
Jackson Purchase Cooperative
Jeffry Cliff
Judge - Executive
1-5
2-42; 3-12,15,16,20,49,54,59,63,66
4-5
Index-4
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
K
Kentucky
Dept. Commerce
Dept. Energy
Dept. Fish and Wildlife
Dept. Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Heritage Commission (SHPO)
Nature Preserves Commission
Public Service Commission
Water quality standards
Kentucky-Indiana Pool ~-
Kentucky Utilities (see Applicant)
2-78; 3-15
2-81; 3-72
3-59
2-16, 15, 63, 66
2-83; 3-20, 22, 95, 96, 97
3-59, 63, 74
1-1, 2-80, 81, 83
2-63ff; 3-74, 78, 84
1-1,3
L
Labor force (see Work force)
Lafayette Springs
Land use
Leaching
Lead
Lewisport, KY
Lexington, KY
Lime
Limestone
Lincoln Trail Area Development
District
Little Beach Fork
Load growth
Louisville, KY
Louisville and Nashville Railway
3-20
3-9f f
2-37, 42; 3-54, 59, 81, 82
2-66; 3-72, 78
3-5, 15
1-1
2-40, 41, 42
2-40; 3-9, 49, 53, 84
3-12
3-86, 88
1-5, 6, 7, 8, 10
3-1, 2, 3, 5, 7
3-5, 37, 99
M
Mammoth Cave, KY
Management alternatives
Maqganese
Manufacturing (see industry)
McAlplne Lock and Dam
McQuady, KY
Mercury
Mineral resources
Mississlppian Plateau
Mitigation
Mixing zone
Muddy Branch
Municipal refuse
Municipal services
Mussels
3-41
2-lff
2-66; 3-72, 74, 78, 82
3-72
2-29; 3-9
2-66; 3-72, 78
3-9
3-49
2-84ff
2-66, 71; 3-78
2-27, 63; 3-85, 99
2-9, 13, 14
3-6, 9
3-79
Index-5
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
NPDES
NSPS
National Energy Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
National Register of Historic Places
Natural gas
Navigation
Need for action
Need for power
Nitrates
No action alternative
Noise
Nuclear fuel
1-18, 2-6, 37, 55, 63, 75, 76, 78,
83; 3-17, 78
2-37, 38, 40
2-7
xv; 1-18; 3-98
2-22, 3-20, 23, 95, 96, 97
1-5, 13, 15; 2-9, 12
2-73; 3-72, 74
1-18
1—5f f
3-81
2-77ff
2-7 5; 3-23, 43, 66
2-10, 11, 12
Ohio River Basin Commission (ORBC)
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO)
Ohio River flows
Ohio Valley Electric Co.
Oil
Oil and gas pools
Old Dominion Power Co.
Outages
Outmigration
Owensboro, KY
Owensboro Municipal Utilities (OMU)
2-15; 3-12, 72, 74
2-63; 3-72, 74
3-72
1-1, 10
1-13, 15; 2-9, 12, 34; 3-9
3-9
1-1
1-5, 8, 10
3-5; 4-5
2-27; 3-1, 2, 3-3,4,5,7,9,12,39,41
1-1, 10, 13, 15; 2-77
pH
PSD
Particulates
Control alternatives
Peak electrical needs
Permitting alternatives
Petroleum
Phenol
Phosphorous
Physiography and geology
Population
Potable water
Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Act
Power Purchases
3-84
2-6, 79; 3-39
2-37, 38, 81; 3-37, 39
2-37, 38
1-5f f
2-79, 80
2-12
2-66; 3-74, 78
3-72
3-49ff
3-3
2-37, 46; 3-78, 81
2-12
l-l, 10, 2-6
Index—6
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
P (Contd)
Precipitation 3-27
Prime farmland 3-53, 54, 97
Productivity 4-4
Project area 3-1, 2
Public Service Company of Indiana (PSI) 1-3
Pyrites 2-34, 42
R
Radionuclides 2-10, 11
Ranney Wells 2-44, 56
Rates (utility) 1-5; 2-77
Recreation 3-12
Reserves (KU) l-8» 12; 2—77, 78
Residential 1-10; 3-9, 12
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 3-74, 81
Retail sales ^~^
Revegetation 2-42
Riparian vegetation 3-15, 88
Rivers and Harbors Act
Rocky Point Marina 3-20
Rough River State Park 3-12
Runoff 2—46, 60, 61, 62, 63; 3—82
S
SCS
Safe Drinking Water Act
Sandy Branch
Sandstone
Sanitary water and waste treatment
Schools
Scrubbers
Selenium
Silica
Siltation
Silver
Site development
Site selection
Skillman Bottoms
Social services
Socioeconomic conditions
Soils
Solar energy
Solid waste alternatives
Southwire Company
Stamper Pirtle House
3-1, 53, 54, 97
3-74, 81
2-27, 46, 60, 63; 3-84, 85, 99
3-17, 49, 53, 84, 88
2-45, 46, 60
3-6
2-40, 41
2-66; 3-72, 74, 78, 82
2-41
3-88
3-72
2-75
2-13ff
2-27, 28, 81
3-7, 9
3-3f f
2-37, 42; 3-53ff
1-13, 15, 16; 2-9, 14
2-4 Iff
3-6
3-22
Index-7
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
S (Contd)
Stephensport, KY
Sugarcamp, Branch
Sulfates
Sulfur
Sulfur dioxide
Control alternatives
Surface water withdrawal
Synfuel (see also H-Coal)
2-27, 3-3
3-84, 86
2-41, 66;
2-10,
2-29,
40
3-78, 82
31, 37; 3-37, 39, 40
2-39, 40, 41
2-44, 46; 3-78
1-16; 3-1, 72
TDS
TSP (see Particulates)
TSS
Tar Fork
Taxes
Tell City, IN
Topography (see Physiography and
geology)
Town Creek
Trace elements
Traffic
Transmission facilities
Transportation
Turbidity
Turbine generator
3-78, 82
2-66; 3-78
3-88, 89
3-6, 9
3-3, 5, 9
2-29, 46, 60, 63; 3-12, 59, 84, 85, 99
2-37; 3-54; 4-2
2-75, 78; 3-5, 6,, 23, 66
xv, 2-1, 4, 28, 29, 75, 76, 81
3-5, 6
3-12, 78
2-29
U
USGS
Unavoidable adverse impacts
Uranium
Urban Planning Commission
2-15, 57
4-lff
2-10
3-12
Vegetation
Vertrees, KY
Victoria Crossroads, Kentucky
Visual resources
2-37, 54, 59ff
3-12
xv, 2-1, 27
2-76; 3-15ff
Index-8
-------
INDEX (CONTINUED)
W
Waste disposal
Waste stabilization (see FGD system)
Water management
Water quality
Water resources
Water Resources Planning Act
Water use
Water table
Western Coal Field
Western Hesophytic Forest
Wetlands
Wildlife
Willamette Industries
William Tell Company
Wind power
Woodlands
Work force
Z
Zinc
Zoning
Zooplankton
2-27,29,42,63,75,81; 3-23,54,81,82
2-56ff
2-63ff,82; 3-72,74,78,81,82,84
2-78; 3-72ff
3-74
2-44ff, 3-78
3-54
1-16; 3-9
3-59
3-12, 59, 98
3-63ff
2-75, 81, 82, 84ff; 3-41, 42, 78
3-6
2-9, 14
3-12, 15
2-29, 32, 33; 3-1, 5, 6, 7, 8
3-72
3-12, 15
2-53, 3-74, 78, 79, 80, 84, 88
Index-9
-------
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY
HANCOCK GENERATING STATION
UNITS I &2-650MW (NET) EACH
SARGENT UUNDY
------- |