[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20824]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 24, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology 
Project, Polk County, FL

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology 
Project, Polk County, Florida.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a Federal Cooperating 
Agency, with the Region IV (Atlanta, Georgia) Office of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Federal lead agency, for 
the purpose of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS; EPA 904/9-94-002) for Tampa Electric Companys (TECs) proposed 
1,150 megawatt (MW) Polk Power Station. DOEs participation results from 
the proposal by its Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program to provide 
cost-sharing financial assistance for the development of the first 
generating facility to be built at the Polk Power Station site. 
Specifically, the proposed 260 MW integrated gasification combined 
cycle (IGCC) unit, called Polk Unit 1, is being considered by DOE for 
cost-shared financial assistance in the amount of $130 million under 
the terms of the CCT Demonstration Program. DOE considers the proposal 
to provide cost-shared financial assistance for the IGCC demonstration 
project to be a major federal action subject to the provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to the corresponding DOE 
regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). In accordance with these provisions, 
alternatives available to DOE include the proposed action (which is 
DOE's preferred alternative), and reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action (i.e., the no-action alternative, including scenarios 
reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no-action alternative).
    In March 1993, EPA, DOE, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACOE) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby EPA was 
designated as the Federal Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIS, 
and DOE and USACOE were designated as Cooperating Agencies. The EPA 
Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS for this proposed project was 
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 29577) on May 21, 1993. DOE 
has adopted this EIS as being adequate and appropriate for the purpose 
of developing DOE's Record of Decision for its proposed action.
    Accordingly, after careful consideration of the potential 
environmental impacts assessed in the EIS for the proposed Polk Unit 1, 
along with consideration of CCT Demonstration Program goals and 
objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide approximately $130 
million in federal funding support for the construction and operation 
of the IGCC technology to be demonstrated at Polk Unit 1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on DOE's 
activities related to the EIS, contact Bruce J. Buvinger, Environmental 
Specialist, U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology 
Center, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV. Telephone (304) 291-4379. 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 EPA Final EIS for the Proposed Tampa Electric Company--
Polk Power Station (EPA 904/9-94-002).
    An overall NEPA compliance strategy was developed for the CCT 
Demonstration Program, consistent with the Council on Environmental 
Quality (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 Demonstration 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 
Demonstration 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 Demonstration 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 Demonstration Program projects were 
selected for funding and that successfully demonstrated technologies 
would undergo widespread commercialization by 2010.
    The second element involved preparation of a preselection 
environmental review of project-specific environmental data and 
analyses that the CCT Demonstration Program offerors supplied to DOE as 
part of their CCT Demonstration Program proposals.
    The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA 
documents for each selected project. For Polk Unit 1, DOE determined 
that an EIS should be prepared to address project- specific concerns. 
EPA agreed with DOE's determination that an EIS should be prepared to 
satisfy both agencies' NEPA regulations. As part of the overall NEPA 
strategy for the CCT Demonstration Program, the Polk Power Station EIS 
draws upon the Programmatic EIS and preselection environmental reviews 
that have already analyzed various alternatives and scenarios (e.g., 
alternative technologies and sites).
    The DOE proposal to provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC 
for construction and operation of the 260 MW IGCC unit was determined 
by DOE to be a major federal action subject to NEPA. Because of DOE's 
CCT involvement, DOE and EPA initially agreed that DOE would assume the 
Federal lead agency role for the development of the EIS, and that EPA 
would be a Cooperating Agency. However, EPA's proposed federal action, 
in its role as permitting authority for the proposed issuance of a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, 
pertains to the entire 1,150 MW Polk Power Station project, which 
extends beyond DOE's involvement with Polk Unit 1. An additional 
consideration in determining the Federal lead agency was the fact that, 
if either DOE or TEC were to withdraw from the IGCC demonstration 
agreement, DOE's interest in the EIS would cease, whereas EPA's NEPA 
obligations regarding the preparation of the EIS would continue by 
virtue of TEC's NPDES sitewide permit application. Therefore, it was 
mutually determined that EPA would assume the lead agency role for the 
preparation of the EIS for the proposed 1,150 MW complex. This change 
in Federal lead agency from DOE to EPA was announced in the EPA's 
Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI) of May 21, 1993 (58 FR 29577).

Project Description

    TEC proposes to expand its electric generating capacity by 
establishing an 1,150 MW power station on an approximately 4,348-acre 
site in southwestern Polk County, Florida. Approximately 94 percent of 
the site has been mined to recover phosphate or has been disturbed by 
mining-related activities. Portions of the proposed site continue to be 
mined. Existing mine cuts at the site would be modified to become the 
Polk Power Station cooling reservoir. Much of the Polk Power Station 
storm water would be reused in the cooling reservoir. Over one-third of 
the Polk Power Station site (approximately 1,511 acres) would be 
reclaimed as a wildlife habitat area of mixed forested and nonforested 
uplands and wetlands. The proposed power station would be formally 
known as the ``Tampa Electric Polk Power Station.''
    At completion to its full 1,150 MW generating capacity, the 
proposed Polk Power Station would consist of one 260 MW (net) IGCC 
generating facility, two 220 MW (net) combined cycle (CC) generating 
units, and six 75 MW (net) combustion turbine (CT) generating units. 
This DOE ROD is specific to Polk Power Station Unit 1, the 260 MW IGCC 
unit that is the portion of the project for which DOE has decided to 
provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC.
    The IGCC project was selected under DOE's CCT Demonstration Program 
to demonstrate the commercial application of an IGCC system. The plant 
is a combination of two leading technologies. The first technology, 
combined cycle, is currently the most efficient commercially available 
method of producing electricity. The second technology, gasification, 
uses coal to produce a clean-burning gas. The integration of these 
technologies will allow TEC to couple the high efficiency of the 
combined cycle design with the low cost of coal for fuel. Project 
objectives include demonstrating the IGCC technology in a commercial 
electric utility application at the 260 MW size, demonstrating 
commercial operation of the facilitys innovative hot gas cleanup 
technology, and assessing long-term reliability, availability, and 
maintainability.
    The IGCC system offers several advantages over conventional coal-
based power generation technology, including: (1) Major reductions in 
sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and dust emissions, 
(2) decreased coal consumption associated with increased generating 
efficiency, (3) modular construction for economic increments of 
capacity to match load growth, (4) fuel flexibility, (5) reduced land 
area and cooling water requirements, and (6) potential for design 
standardization due to modular construction, which should reduce 
engineering effort, construction time, and permitting complications for 
subsequent plants.
    The proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1 would consist of a 260 MW 
IGCC power plant that would include a pressurized, oxygen-blown, 
entrained flow gasifier designed by Texaco. Gas cleanup is accomplished 
by low temperature acid gas removal, plus hot gas moving bed 
desulfurization. The combined cycle portion of the system is an 
advanced 150 MW General Electric gas turbine heat recovery steam 
generator and a 130 MW steam turbine. The IGCC generation process is 
about 10 to 12 percent more efficient than a conventional coal-fired 
power plant because combined cycle generation reuses the exhaust heat 
from the combustion turbines to produce additional electricity. The 
combined cycle design consists of a combustion turbine/generator, a 
heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine/generator. In the 
gasification portion of the plant, coal would be partially burned to 
produce coal gas, which is first cleaned and then used as fuel in the 
combustion turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust heat from the 
combustion turbine is recovered in the heat recovery steam generator to 
produce steam, which then passes through a steam turbine to power 
another generator, thereby producing additional electricity.
    The proposed IGCC facility would be constructed in two phases. The 
first phase would be a 150 MW advanced combustion turbine, fueled by 
oil, to begin operation in 1995. In 1996, the coal gasification system 
and combined cycle portion of the plant would begin operation, bringing 
the total output to 260 MW.

Project Status

    Project activities to date include applications for permits and 
approvals necessary to construct and operate the Polk Power Station, 
preparation of designs and specifications necessary to apply for these 
permits and approvals, and preparation, publication, and distribution 
of the draft and final EIS.
    In July 1992, TEC submitted to the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and other appropriate agencies a site 
certification application (SCA) for the construction and operation of 
the proposed Polk Power Station pursuant to the Florida Electrical 
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). The PPSA provides for the coordination 
of all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements, 
permits, and approvals for steam electric generating facilities with 
capacities greater than 75 MW under the SCA review and certification 
process.
    In accordance with the PPSA process, a land-use hearing was held in 
Bartow, Florida, on October 29, 1992. The Florida Power Plant Siting 
Board (FPPSB) found the project to be consistent with state, regional, 
and local land-use plans on January 26, 1993. The site certification 
hearing for the project was held in Bartow, Florida, on October 13, 
1993. On January 25, 1994, the FPPSB concurred with the Recommended 
Order granting certification for the proposed Polk Power Station 
subject to specific conditions of certification.
    TEC's application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permit (i.e., air quality construction and operation permit), 
which was submitted to FDEP as part of the SCA process, included 
modeling analyses and potential impact assessments for the proposed 
1,150 MW build-out of the power station. However, FDEP approval of the 
PSD permit has been granted only for the initial 260 MW IGCC unit. 
Additional PSD permit application approvals will need to be pursued by 
TEC for each additional proposed generating increment up to the full 
1,150 MW level.
    Under the PPSA, the determination of need for new electrical 
generating capacity is the exclusive responsibility of the Florida 
Public Service Commission (FPSC). TEC submitted a need for power 
petition to the FPSC on September 5, 1991, including a ``Polk Unit One 
Need Determination Study.'' On January 31, 1992, the FPSC voted to 
approve and issue a certification of need for TECs planned IGCC unit 
(Polk Power Station Unit 1). Additional need for power petitions must 
be filed with the FPSC by TEC and approved prior to determination of 
need for power beyond the initially-approved level.
    TEC has submitted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit application to EPA that seeks approval for discharge of 
water from the proposed power station cooling reservoir to waters of 
the United States. TEC also requested that EPA provide an NPDES ``new 
source determination.'' By letter to TEC dated January 11, 1994, EPA 
tentatively determined that the proposed Polk Power Station is a ``new 
source'' that requires an NPDES permit based on New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS). The pending EPA Notice of Determination for the NPDES 
permit would constitute a formal ``new source determination'' by EPA.
    In addition, TEC has applied to the USACOE for a ``Section 404'' 
(of the Clean Water Act) permit to conduct dredge-and-fill activities 
in waters of the United States. The USACOE is also a Federal 
Cooperating Agency to EPA for this EIS because of these permitting 
responsibilities. The USACOE is expected to issue its permit following 
the issuance of the RODs by each federal agency.

Alternatives Considered

    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 the project. However, when DOE signs a Cooperative Agreement with 
an industrial partner, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more 
restricted, because the agency must focus on alternative ways to 
accomplish its purpose, which reflect both the industrial partner's 
needs and the functions it plays in the decisional process. It is 
appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the 
industrial partner's needs in establishing a project's reasonable 
alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the reasonable alternative to 
the proposed action is the no-action alternative (including scenarios 
reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no- action alternative). 
The proposed action for the EIS under consideration here is TEC's 
proposed project, described in the EIS as the ``Preferred Alternative 
with DOE Financial Assistance.'' Reasonable alternatives and 
subalternatives to the proposed project were considered in the EIS. In 
addition to TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE 
Financial Assistance)'' and the ``No-Action Alternative,'' alternative 
and subalternative analyses performed by EPA as the Lead Agency 
included Alternatives to Constructing New Generating Facilities, 
Alternative Generating Technologies, Alternative Sites, and Alternative 
Processes and Facilities.
    The ``EIS Action Alternatives'' available to DOE are either to 
provide cost-shared financial assistance for the proposed initial 260 
MW IGCC unit, or to deny the financial assistance. After reviewing the 
environmental effects associated with the Action Alternatives, DOE has 
determined that its Preferred Alternative is to provide cost-shared 
financial assistance for the proposed project.
    EPA's ``EIS Action Alternatives'' are to issue, issue with 
conditions, or deny the NPDES permit for TEC's proposed project. EPA's 
preferred permitting action is to issue the NPDES permit with 
conditions, following completion of the EIS process.

DOE's Proposed Action

    The proposed federal action is the provision of approximately $130 
million in cost-shared federal funding support for the construction and 
operation of the 260 MW Unit 1 of the Polk Power Station, a proposed 
new 1,150 MW power generating facility in Polk County, Florida. The CCT 
program will demonstrate environmentally acceptable and economically 
viable means of generating electricity with coal, the most abundant 
energy resource in the United States.
    The IGCC integrates coal gasification and combined cycle 
technologies to develop a highly efficient new technology for removing 
sulfur from synthetic fuelgas (``syngas'') prior to combustion. The 150 
MW advanced General Electric Model 7F combustion turbine unit would be 
integrated with heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and steam turbine 
(ST) generator facilities to form a combined cycle generating unit with 
coal gasification facilities to complete the proposed 260 MW Polk Power 
Station Unit 1.
    A Texaco pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier would 
be used to produce a medium-Btu fuel gas. Coal/water slurry and oxygen 
would be combined at high temperature and pressure to produce a high-
temperature syngas. Molten coal-ash would flow out of the bottom of the 
vessel into a water-filled quench tank where it would be turned into a 
solid slag. The syngas from the gasifier would move to a high-
temperature heat recovery unit that cools the gases. The cooled gases 
would flow to a particulate removal section, and then enter two gas 
cleanup trains, i.e., a demonstration hot gas cleanup (HGCU) train and 
a conventional cold gas cleanup (CGCU) train. When both the HGCU and 
CGCU systems are used, a portion of the syngas would be passed through 
a moving bed of zinc titanate absorbent in the HGCU system to remove 
sulfur. The remaining syngas would be cooled further through a series 
of heat exchangers before entering a conventional CGCU train, where 
sulfur would be removed by an acid gas removal system.
    The cleaned gases then would be routed to a combined cycle system 
for electric power generation. The advanced combustion turbine unit 
would have a generating capacity of 190 MW (net) when fired on the 
syngas. An HRSG would use heat from the combustion turbine exhaust to 
produce high-pressure steam. This steam, along with the steam generated 
in the gasification process, would be routed to the ST to generate an 
additional 70 MW (net). By-products from the process--sulfur, sulfuric 
acid, and slag--can be sold commercially: the sulfur by-product as a 
raw material to make agricultural fertilizer, and the non-leachable 
slag for use in roofing shingles, asphalt roads, and as a structural 
fill in construction projects.
    The proposed IGCC unit would provide DOE the opportunity to 
demonstrate oxygen-blown entrained-flow IGCC technology, which is 
expected to achieve significant reductions of sulfur dioxide and oxides 
of nitrogen emissions as compared to conventional pulverized coal 
technologies used in existing and planned future coal-burning power 
plants. In accordance with a cooperative agreement with DOE under the 
CCT Demonstration Program, TEC would be required to use coal from 
various domestic sources for the IGCC unit. The potential coal supply 
sources during the demonstration period are expected to be coal seams 
in the eastern and midwestern United States. The project participant 
would obtain all applicable permits for the Polk Power Station and 
would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. The 
proposed IGCC unit would require approximately 2,325 tons per day of 
coal on a dry weight basis when operating at full capacity.

No Action

    This alternative does not provide DOE cost-shared financial 
assistance for the 260 MW IGCC unit. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT 
Demonstration Program (DOE/EIS-0146) evaluated the consequences of no 
action on a programmatic basis. Under the no-action alternative for 
Polk Unit 1, the commercial readiness of the proposed integrated 
gasification combined cycle technology for the combustion of coal would 
not be demonstrated in Florida at the Polk Power Station, and probably 
would not be demonstrated elsewhere because there are currently no 
other similar proposals in the CCT Program. The opportunity to 
demonstrate this technology would likely be lost. As a result, 
commercialization of the technology 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, i.e., without DOE cost-shared 
financial assistance, TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal 
(Without DOE Financial Assistance)'' calls for construction and 
operation of a 500 MW pulverized coal-fired unit to replace the IGCC 
and several other of the planned units. Environmental consequences of 
this alternative are additional sulfur dioxide and oxide of nitrogen 
emissions, additional water use, additional coal consumption, less 
flexibility in relation to load growth, and additional land area 
required for the power generation facilities.

Alternative Sites

    TEC employed a citizens' Power Plant Siting Task Force composed of 
public and private representatives to select its preferred site. The 
overall goal of the TEC Power Plant Site Selection Assessment Program 
was to select a site, or sites, that were considered the most suitable 
for developing the needed electric generating facilities to meet TEC's 
future power supply demands. In addition to the preferred site, two 
alternative Polk County sites with similar attributes were selected. 
Although differences in impacts existed among the three sites, TEC 
considered all three sites suitable and potentially permittable as 
potential sites for the proposed facilities. Use of the final proposed 
site would result in less environmental impact than the other two 
sites; it also would be less costly to develop.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative (with DOE Financial Assistance)

    DOE's providing TEC with approximately $130 million in cost- shared 
financial assistance to construct the proposed Polk Power Station Unit 
1 is the environmentally preferred alternative, and is the same as 
DOE's proposed action. TEC would demonstrate an HGCU system for 
removing sulfur compounds, particulates, and other potential pollutants 
from syngas produced in the coal gasification facility prior to firing 
in the advanced combustion turbine. The demonstration HGCU system has 
the potential to achieve pollutant removal efficiencies equivalent to 
or greater than the conventional CGCU technology, while providing a 
more efficient power generation system. The HGCU process is also a 
factor in minimizing air emissions, land and water impacts, and other 
negative environmental consequences as compared with the conventional 
pulverized coal technology described in the EIS under the ``No Action'' 
alternative.

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation 
of the proposed Polk Power Station were analyzed in the EIS, including 
air quality, surface water and groundwater quality, biological 
resources, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics, hazardous and 
nonhazardous wastes, and human health and risk to wildlife.

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 Polk Power Station area (a 
Class II air quality area) and within the Chassahowitzka National 
Wildlife Area (a Class I air quality area where stringent standards 
have been established by EPA). The CAA standards were used as one means 
of assessing the magnitude of potential impacts associated with Polk 
Power Station air emissions.
    EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were used to 
establish absolute limits for pollutant concentrations in the ambient 
air, whereas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments 
were employed to define permissible air quality degradation. Air 
quality modeling results indicated that the operation of the proposed 
Polk Power Station at completion would not cause or contribute to a 
violation of any air quality regulations, including consumption of PSD 
increments and the National and State of Florida AAQS. Maximum ambient 
concentrations at or beyond the facility perimeter are predicted to be 
less than the National and Florida AAQS for all cases, although the 
predicted short term particulate matter (PM) concentrations approach 
the standard. The results of a No-Threat Level analysis indicate that 
public health in Polk County and adjacent counties would not be 
jeopardized due to human inhalation of air emissions from the proposed 
project operations.
    To minimize potential air quality impacts, TEC would implement Best 
Available Control Technology measures for the proposed project wherever 
feasible to reduce combustion, process, and fugitive emissions. Use of 
low-sulfur and low-ash fuels would minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide 
and particulates. Coal handling and slag systems would be designed to 
effectively control fugitive particulate matter emissions.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality

    No unacceptable surface water or groundwater impacts are expected 
from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power Station. 
The results of modeling efforts conducted by TEC indicate that 
discharges from the cooling reservoir and from storm water are expected 
to meet all state Class III surface water quality standards. The 
proposed groundwater withdrawals and associated drawdowns are not 
expected to affect other water users in the site vicinity. No impacts 
to water quality in the Floridan or intermediate aquifers are 
anticipated from the proposed project operations, due to the presence 
of confining layers between these aquifers and the overlying surficial 
aquifer. Water in the proposed cooling reservoir would meet applicable 
FDEP Class G-II standards, with only exceedances of secondary drinking 
water standards for iron and color. However, the concentrations of iron 
and color are below ambient levels in the surficial aquifer.

Biological Resources

    Approximately 1,090 acres of land would be affected by construction 
of the power plant, cooling water reservoir, and other associated power 
facilities. Most of these facilities would be located on mined or 
highly disturbed lands. Approximately 253 acres of USACOE 
jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced by the construction of the 
power facilities. Potential adverse effects to local or regional 
terrestrial and wetland vegetation resulting from Polk Power Station 
operation are not anticipated, since air emissions and water discharges 
would be in compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards 
and water quality standards. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan 
aquifer are not expected to result in drawdown of the surficial aquifer 
and, therefore, would not cause changes to terrestrial or wetland 
habitats. Construction of the Polk Power Station is not expected to 
affect regional populations of any endangered, threatened, or special 
concern species, which was confirmed by coordination letters and a site 
inspection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed plant 
construction and operation are not expected to affect biodiversity on a 
local or regional scale.
    Project mitigation for the loss of USACOE jurisdictional wetlands, 
including FDEP-required reclamation measures, would be implemented for 
the site. TEC's wetland mitigation/reclamation plan for the proposed 
Polk Power Station site has been approved by the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Implementation of this plan would 
result in 799 acres of wetlands after reclamation of the site is 
completed. The 799 acres of wetlands represent an increase of 187 acres 
of wetlands relative to site pre-mining conditions.

Noise

    Construction noise modeling was performed to determine the effects 
at the nearest residential receptor. Because of the distance of 1.6 
miles between the Polk Power Station site and the nearest residence, 
construction noise levels would only have minor and temporary effects 
on the noise environment around the plant site. Average noise levels 
associated with Polk Power Station operation would be at or below the 
existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residence. However, 
instantaneous noise levels, such as from steam line blowout, flare 
stack operation, or coal trucks, would be noticeable.
    Construction noise would be mitigated by operating construction 
machinery according to design specifications and only within daylight 
hours. Operation noise would be mitigated through use of a vegetative 
buffer. In addition, TEC would evaluate additional noise reduction 
measures, such as combustion turbine air intake silencers, in its 
detailed plant design.

Cultural Resources

    Based on a cultural resource assessment conducted for the site and 
confirmation of the results by the Florida Division of Historical 
Resources and the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Polk 
Power Station construction is not expected to affect any known 
archaeological or historical feature listed or eligible for listing on 
the National Register of Historic Places, or any other known cultural 
resources. No mitigation is necessary.

Socioeconomics

    Proposed Polk Power Station construction and operation would have 
positive socioeconomic effects. Plant construction would begin in 1994 
and extend through 1996. About 600 contract construction workers would 
be employed at the peak of construction activity. About 130 persons 
would be employed for Polk Power Station Unit 1 operations and 
maintenance, the majority of which are expected to be drawn from the 
local labor pool. The total cumulative annual operational financial 
effect is estimated to be approximately $109 million (in 1992 dollars) 
from 1995 to 2010. Ad valorem taxes to Polk County expected to be 
generated by the project would increase from $1.9 million in 1996 (Unit 
1 only) to $19.6 million in 2011 (complete 1,150 MW). Operation of the 
proposed project would not unduly impact any community services or 
facilities, including community water or wastewater systems or local 
roads. Visual buffering between the main operating facilities and 
surrounding land use has been incorporated into the design of the 
project to reduce any potentially negative aesthetic impacts.

Hazardous and Nonhazardous Wastes

    Hazardous waste generated by the facility would be minimized 
through the use of source reduction techniques, such as product 
substitution, and waste reduction techniques, such as recycling and 
regeneration. Hazardous wastes and nonhazardous wastes would be managed 
onsite and shipped offsite by licensed handlers to permitted waste 
disposal or recycle facilities, in accordance with local, state, and 
federal regulations. Consequently, these wastes are not expected to 
cause adverse environmental effects.

Human Health and Risk to Wildlife

    No significant adverse human health effects are anticipated as a 
result of the direct inhalation of the proposed Polk Power Station 
emissions. Projected air emission levels would not significantly 
degrade ambient air, and all regulated air toxics emissions would be at 
concentrations below Florida No-Threat Levels developed to protect 
human health. Potential impacts to wildlife from particulate deposition 
relate to toxic effects from metals. However, based on the air modeling 
analysis, the maximum levels of metals expected from particulate 
deposition, even at completion of the station, are expected to be below 
the threshold limits for wildlife.

No Action Alternative

    The no-action alternative would result if DOE does not provide 
cost-shared financial assistance under the DOE CCT Demonstration 
Program for Polk Power Station Unit 1. TEC is expected to build the 
Polk Power Station without the IGCC unit using more conventional 
technology as an alternate means of implementing the project. Without 
DOE cost-shared financial assistance, TEC's Proposed Project (Preferred 
Alternative with DOE Financial Assistance) was compared to TEC's 
Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE Financial Assistance) 
relative to potential environmental impacts.
    Under the Alternative Power Resource Proposal, the proposed 260 MW 
IGCC unit and two 75 MW combustion turbines would be replaced by a 500 
MW pulverized coal with flue gas desulfurization generating unit. 
Primarily because of the resource requirements and effectiveness of 
pollution control and minimization measures associated with the 
proposed IGCC unit, the alternative proposal would be expected to 
create greater negative environmental impacts than the proposed 
project. Disadvantages of the Alternative Power Resource Proposal 
include the need for more land area for the main plant facilities and 
coal and by-product storage; a larger cooling reservoir area and 
greater groundwater makeup and surface water discharge requirements; 
increased sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter 
air emissions; less generation flexibility in relation to load growth; 
and increased coal usage which, in turn, would require more frequent 
truck/train deliveries.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately 
$130 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the 
construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1 to demonstrate 
the IGCC clean coal technology. All practicable means to avoid or 
minimize environmental harm from this alternative have been adopted.
    DOE has determined that the Congressionally-mandated goals and 
objectives of demonstrating clean coal technologies would be achieved 
through the construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1. 
The Polk Power Station would demonstrate the integrated performance of 
HGCU and CGCU, and an advanced gas turbine with oxides of nitrogen 
control. The IGCC project would successfully demonstrate a promising 
technology 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 
generating facilities. In addition, no unacceptable adverse impacts are 
expected from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power 
Station Unit 1.
    The decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed Polk 
Power Station Unit 1 was made after careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts analyzed in the EIS, consideration of the 
public's concerns, and after consultation with Federal and State 
regulatory agencies.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 1994.
Patricia Fry Godley,
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-20824 Filed 8-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P