[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6563]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 21, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Record of Decision; Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project, Denali 
Borough, AK

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision; Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project, Denali 
Borough, AK.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0186) to assess the environmental 
impacts associated with the Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP), a proposed 
demonstration project near Healy, Alaska that would be cost-shared by 
DOE and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), 
a state agency, under DOE's Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program. After 
careful consideration of these impacts, along with program goals and 
objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide approximately $110 
million in federal funding support (about 48% of the total cost of 
about $227 million) for the construction and operation of two 
integrated clean coal technologies to be demonstrated in the HCCP.
    The National Park Service (NPS) raised concerns that increased 
emissions from the combined operation of the HCCP and the existing 
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., (GVEA) Unit No. 1 at Healy 
would adversely affect the nearby Denali National Park and Preserve 
(DNPP). In response to those concerns, DOE facilitated negotiations 
between the project participants and the U.S. Department of the 
Interior (DOI) (the parent department of the NPS). The negotiations 
were successfully concluded and a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by 
DOI, DOE, AIDEA, and GVEA on November 9, 1993. Under the Agreement, DOI 
has supported the issuance of the final EIS and has withdrawn its 
request for an adjudicatory hearing to reconsider the air quality 
permit issued to AIDEA for the HCCP by the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
    The cornerstone of the Memorandum of Agreement is the planned 
retrofit of Unit No. 1 to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2. 
The Agreement calls for Unit No. 1 to be retrofitted with low-NOx 
burners after the start-up of the HCCP to decrease Unit No. 1 emissions 
by approximately 50%; the Agreement also requires that SO2 
emissions from Unit No. 1 be reduced by 25% using duct injection of 
sorbent. After retrofit of the Unit No. 1, the combined emissions of 
both units are expected to be only slightly greater than the current 
emissions from Unit No. 1. In addition, the Agreement requires that the 
combined emissions from the site be reduced temporarily to current Unit 
No. 1 levels if a visibility plume or haze attributable to the site is 
observed. Furthermore, the Agreement may be renegotiated to require 
further mitigation, including a permanent limitation on site emissions 
at current Unit No. 1 levels, if such observed impacts persist.
    The Agreement will become effective contingent upon its 
incorporation into the ADEC air quality permit. DOE's decision to 
provide cost-shared funding for the HCCP is likewise contingent on 
incorporation of the terms of the Agreement into the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the EIS, 
contact Earl W. Evans, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Clean Coal 
Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology 
Center, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236. Telephone (412) 892-5709. 
For further information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight [EH-25], Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone (202) 586-4600 
or (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this Record of Decision 
pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) 
and DOE regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This Record of Decision is 
based on the DOE Final EIS for the Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project 
(DOE/EIS-0186).
    An overall strategy for compliance with NEPA was developed for the 
CCT Program, consistent with the CEQ NEPA regulations and DOE 
regulations for compliance with NEPA, that includes consideration of 
both programmatic and project-specific environmental impacts during and 
after the process of selecting a project. This strategy is called 
tiering (40 CFR part 1508.28), which refers to the coverage of general 
matters in a broader EIS (e.g., for the CCT Program) with subsequent 
narrower statements or environmental analyses incorporating by 
reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the 
issues specific to the particular project under consideration.
    The DOE strategy has three principal elements. The first element 
involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic EIS for the CCT 
Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the potential 
environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of each of 
22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies in the year 2010. 
The Programmatic EIS evaluated: (1) A no-action alternative, which 
assumed that the CCT Program was not continued and that conventional 
coal-fired technologies with flue gas desulfurization controls would 
continue to be used for new plants or as replacements for existing 
plants that are retired or refurbished and (2) a proposed action, which 
assumed that CCT Program projects were selected for funding and that 
successfully demonstrated technologies undergo widespread 
commercialization by 2010.
    The second element involved preparation of a preselection, project- 
specific environmental review of the HCCP based on project-specific 
environmental data and analyses that the offeror supplied to DOE as 
part of the proposal.
    The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA 
documents for each selected project. For the HCCP, DOE determined that 
an EIS should be prepared to address project-specific concerns. As part 
of the overall NEPA strategy for the CCT Program, the HCCP EIS draws 
upon the Programmatic EIS and preselection environmental reviews that 
have already analyzed many alternatives and scenarios (e.g., 
alternative technologies and sites).

Project Description

    The HCCP would be located on the southern edge of the Interior 
Basin of Alaska, about 80 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 250 miles 
north of Anchorage. The facility is proposed to be built adjacent to 
the existing 25-MW Healy Unit No. 1 conventional pulverized-coal unit 
owned and operated by GVEA in a rural setting along the east bank of 
the Nenana River, about 2.5 miles east-southeast of Healy. Healy Unit 
No. 1 has been operating as a baseload power plant since November 1967 
and has an expected operating life until at least 2007. The facility 
employs 29 people. The 65-acre site is located about 4 miles north of 
the nearest border of DNPP and 8 miles north of the entrance to DNPP.
    The HCCP site would be classified for land use as an industrial 
site. The majority of the site has sustained surface alteration from 
the construction and operation of the existing Healy Unit No. 1 
generating plant, support buildings, coal storage areas, ash ponds, 
roads, electric substation, and transmission lines.
    The combustion technology to be demonstrated is the TRW Applied 
Technologies Division entrained combustion system with limestone 
injection to capture SO2 in the flue gas. The heart of the system 
consists of twin all-metal combustors connected by short ducts to the 
boiler. First-stage precombustors burn about 25% of the coal, and 
exhaust gas from the precombustors is mixed with intake air to preheat 
the main (or slagging-stage) combustors that burn the remaining 75% of 
the coal. As the coal burns, molten slag collects on the walls of the 
combustors and flows toward openings in the bottom of the main 
combustors where it falls into water-filled slag tanks. The slagging 
combustors decline slightly from horizontal to aid in the flow of the 
molten slag. Some slag solidifies on the water-cooled surfaces and 
serves to insulate and protect the metal walls from erosion and 
excessive temperatures. The main combustion sections operate at a 
slight air deficiency to reduce the amount of NOx produced. In the 
boiler, combustion products mix with additional air to complete the 
combustion reactions. The combustors are coupled with a specially 
designed boiler that, in addition to its heat recovery function, 
produces low NOx levels, functions as a limestone calciner, and 
accomplishes first-stage SO2 removal. Therefore, flue gas from 
combustion is expected to contain lower concentrations of SO2 and 
NOx than flue gas from conventional combustion.
    The postcombustion technology to be integrated with the advanced 
combustion system is the Joy Technologies, Inc./Niro Atomizer spray 
dryer absorber for a second stage of SO2 removal and particulate 
removal. The flue gas would mix with an atomized spray that includes 
activated lime from the limestone injection during combustion, 
resulting in additional chemical reactions to remove SO2 and PM. A 
baghouse provides further capture of PM and SO2 before the flue 
gas exits through the stack. A portion of the lime collected by the 
spray dryer and the baghouse would be recycled to the spray dryer and 
used for SO2 removal, thereby increasing SO2 removal 
efficiency while reducing solid waste.
    The integrated process is expected to demonstrate at least 90% 
SO2 removal. It is also anticipated that at least 20% of the total 
available sulfur in the flue gas would be captured in the combustion 
process and at least 70% in the flue gas desulfurization system. Of the 
total ash generated, 60-90% would be removed from the combustors as 
slag and from the boiler hoppers as bottom ash. Most of the remaining 
ash would be removed in the baghouse.
    The integrated process is suitable for repowering existing 
facilities or for new facilities. If successfully demonstrated, it 
would provide an alternative technology to conventional pulverized-coal 
boilers with conventional flue gas desulfurization controls, while 
lowering overall operating costs and reducing the volume of solid waste 
generated by conventional technology in current use.

Project Status

    Project activities to date have been limited to the application for 
permits and approvals necessary to construct and operate the HCCP, and 
the preparation of designs and specifications necessary to apply for 
these permits and approvals, prepare the EIS, and provide assurance 
that this innovative technology will meet permit requirements.
    On September 3, 1992, the Alaska Public Utility Commission (APUC) 
issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which will 
allow AIDEA to provide electric service from the HCCP. The APUC also 
approved a power sales agreement under which GVEA will purchase the 
output of the HCCP from AIDEA. The Trustees for Alaska, a non-profit, 
public interest, environmental law firm, appealed this decision, and on 
November 24, 1993, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third 
Judicial District, affirmed the APUC's decision. The Trustees for 
Alaska have appealed this ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. On 
January 27, 1994, the Superior Court granted the Trustees for Alaska's 
motion to stay the Certificate pending a final ruling by the Alaska 
Supreme Court. Also, on March 10, 1993, the ADEC issued a Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit for the HCCP. AIDEA 
has applied to ADEC to have the provisions of the Memorandum of 
Agreement discussed in the SUMMARY incorporated into the PSD permit. 
AIDEA is also in the process of obtaining other permits and approvals.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by 
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by 
nonfederal-government sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE 
in a much more limited role than if the federal government were the 
owner and operator of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would 
be responsible for a comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives 
for siting the project. However, in dealing with an applicant, the 
scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted, because the 
agency must focus on alternative ways to accomplish its purpose which 
reflect both the application before it and the functions it plays in 
the decisional process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give 
substantial weight to the applicant's needs in establishing a project's 
reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the reasonable alternatives to 
the proposed action are the no-action alternative (including scenarios 
reasonably expected as a consequence of the no-action alternative) and 
an alternative site nearer the coal mine fuel source.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the provision of approximately $110 million 
in cost-shared federal funding support, which is about 48% of the $227 
million total cost, for the construction and operation of two 
integrated clean coal technologies to be demonstrated in the HCCP, a 
new 50-MW coal-fired power generating facility at Healy, Alaska. The 
two technologies to be demonstrated are the TRW entrained combustion 
system and the Joy spray dryer absorber. These technologies have been 
designed to achieve reduction in emissions of SO2, NOX, and 
particulate matter (PM) while being energy efficient technologies 
capable of being used in new facilities or retrofitted to existing 
units. The technologies would be dependent on each other as part of an 
integrated system.
    AIDEA conceived, designed, and proposed the HCCP in response to a 
Program Opportunity Notice issued by DOE in May 1989 to solicit 
proposals. DOE's role is limited to providing the cost-shared funding 
for AIDEA's proposed project. In addition, AIDEA and DOE have different 
objectives to be attained through the HCCP: DOE's objective is to 
demonstrate the technologies, while AIDEA's intent is to promote 
economic development, in this case by increasing Alaska's coal-fired 
electrical generating capacity.
    Coal would be supplied for the HCCP by Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., 
(UCM) from its open-pit Poker Flats Mine and other reserves, located 
about 4 miles north of the proposed site. GVEA has entered into a power 
sales agreement for the purchase and distribution of the electricity 
that would be generated by the HCCP. AIDEA has assembled a team 
composed of GVEA, UCM, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Foster 
Wheeler Energy Corporation, TRW, and Joy to design, build, and operate 
the power plant. The project participant would obtain all applicable 
permits for the HCCP and would comply with all applicable laws, 
regulations, and ordinances. AIDEA initially proposed a site about 4 
miles north of the currently proposed site. The participant 
subsequently proposed, with DOE approval, to move the proposed HCCP 4 
miles south after AIDEA limited the project to a power generation 
facility because the initially proposed co-located coal-upgrading 
operations were not expected to be economical because of their early 
stage of development.

No Action

    This alternative does not provide federal cost-shared funding for 
the HCCP. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT Program (DOE/EIS-0146) 
evaluated the consequences of no action on a programmatic basis. Under 
the no-action alternative for the HCCP, the commercial readiness of the 
proposed technologies for the combined removal of SO2, NOX, 
and PM would not be demonstrated at Healy, Alaska, and probably would 
not be demonstrated elsewhere because there are currently no other 
similar proposals in the CCT Program. The opportunity to demonstrate 
these technologies would likely be lost. As a result, commercialization 
of the technologies could be delayed or might not occur because the 
utility and industrial sectors tend to utilize known and demonstrated 
technologies over new, unproven technologies.
    Under the no-action alternative, two reasonably foreseeable 
scenarios could result. Neither scenario would contribute to the 
objectives of demonstrating the economic feasibility and environmental 
acceptability of new coal utilization and pollution control 
technologies.
    First, GVEA could continue to operate the present power plant and 
continue to buy natural-gas-generated power from Anchorage utilities 
without building any new generating facilities. No construction 
activities or changes in operations would occur. Coal requirements and 
electricity generation would remain constant, and there would be no 
change in current environmental impacts of plant operations.
    Second, a conventional coal-fired power plant equivalent in 
capacity to the proposed project could be built in the Healy area by 
the project participants or other parties without DOE's financial 
assistance to meet the power demand. The best available conventional 
control technologies would be required. These would likely include dry 
scrubbers that use lime to remove SO2 from the flue gas, low-
NOX burners, and a baghouse to remove PM. The dry scrubbers would 
generate a solid waste that, along with the PM from the baghouse, would 
be returned to the UCM Poker Flats Mine for disposal. The new plant 
would lessen or eliminate the need to buy power from Anchorage 
utilities to the same extent as the HCCP.

Alternative Site

    The feasibility of siting coal-fired power plants in various 
locations in the Alaska Railbelt has been studied on several occasions 
by several organizations. GVEA and the City of Fairbanks, for example, 
proposed to build a 130-MW coal-fired plant adjacent to Healy Unit No. 
1 in 1978; and in 1985 and 1988, the Alaska Power Authority studied the 
feasibility of siting coal-fired power plants in the Alaska Railbelt. 
In 1987, the City of Nenana performed a preliminary feasibility study 
for a coal-fired electric generation facility to be located near the 
city.
    These studies all showed that siting a coal-fired power plant at 
any of the studied locations, including Healy, would have environmental 
impacts. Although an alternative site location such as Nenana might 
have been feasible for the projects referenced above, such a location 
renders a proposed CCT project economically infeasible from GVEA's 
standpoint because of increased capital requirements, labor costs, and 
fuel costs. In addition, siting the plant near Nenana to utilize the 
river water source could impact anadromous fisheries. Locating the 
plant between Nenana and Fairbanks would probably not be permitted 
because of nonattainment of air quality standards in the Fairbanks 
area. A location away from the existing electrical intertie system 
would require construction of a new powerline transmission link at a 
cost of about $500,000 per mile and with associated environmental 
impacts. Siting a plant near existing communities between Healy and 
Fairbanks could also require developing new infrastructure.
    The project participant has determined that the only alternative 
sites that appear feasible for economic or environmental reasons are 
those along the Nenana River close to the UCM Poker Flats mine and 
adjacent to the existing power intertie. Within that area, sites closer 
to the mine mouth, sites near an existing community infrastructure, and 
sites that do not require additional disturbance or access routes 
appear to have advantages. The project participant previously had 
considered a site located at the UCM train loadout facility across the 
Nenana River from the UCM mine. This site, which is the site initially 
proposed by AIDEA, is typical of feasible alternative sites from the 
standpoint of environmental and socioeconomic impacts and was therefore 
adopted as the reasonable alternative site to be analyzed in the EIS.
    Other alternatives which did not meet the goals and objectives of 
the CCT Program or of the participant were dismissed from further 
consideration.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    No action would be the environmentally preferred alternative, 
depending on what action AIDEA and GVEA would take as a result of a DOE 
decision not to fund the project. If GVEA continued to purchase power 
in lieu of building a new plant, impacts would remain at current 
levels. However, if a new conventional coal-fired plant were to be 
built, it would cause greater air quality impacts than the HCCP. In 
addition, the reduction in emissions of Unit No. 1 resulting from the 
Memorandum of Agreement would not occur. While it is reasonably 
foreseeable that GVEA could pursue a conventional plant to meet its 
power needs if DOE were not to fund the HCCP, that eventuality is 
somewhat speculative, because it is unknown whether such a plant could 
meet all regulatory requirements. However, a conventional plant would 
be expected to meet the limits of the air quality permit issued by ADEC 
in March 1993 for the HCCP.

Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    Potential impacts to air quality, surface water, groundwater, and 
ecological and socioeconomic resources that could result from 
construction and operation of the proposed HCCP are analyzed in the 
HCCP EIS.

Air Quality and Visibility

    Of primary concern are the impacts to air quality and visibility 
expected from HCCP operation, as predicted by analyses based on 
computer models. The analysis examined the impacts of the HCCP alone, 
and cumulatively with those from Unit No. 1, both without and with the 
retrofit to Unit No. 1 provided for by the Memorandum of Agreement.

Emissions

    The following table shows the projected emissions, in tons per 
year, for the Healy site, including the reductions to be achieved by 
the Memorandum of Agreement.

                                                                                                                
    Unit No. 1 only                     Healy site w/o MOA                    Healy site w/ MOA                 
                                                                                                                
SO2...................    630  .....  Unit No. 1............    630  .....  Unit No. 1............   1472  .....
                        .....  .....  HCCP..................    124  .....  HCCP..................    124  .....
                                                             -------                               -------      
                        .....  .....  ......................  .....    754  ......................  .....    596
NOx...................    848  .....  Unit No. 1............    848  .....  Unit No. 1............    429  .....
                        .....  .....  HCCP..................    577  .....  HCCP..................    577  .....
                                                             -------                               -------      
                        .....  .....  ......................  .....   1425  ......................  .....  1006 
                              -------                               -------                               ------
      Total...........  .....   1478  ......................  .....   2179  ......................  .....  1602 
                                                                                                                

    For NOX control, the Agreement calls for Unit No. 1 to be 
retrofitted with low-NOX burners after the start-up of the HCCP. 
GVEA has agreed to reduce Unit No. 1 NOX emissions by 
approximately 50%, from 848 tons per year to 429 tons per year. The 
Agreement also requires that SO2 emissions from Unit No. 1 be 
reduced by 25%, from 630 tons per year to 472 tons per year, using duct 
injection of sorbent (e.g., flash-calcined material or lime). If the 
HCCP demonstration technology operates as expected, combined NOX 
and SO2 emissions from the Healy site would increase by only about 
8%, from 1478 tons per year to 1602 tons per year, even though 
electrical generation would increase from the existing 25 MW to 75 MW 
for the two units. This is about 25% less than the 2179 tons per year 
that would be emitted if Unit No. 1 were to continue to operate, 
unretrofitted, in conjunction with the HCCP at its demonstration target 
levels. GVEA is required under the Agreement to request permit 
emissions limitations to reflect the levels achieved during the HCCP 
demonstration, allowing for reasonable operational variability.
    If the HCCP demonstration fails to meet project objectives for air 
emissions, but attains levels allowed by the permit issued by ADEC in 
March 1993, (the ``permitted case''), then the combined emissions from 
the Healy site would be capped under the Agreement at 2160 tons per 
year (i.e., 1439 and 721 tons per year of NOX and SO2, 
respectively), about 46% over the emissions for the existing Healy 
site. These maximum emission levels would be incorporated as permit 
conditions.
Additional Mitigation
    DOE believes that the Healy site can be operated at the emission 
levels provided by the Memorandum of Agreement without causing 
unacceptable air quality impacts (see below). However, the Agreement 
requires that additional measures will be taken to further reduce 
combined emissions from the site, if necessary, to protect DNPP from 
visibility plume or haze impacts. Specifically, GVEA must reduce 
combined site emissions to the levels of Unit No. 1 for 12 hours 
whenever NPS (or ADEC) notifies GVEA of the presence of a visible plume 
or haze inside DNPP attributable to the Healy site. If these conditions 
occur more than 10 times in any six month period, then NPS may reopen 
the Agreement and negotiate with GVEA new emission limitations or other 
measures for the site, including reducing emissions to the levels of 
Unit No. 1. If NPS and GVEA cannot agree, the matter will be arbitrated 
in accordance with the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. 
571-583).
Air Quality
    Generally accepted computer models, appropriate for establishing 
compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory requirements, were used 
for analyzing potential impacts within the Healy area (a Class II air 
quality area) and within DNPP (a Class I air quality area where 
stringent standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency). The CAA standards have been used as a gage for 
assessing potential impacts associated with HCCP air emissions. For the 
purpose of air quality analysis, two emission rates (levels) based on a 
100% plant capacity factor were analyzed using the computer models. 
These are the ``demonstration case,'' based on the very low emission 
rates that are the target objectives of the HCCP demonstration, and the 
``permitted case,'' based on the emission levels contained in the March 
1993 ADEC permit. Both cases were modelled with and without the 
retrofit controls on Unit No. 1 provided by the Memorandum of 
Agreement. Maximum ambient (at or beyond the facility perimeter) 
concentrations resulting from the combined operation of Healy Unit No. 
1 and the HCCP are predicted to be less than the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all cases, although the predicted short 
term SO2 concentrations approached the standards. Almost all of 
the modeled concentrations are predicted to occur at the site 
perimeter, resulting not from the new HCCP, but from downwash (downward 
movement) of the existing Unit No. 1 stack plume caused by the larger 
and taller HCCP boiler building. Thus, there was no difference between 
the predicted concentrations for the demonstration and permitted cases 
at either level of Unit No. 1 emissions. However, the reduced emission 
levels from retrofitted Unit No. 1 resulted in a small reduction in 
maximum SO2 concentrations and a greater than 50% reduction in 
maximum NOX concentrations for both the demonstration case and the 
permitted case.
    NAAQS are used to establish absolute limits for pollutant 
concentrations in the ambient air, whereas Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) ``increments'' have been established to define 
permissible air quality degradation. For analyzing air quality impacts 
within DNPP, the stringent standards of the PSD limits for Class I 
areas were used to gauge potential impacts of the HCCP at both the 
demonstration and the permitted case emissions. Modeling results for 
the HCCP demonstration case indicate that maximum concentrations would 
be less than 50% of the PSD Class I limits in all cases. However, the 
permitted case emission levels consumed 88% percent or more of the 
short term increments for SO2 and particulate matter.
Visibility and Haze
    The issue of the HCCP's potential to cause visibility impacts 
within DNPP is of great concern to the NPS, a cooperating agency by 
virtue of its role as Federal Land Manager for the DNPP. Air quality 
and, when weather conditions permit, visibility within DNPP are 
considered among the best anywhere. Visibility impairment, if any, is 
expected to take the form of a yellowish-brown NO2 plume that 
would reduce visibility or be noticeable when contrasted against 
relatively clean air either above or below the plume line.
    For visibility analysis, two computer models and a visibility 
monitoring (photographic) program were used to analyze potential 
visibility impacts within DNPP. The area of detailed study included the 
far eastern edge of DNPP within the Nenana River Valley. Views from the 
interior of DNPP, including views of Mt. McKinley, are not expected to 
be subject to visibility impairment. The results from the computer-
based modeling predict that for the HCCP demonstration case, a visible 
plume may be perceived by DNPP visitors a total of 2 hours per year (h/
year). The computer modeling also predicts that when the HCCP and Unit 
No. 1 would operate simultaneously (without retrofit of Unit No. 1), a 
visible plume may be perceived by visitors 15 h/year. The combined 
operation of the HCCP and Unit No. 1 after the retrofits provided by 
the Memorandum of Agreement predict that a plume may be perceived 9 h/
year. At the higher levels of the HCCP permitted case, a plume is 
predicted 26 h/year without retrofit, and 20 h/year with retrofit of 
Unit No. 1. In addition, the computer modeling predicts that during 
operations of the existing Unit No. 1 alone, a visible plume should be 
perceived 6 h/year. This is consistent with the fact that there have 
been no published sightings of a visible plume from Unit. No. 1 from or 
within DNPP by observers or operating camera equipment.
    A sensitivity analysis of the effect of using modelling assumptions 
preferred by the NPS indicated that a plume could be perceptible as 
much as 78 h/year for the HCCP demonstration case, 262 h/year for the 
simultaneous operation of the HCCP and unretrofitted Unit No. 1, and 
205 h/year for the simultaneous operation of both units after the 
retrofit of Unit No. 1. Results increase to 329 h/year and 294 h/year 
for the HCCP permitted case, combined with Unit No. 1 unretrofitted, 
and Unit No. 1 retrofitted, respectively. Use of these same assumptions 
also predicts that the current operation of Unit No. 1 alone may cause 
a visible plume to be perceived 145 h/year.
    DOE has concluded that the modeling using the original assumptions 
form reasonable estimates of the number of hours that a plume from the 
HCCP and in combination with Unit No. 1 may be perceptible. The results 
using the assumptions preferred by the NPS are beyond credible 
estimates in view of the actual experience with Unit No. 1, that is, 
there are no published sightings of a plume from Unit No. 1. The 145 h/
yr prediction for Unit No. 1 is 39% of the 372 hours of the year during 
which, based on historic conditions, wind direction and speed would 
allow a transport of a potentially perceptible plume to the DNPP 
Visitors Center.
    An analysis of regional haze reveals that adding HCCP emissions to 
those from Unit No. 1 increases the estimated number of events per year 
by only one event. A sensitivity analysis of the effect of using 
assumptions preferred by the NPS was also done for haze modeling. 
Although a larger number of events was predicted when the NPS 
assumptions were used, all of the modeling indicated little increase by 
adding HCCP emissions to those from Unit No. 1, regardless of the 
assumptions. Observations have not attributed regional haze to the 
existing Unit No. 1.
    DOE is fully aware of the uncertainties inherent in the computer 
modelling of visibility and haze impacts. However, the implications of 
these uncertainties for predicting the impacts of the HCCP have been 
significantly mitigated by the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement 
discussed above. If a plume, or haze is sighted, emissions will be 
reduced to existing Unit No. 1 levels.

Water Quality

    The EIS also evaluates impacts of construction and operation of the 
HCCP on surface water, including the Nenana River. Primary impacts to 
the Nenana River would be caused by the rejection of waste heat to the 
river from the discharge of a once-through cooling system. During the 
production of electricity, power plants need to reject waste heat. 
During preliminary engineering design, the participant evaluated three 
different systems for waste heat rejection: (1) Wet cooling tower, (2) 
dry (air) cooling tower, and (3) a once-through system that would use 
water directly from the Nenana River. The existing Unit No. 1 uses 
once-through cooling. A wet cooling tower was found to be not feasible 
because the subarctic climate of central Alaska would present 
operational problems and a wet cooling tower could adversely affect 
local weather conditions. A dry cooling tower was found to be very 
expensive because it would be much larger than a wet tower and dry 
towers consume large amounts of power to drive circulation fans. The 
large power requirement of a dry cooling tower would lower the overall 
plant efficiency. The option of a once-through system was selected 
because with the discharge of cooling water from Healy Unit No. 1 and 
the HCCP into the Nenana River, cumulative water temperatures during 
winter months would be below the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) limit of 55.4 deg. F at 30 ft downstream of the 
HCCP discharge and beyond. During summer months, cumulative water 
temperatures would be below the limit beyond 50 ft downstream of the 
HCCP discharge. The state has been asked by the project participant to 
allow a thermal mixing zone of 600 ft for the HCCP to meet the state 
limit. The Nenana River, at the proposed site, does not support a large 
population of sport fish; the fish found at the proposed site are 
primarily round whitefish and longnose suckers. However, during the 
winter, cold shock could kill fish acclimated to the warmer 
temperatures of the once-through cooling system discharge that become 
deprived of the warmed water if the HCCP would suddenly shut down. A 
cross connection would be installed between the Healy Unit No. 1 and 
HCCP discharges to provide the flexibility of discharging Unit No. 1 
water downstream of the intake basin during summer, and to keep the 
water intakes free of ice during winter if Unit No. 1 is shut down. The 
cross connection may mitigate cold shock mortality by allowing 
discharge to both outfalls when Unit No. 1 is shut down during winter 
months.
    During the winter, the waste heat rejected by Unit No. 1's once-
through cooling system presently prevents the Nenana River from 
completely freezing over for an approximate distance of 4 miles 
downstream (to the north). It is estimated that during operation of 
both the proposed HCCP and Unit No. 1, the combined thermal discharge 
would extend the area to about 10 miles downstream. Residents of the 
village of Ferry, which is located about 13 miles downstream of the 
proposed site, use the frozen river as an ice bridge to transport 
supplies and materials across the Nenana River during the winter. 
Although remnants of the thermal plume reaching Ferry could cause a 
delay in the river's freezing at the beginning of winter and an earlier 
breakup of the ice sheet in the spring, it is expected that the river 
would continue to freeze at Ferry.
    The EIS analyzes short-term and long-term socioeconomic impacts 
associated with construction and operation of the proposed HCCP, 
particularly in the areas of housing, education, traffic, police and 
fire protection, and medical services. During HCCP construction, a peak 
of approximately 300 workers is estimated. To help reduce the 
``boomtown'' effect on the Healy area, it is proposed that a temporary 
construction camp would be built at a location about 0.5 miles from the 
proposed site to house most workers. Longer-term socioeconomic impacts 
would result from 32 new workers expected for HCCP operations and from 
8 new jobs created at the UCM mine. It is estimated that these new 
workers and their families would increase the population of the Healy 
area by approximately 102 people by 1996-1997.

No Action Alternative

    The no-action alternative would result if DOE does not provide 
cost-shared funding support for the HCCP; two reasonably foreseeable 
scenarios could result (see Alternatives above). For the no-change 
scenario, impacts would remain unchanged from the baseline conditions. 
For the conventional coal-fired plant scenario, the level of impacts 
would be almost identical to that of the HCCP for most resource areas 
because the resource requirements and discharges are nearly identical, 
except for air emissions. Surface water, groundwater, and ecological 
and socioeconomic impacts are not expected to change from those in the 
HCCP. The amount of coal required for the conventional plant would be 
about 90% of the coal required for the HCCP. However, total mining 
operations (including coal mined for other users) would increase at the 
UCM mine by about 10% for the conventional plant compared with the HCCP 
because about 50% of the coal used by the HCCP would be waste coal 
uncovered during mining for run-of-mine coal. Particulate emissions 
from fugitive dust during mining would be about 10% greater for the 
conventional plant. Operational air emissions are expected to be up to 
100% greater for the conventional plant (compared with HCCP 
demonstration case) because the conventional plant would only be 
required to meet emissions standards existing at the time of 
construction, while the HCCP is expected to generate emissions 
substantially less than the standards. The conventional plant would be 
expected to generate about 50% less ash following combustion. Fewer 
trips, involving less ash, would be required to return the ash to the 
UCM mine, although the mine can easily accommodate the greater amount 
of ash disposal from the HCCP.

Alternative Site

    In addition to the proposed site, the EIS considers the alternative 
site for the HCCP located about 4 miles north-northwest of the proposed 
site. The EIS analysis indicates that, except for air quality, other 
environmental and socioeconomic impacts would be greater if the HCCP 
were to be constructed and operated at the alternative site. The 
alternative site has been disturbed, in part, during the construction 
of the loadout facility and conveyor system that transfers coal across 
the Nenana River from the mine. However, the alternative site is 
somewhat isolated and much less of an ``industrial site'' than the area 
adjacent to the existing Unit No. 1. For example, construction of the 
HCCP at the alternative site would require the site clearing of 37 
acres of which 22 acres are identified as wetlands in the National 
Wetlands Inventory. Only about 10 acres need to be prepared at the 
proposed site adjacent to Unit No. 1 and no loss of wetlands would 
occur. Also, during the winter the rejection of waste heat from the 
HCCP into the Nenana River at the alternative site may extend the area 
of ice-free water approximately 1 mile closer to the village of Ferry 
(2 vs 3 miles). However, cumulative thermal effects resulting from the 
discharge of the HCCP and Unit No. 1 cooling water into the Nenana 
River would not occur at the alternative site. The expected maximum 
elevation in river water temperature would be less than that expected 
at the proposed site because the ambient river temperature would not be 
elevated by Unit No. 1 thermal discharge. However, cumulative impacts 
at the proposed site would be mitigated by the installation of a cross 
connection to direct the discharge to either or both outfalls. If the 
HCCP were built at the alternative site about 13 additional workers 
would be required for plant operations over the 32 workers required at 
the proposed site because it would no longer be possible to integrate 
the operations of both Unit No. 1 and the HCCP. These additional 
operational workers would be needed for control room operations and 
maintenance.
    Air quality analysis using computer models was performed to analyze 
the potential impact from air emissions if the HCCP was constructed and 
operated at the alternative site. The predicted maximum concentrations 
for the demonstration case are less than the PSD Class I limits. 
Because the alternative site is located about 6 miles east of the 
nearest border of DNPP (and about 8 miles north of the DNPP border that 
is downwind of frequent winds), while the proposed site is about 4 
miles north of DNPP, air dispersion modeling has indicated that maximum 
concentrations of air pollutants within DNPP would be reduced for the 
alternative site as compared with the proposed site.
    Impacts outside of DNPP would also decrease, except for PM which 
would increase or remain about the same. Cumulative concentrations from 
the simultaneous operation of the HCCP at the alternative site and the 
existing Unit No. 1 would be reduced from those predicted for the HCCP 
at the proposed site because the new HCCP boiler building would not 
affect the Unit No. 1 stack plume. Visibility impacts to DNPP from 
operation of the HCCP at the alternative site are expected to be 
similar to the proposed site.

Comments Received

    DOE received two letters of comment on the FEIS. Mr. Dave Lacey of 
College, Alaska commented that heavy metals and carbon dioxide were 
inadequately analyzed. Mr. Lacey also objected to the economic and 
Federal budget implications of a government cost-shared project. He 
requested a public hearing to explore these issues. Mr. Lacey's letter 
raised similar issues to those provided in his oral and written 
comments on the draft EIS. DOE believes that they were adequately 
addressed in the FEIS, and that an additional hearing is not necessary.
    The Trustees for Alaska urged DOE to delay issuance of this Record 
of Decision until after the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the Trustees 
for Alaska's appeal of the Superior Court decision upholding the APUC's 
issuance of a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to AIDEA for the 
HCCP. The Trustees for Alaska claimed that the order of the Superior 
Court to stay the Certificate pending a final ruling by the Supreme 
Court undermines DOE's ability to depend on the APUC action to 
establish the need for the project.
    This argument misconstrues the role of DOE in the HCCP and the 
purpose and need which DOE is attempting to fulfill by cost sharing the 
project. The Federal need established by the CCT legislation and the 
Alaska state need reflected in the APUC process are not the same, and 
DOE does not depend on the APUC determination of need for power to 
conclude that the project is needed to meet DOE's goals and objectives. 
The goal of the CCT Program as established by Congress is to make 
available to the U.S. energy marketplace advanced and environmentally 
responsive technologies that will help alleviate pollution problems 
from coal utilization. DOE's purpose and need for cost sharing the HCCP 
is to generate data to help achieve that goal. AIDEA and GVEA's need to 
meet their goals of encouraging economic development and meeting power 
demand, respectively, are independent of DOE's need to meet CCT program 
goals. As discussed above, AIDEA and GVEA's needs are important in 
defining the alternatives available to DOE in meeting its goal, but 
they are not necessary for DOE to establish that the need to meet its 
goal exists.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately 
$110 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the 
construction and operation of two integrated clean coal technologies to 
be demonstrated in the HCCP. The HCCP is intended to demonstrate the 
combined removal of SO2, NOx, both of which can contribute to 
acid rain, and particulate matter using advanced combustion and flue 
gas cleanup technologies. In doing so, the project would successfully 
demonstrate two promising technologies ready to be commercialized in 
the 1990s. The project is expected to generate sufficient data from 
design, construction, and operation to allow private industry to assess 
the potential for commercial application of these technologies to new 
or existing units. While it is possible that selecting no action would 
be environmentally preferable to the proposed action, it would not 
produce the data needed to further the Congressionally mandated goals 
and objectives of demonstrating clean coal technologies.
    This decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed HCCP 
was made after careful review of the potential environmental impacts, 
especially any potential adverse impacts on DNPP, as analyzed in the 
EIS; consultation with DOI (including NPS, the Federal Land Manager for 
DNPP); and taking into consideration the Memorandum of Agreement for 
providing mitigation of potential impacts on DNPP from the operation of 
the proposed HCCP. The decision to provide cost-shared funding for the 
HCCP is being made contingent on the incorporation of the terms of the 
Memorandum of Agreement into the ADEC air quality permit, as provided 
in the Agreement.

Mitigation Action Plan

    Section 1021.331(a) of the DOE regulations implementing NEPA (10 
CFR part 1021) states that DOE shall prepare a Mitigation Action Plan 
that addresses mitigation commitments expressed in the ROD. A 
Mitigation Action Plan for the HCCP is being developed to ensure that 
DOE implements all mitigation commitments. Copies of the Mitigation 
Action Plan may be obtained from Earl W. Evans, Environmental 
Coordinator, Office of Clean Coal Technology, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, P.O. Box 10940, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15236. Telephone (412) 892-5709.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 1994.
Marvin I. Singer,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-6563 Filed 3-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P