[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43437-43459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20551]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision; York County Energy Partners Cogeneration 
Facility, York County, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision; York County Energy Partners Cogeneration 
Facility of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program in North 
Codorus Township, York County, Pennsylvania.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department) has prepared an 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0221) to assess the 
environmental and human health impacts associated with construction and 
operation of the York County Energy Partners, L.P. (YCEP) Cogeneration 
Facility on a 38-acre (15.4-hectare) parcel in North Codorus Township, 
York County, PA. After careful consideration of these impacts, along 
with Clean Coal Technology Program goals and objectives, the Department 
has decided to provide $75 million (approximately 17 percent of total 
project cost) in federal funding support for the design, construction, 
and operation of a nominal 250-megawatt coal-fired, cogeneration 
facility demonstrating utility-scale atmospheric circulating fluidized 
bed (ACFB) technology.
    Concerns were expressed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission 
regarding effects on wildlife habitats and by the Pennsylvania Bureau 
for Historic Resources on adverse impacts to historic properties. The 
Department met with the Pennsylvania Game Commission and received a 
list of mitigation measures the Commission believes would be adequate 
to mitigate the impacts to wildlife habitats on Game Commission lands. 
The Department also negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the 
Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Resources that requires YCEP to 
perform nontraditional mitigation measures. To resolve issues related 
to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the cooling tower, 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) 
incorporated mandatory monitoring requirements into the project's air 
permit, which was issued on July 25, 1995. These requirements, and any 
subsequent mitigation actions required through regulations, will be 
enforced through the air permit.
    The Department's decision to provide cost-shared federal funding 
for the YCEP Cogeneration Facility is contingent on YCEP fulfilling its 
obligations to complete the actions described in this Record of 
Decision and in the Mitigation Action Plan prepared by the Department 
for this YCEP project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the Department's activities related to this 
project, please contact Dr. Suellen A. Van Ooteghem, Environmental 
Project Manager, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, 3610 Collins 
Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 or call (304) 285-5443.
    For further information on the Department's National Environmental 
Policy Act process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 
of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

[[Page 43438]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or call either (202) 
586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department has prepared this Record of 
Decision pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 
implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and Department regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). 
This Record of Decision is based on the Department of Energy's Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the YCEP Cogeneration Facility (DOE/
EIS-0221).
    An overall National Environmental Policy Act compliance procedure 
was developed for the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program that 
includes consideration of both programmatic and project-specific 
environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a 
project. The procedure is called ``tiering'' (40 CFR 1508.28), and 
refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader Environmental 
Impact Statement (e.g., the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program), with subsequent 
narrower statements or environmental analyses incorporating by 
reference those general discussions found in the broader programmatic 
document. A project-specific document, therefore, concentrates solely 
on the issues specific to the particular project being considered.
    The Department procedure has three principal elements. The first 
element involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Clean Coal Technology 
Demonstration Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the 
potential environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of 
up to 22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies by the year 
2010. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement evaluated (1) a 
no-action alternative that assumed the Clean Coal Technology 
Demonstration Program was not continued and that conventional coal-
fired technologies with flue gas desulfurization controls would be used 
for new plants or as replacements for existing plants that are retired 
or refurbished, and (2) a proposed action that assumed that Clean Coal 
Technology Demonstration Program projects would be 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 Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program offerors 
were required to supply to the Department as part of their Clean Coal 
Technology Demonstration proposal or site change.
    The third element consists of preparing site-specific National 
Environmental Policy Act documents for each selected project. As part 
of this overall strategy, the YCEP Cogeneration Facility's 
Environmental Impact Statement draws upon the Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement and preselection environmental reviews 
that analyzed various alternatives and scenarios (e.g., alternative 
technologies).

Project Description

     YCEP (a wholly-owned project company of Air Products and 
Chemicals, Inc.) plans to provide steam to the P.H. Glatfelter Company 
paper mill and power to Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) through 
the construction and operation of a nominal 250-megawatt coal-fired 
cogeneration facility with one atmospheric circulating fluidized bed 
(ACFB) boiler and a pollution control system consisting of a baghouse 
to control emissions of particulates (PM10), selective non-
catalytic reduction for reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and limestone injection for reducing emissions of sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) and acid aerosol emissions. Carbon monoxide (CO) and 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions will be controlled through 
utilization of an efficient combustion process. In addition, the 
facility will be equipped with a continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) 
system, which will continuously measure and record flue gas volumetric 
flowrate and temperature; opacity; and sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and either carbon dioxide (CO2), or 
oxygen (O2) concentrations. This project was selected under the 
Department's Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program to demonstrate 
the commercial viability of using utility-scale ACFB technology in a 
cogeneration facility to generate electric power and steam. 
Construction of the facility will take 3 years; the demonstration 
period will last 24 months.
    The facility will be located on a 38-acre (15.4-hectare) site in 
North Codorus Township in York County, PA across Codorus Creek from the 
P. H. Glatfelter Company paper mill. It is designed to operate 
continuously (24 hours a day, 365 days per year), with the exception of 
outages for maintenance purposes. Output of the facility will range 
from 114 to 227 megawatts (net) depending on Met-Ed's hourly power 
requirements. Steam generated in the ACFB boiler will be used to drive 
a steam turbine to produce electricity for sale to Met-Ed. Up to 
400,000 pounds/hour of high pressure steam will be sold to the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company.
    There are currently many small, mostly industrial, ACFB units in 
existence in the United States. The large (250-megawatt electric and 
greater) single-boiler utility-scale ACFB, however, is not yet widely 
accepted as commercial technology in the risk-averse utility market. 
Thus, actions involving large capital expenditures would usually be 
undertaken using only well established, proven, conventional 
technologies.
    One of the purposes of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 
Program, however, is to accelerate technological demonstration of 
developing technologies. The Department believes that the development 
of the Foster Wheeler ACFB technology to be demonstrated by the YCEP 
Cogeneration Facility project will accelerate the commercialization of 
ACFB technology and further the deployment of ACFB clean coal 
technology. The Department will fund this cogeneration project at 
approximately 17 percent of total cost. This represents a relatively 
low level of funding, compared to other Clean Coal Technology 
demonstration projects, and indicates that the Department acknowledges 
the approaching maturity of ACFB technology.
    A unique feature of the YCEP Cogeneration Facility is the scale of 
the fluidized-bed unit in terms of steam production. The unit will 
produce 2.1 million pounds per hour (MMlb/hr) of steam, which is 25 
percent larger than any other unit built, under construction, or being 
planned with a single boiler. The scale at which this project is to be 
demonstrated (i.e., utility-scale) is of importance, since another 
chief goal of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program is to see 
that more efficient and environmentally responsive coal technologies 
have been demonstrated at the utility-scale by the year 2000 and are 
available for replacing the existing inventory of aging utility boilers 
in the United States.
    ACFB boilers have several unique operating characteristics which 
differentiate them from more conventional boiler technologies. The 
Foster Wheeler boiler design to be demonstrated by YCEP will utilize a 
water-cooled full division wall to 

[[Page 43439]]
improve the predictability of hydrodynamic behavior, improve 
temperature uniformity, and reduce unit height while still maintaining 
a large heat transfer surface. The relatively low combustion 
temperature within the boiler will limit formation of oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) and optimize sulfur capture. The use of an 
INTREXTM heat exchanger also increases the heat transfer surface 
area while not increasing the height of the boiler. The Foster Wheeler 
boiler has also been designed for high limestone utilization efficiency 
by advantageously placing the front and rear wall feeders to allow for 
lower feed rates and longer residence times for feedstock (coal and 
limestone). The boiler's design also accommodates a relatively short 
mixing zone and air-swept coal distribution to allow for optimal solids 
mixing. The boiler will use four cylinders in parallel to absorb heat 
while recycling fine particles back to the boiler furnace. Because the 
coal and limestone to be added will represent only a fraction of total 
coal and limestone available in the combustor, the boiler will react 
more slowly to variations in coal or limestone quality. Steam 
characteristics and boiler temperatures will be more uniform. This is 
expected to result in easier operation, fewer upset conditions and air 
emission spikes, and more consistent (e.g., more uniform chemical 
composition) solid waste by-products. As a consequence of bed 
fluidization and the recycling back from the cyclone, good mixing will 
be achieved at more uniform temperatures, and will allow for more 
complete combustion and limestone utilization.
    As a benefit of the YCEP Cogeneration Facility, the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company will curtail operation of one of its existing coal-
fired boilers. Power Boiler No. 4, a 357 MMBtu/hr (32 MWe equivalent 
output) pulverized coal boiler, will be curtailed to back-up status and 
will be used during times when the YCEP unit is down for maintenance or 
under other circumstances, such as the loss of steam production from a 
P. H. Glatfelter Company boiler. Power Boiler No. 4 will be limited 
through terms of a State-issued air quality permit to operate 
simultaneously with the YCEP Cogeneration Facility for no more than the 
operating equivalent of 720 hours of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
emissions at full output per year.
    Associated utility corridors and interconnects will be required and 
include the following five main utility corridors and interconnection 
with an electric substation:
     A 6.1-kilometer (3.8-mile) single circuit 115-kilovolt 
electrical interconnection from the cogeneration facility to an 
existing substation in Bair, PA;
     A 228.6-meter (750-foot) double circuit 115-kilovolt 
electrical intraconnection between the cogeneration facility and an 
existing Met-Ed line at the P. H. Glatfelter Company paper mill;
     A 685.8-meter (2,250-foot) steam supply line/condensate 
return line and electrical raceway extending from the cogeneration 
facility to the P. H. Glatfelter Company facility;
     A 762-meter (2,500-foot) potable water supply line from an 
existing Spring Grove Water Company water line to the cogeneration 
facility;
     Approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of cooling water 
supply lines and wastewater return lines from the cogeneration facility 
to the P. H. Glatfelter Company wastewater treatment facility; and
     Expansion of a switchyard at Bair that would cover an area 
of approximately 1 acre (0.4 hectare).

Project Status

    Project activities to date include applications for permits and 
approvals necessary to construct and operate the YCEP Cogeneration 
Facility in North Codorus Township; preparation of designs and 
specifications necessary to apply for these permits and approvals; 
preliminary engineering and design activities in accordance with the 
cooperative agreement with the Department; and preparation, 
publication, and distribution of the Draft and Final Environmental 
Impact Statements.
    In October 1991, YCEP notified the Pennsylvania Public Utility 
Commission (PUC) of the potential for using Clean Coal Technology 
Demonstration Program funds to design, construct, and operate the 
proposed YCEP project that would supply Met-Ed with power. YCEP 
requested that the PUC order Met-Ed to enter into a power supply 
agreement, and the PUC concurred in an order issued in November 1991 
(Docket No. P-910549). YCEP and Met-Ed executed a 227-megawatt, 25-year 
power supply agreement in April 1992. Met-Ed subsequently appealed to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), asking that this order 
be rescinded (Docket No. EL95-41-000); this request was denied by FERC 
on June 28, 1995. On August 4, 1995, Met-Ed filed a petition for re-
hearing with the FERC.
    YCEP submitted its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
``Plan Approval Authority to Construct'' permit application in January 
1994 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 
PADER issued the air permit on July 25, 1995. In addition, an erosion 
and sediment control plan/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit has been submitted to the 
York County Conservation District and PADER for review and comment. 
Approval for the NPDES construction stormwater permit was issued in 
April 1995. YCEP applied for final Land Development and Subdivision 
approval from North Codorus Township; approval was denied pending 
completion of the Record of Decision and approval of the air permit by 
PADER. YCEP has since refiled its request for approval, and 
simultaneously appealed the township's decision to the Court of Common 
Pleas. YCEP also petitioned the West Manchester Zoning Hearing Board 
for a ``special exception use'' for public utilities, as set forth in 
Sec. 150-15 of the West Manchester Township Zoning Code, to allow the 
expansion of an electric switchyard adjacent to the existing Bair 
substation. Hearings were held on March 28 and April 26, 1995, and the 
Board denied YCEP's initial petition (Case No. 95-09). YCEP filed an 
appeal (Number 95-SU-2193-08) of the West Manchester Township decision 
with the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 25, 1995.

Alternatives

    Congress directed the Department to pursue the goals of the Clean 
Coal Technology Demonstration Program by means of cooperative 
agreements that provide partial funding for projects owned and 
controlled by nonfederal-government sponsors. This statutory 
requirement places the Department in a more limited role than if the 
federal government were the owner and operator of the project. When the 
Department signs a Cooperative Agreement with an industrial partner, 
the scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted because the 
Department must focus on alternative ways that not only accomplish its 
purpose but also reflect the industrial partner's needs and the 
functions the industrial partner plays in the decision making process. 
It is therefore, appropriate for the Department to give substantial 
weight to the industrial partner's needs in establishing a project's 
reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the reasonable alternatives to 
the preferred alternative are an alternative site location (West 
Manchester Township) and the no-action alternative (including scenarios 
reasonably foreseeable as a 

[[Page 43440]]
consequence of the no-action alternative). After reviewing all 
potential environmental effects, the Department has determined that its 
preferred alternative is to provide cost-shared financial assistance 
for the YCEP Cogeneration Facility at the North Codorus Township site.

Preferred Alternative

    The preferred alternative, implementation of the proposed action, 
is the provision of approximately $75 million in cost-shared federal 
funding support for the design, construction, and operation of a 
single-boiler utility-scale cogeneration facility utilizing atmospheric 
circulating fluidized bed (ACFB) technology at the 38-acre (15.4-
hectare) site in North Codorus Township in York County, PA.

Alternative Site Location

    Construction and operation of the YCEP 227-megawatt (net) 
Cogeneration Facility at an alternative site in West Manchester 
Township would be similar to the preferred alternative. A continuously 
operating conventional wet cooling unit system would be utilized for 
process heat dissipation and condensation of steam to water in the 
steam turbine condenser. Mechanical draft cooling units would be 
utilized and the heat transfer medium would be fresh water. Cooling 
unit blowdown would be minimized but some blowdown would be required to 
prevent excessive buildup of dissolved solids that result in scale 
formation and corrosion. The blowdown volume would vary, depending on 
the number of cycles of concentration (projected to be 8 to 12 cycles). 
The steam generated in the ACFB boiler would be used to drive a steam 
turbine to produce electricity for purchase by Met-Ed, and a portion of 
the high pressure steam exiting the steam turbine would be sold to the 
J.E. Baker Company for use in their dolomite brick manufacturing 
operations. During periods when steam would not be available from the 
ACFB boiler within the cogeneration facility, YCEP would utilize back-
up natural gas boilers to provide steam.

No Action

    Under the no-action alternative, the Department would not provide 
cost-shared federal funding support for the YCEP cogeneration facility, 
and the design, construction, and operation of a single-boiler utility-
scale ACFB technology applied to a cogeneration facility at the 38-acre 
(15.4 hectare) site in North Codorus Township in York County, PA would 
not take place. Because YCEP would be unable to satisfy the criteria 
dictated by the agreement to deliver electricity to Met-Ed, the 
cogeneration facility would not be constructed without financial 
assistance from the Department. The Pennsylvania PUC order made Met-
Ed's obligation conditional on the Department's actual co-funding of 
the project.
    Under the no-action alternative, it is reasonable to assume that 
some means to meet possible long-term needs for electrical power in the 
region would be required. Future electricity demands could be met by 
purchasing power from new non-utility generators, purchasing power from 
the existing power pool, conducting purchase transactions outside the 
pool with private entities, or constructing new gas- or coal-fired 
facilities.
    Thus, for the purposes of analyzing and making comparisons between 
the preferred alternative and the reasonably foreseeable consequences 
of the no-action alternative, construction and operation of the 
cogeneration facility at the North Codorus site was compared to three 
different options for meeting project capacity requirements under the 
no-action alternative.
    Construction and operation of a 227-megawatt natural gas-fired 
combined-cycle facility was one of the no-action alternative options 
analyzed. The primary fuel for this facility would be natural gas 
supplied by a single pipeline to the facility. The pipeline would be 
supplied through a series of gas transmission lines, most likely 
originating from a supply source in the Gulf of Mexico area. The 227-
megawatt gas-fired combined-cycle facility would have an expected gas 
consumption rate of 16 billion cubic feet per year. A back-up fuel 
supply (typically fuel oil) would be required for times when natural 
gas supply is interrupted. No associated steam host would be built.
    The second no-action alternative option analyzed was construction 
and operation of a 227-megawatt coal-fired twin-boiler exempt wholesale 
generator facility consisting of two 114-megawatt ACFB units with no 
associated steam host or related air emissions reductions.
    The final option analyzed under the no-action alternative was 
energy and capacity purchases from the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland 
(PJM) Interconnection Power Pool. The PJM power pool consists of 538 
generating units representing an installed capacity of 55,575 
megawatts, connected to approximately 6,800 miles of high voltage 
transmission lines throughout the PJM region. No construction would be 
associated with this alternative, and future potential short-falls in 
long-term power needs may still need to be addressed.

Alternative Site Analysis

    The Department would not be the owner-operator of the YCEP 
Cogeneration Facility. Therefore, the Department's evaluation of the 
project's reasonable site alternatives focused on a review of the site 
selection study and criteria prepared by the Industrial Participant. 
Air Product's extensive site search extended over 1\1/2\ years, and 
sites were evaluated based on the following criteria: location within 
Met-Ed's service territory, in or near major electrical load centers, 
near a large user of steam, and near areas where interconnection to the 
utility's electrical grid would be practical; reasonable access to rail 
lines for fuel delivery and other major infrastructure; unzoned, zoned 
or reserved for industrial use; and environmental acceptability. During 
the site search, Air Products evaluated potential sites in each of Met-
Ed's three service areas. The two sites selected for detailed analysis 
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the P. H. Glatfelter 
Company property in North Codorus Township and the J.E. Baker Company 
site in West Manchester Township, appeared to meet all of the criteria.
    Four alternative routes for the electrical interconnection were 
originally considered by YCEP and reviewed by the Department. After 
initial review, one alternative was eliminated and three variations of 
another alternative were added for the more detailed investigation. 
Four major factors were considered in selecting the utility corridor: 
(1) Achieving Met-Ed's guidelines for placing new electrical lines; (2) 
satisfying certain land use objectives; (3) minimizing environmental 
effects; and (4) providing accessibility for construction and 
maintenance. Evaluation criteria were identified for each of these four 
factors. In addition to the YCEP evaluation, the Department made site 
visits to view first-hand the various routes and to assess potential 
impacts from the electrical interconnection. In addition, the 
Pennsylvania Game Commission was consulted and a field review was 
conducted to ensure that the final corridor selection was acceptable to 
the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The environmentally preferred alternative is the no-action 
alternative, particularly if Met-Ed were to purchase its energy and 
capacity from the existing Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) power 
pool. Under this 

[[Page 43441]]
reasonably foreseeable result of the no-action alternative, no new 
construction of utility lines, substations, or other electrical 
interconnection infrastructure would be required. The potential for 
development and commercialization of the proposed ACFB technology would 
be less likely. Nominal increases in water supply requirements and 
process wastewater could occur at PJM facilities. Other environmental 
impacts, either positive or negative, would not be expected. Because 
this option under the no-action alternative would not further the goals 
of the Clean Coal Technology Program, this no-action alternative was 
not identified as the Department's preferred alternative.

Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Department analyzed the environmental impacts and mitigation measures 
associated with the construction and operation of the YCEP Cogeneration 
Facility at the North Codorus site (the preferred alternative); 
construction and operation of the YCEP facility at the West Manchester 
site; and three scenarios that could result as a consequence of the no-
action alternative.

Preferred Alternative

    Setting: Substantial construction activities for the YCEP 
Cogeneration Facility at the North Codorus site will be required. 
Approximately 30 percent of the 38-acre (15.4-hectare) site (11 acres 
or 4.6 hectares) will be developed. Short-term impacts (lasting the 
duration of the construction period) are expected both at the project 
site and along the utility corridor routes.
    The power transmission line intraconnection (between the YCEP 
facility and the P.H. Glatfelter Company facility) will be located 
between two large industrial facilities thereby limiting visual 
impacts. Much of the utility interconnection corridor, and especially 
the water supply and wastewater return/cooling pipelines, will be 
buried underground, resulting in primarily short-term impacts during 
construction.
    Some long-term impacts will be associated with construction of the 
utility corridors. A number of deciduous trees will be removed, 
particularly during construction of the electrical interconnection to 
the Bair substation. The 6.1-kilometer (3.8-mile) electrical 
interconnection between the YCEP Cogeneration Facility and the new 
electric switchyard at the Met-Ed substation in Bair, PA will also 
result in long-term visual impacts by altering existing land uses and 
changing the viewshed near historically significant properties.
    The facility will introduce industrial structures into a previously 
rural open space containing some treelines and will have an adverse 
visual impact on the residents on Colonial Valley Road west of the 
facility. Buildings will be consistent with the industrial style 
architecture of existing structures in the vicinity. Landscaping 
features, to be incorporated into the final design of the facility, 
will help blend the facility with its surroundings. Some existing 
treelines will be preserved to visually buffer the facility from 
adjacent properties and existing land uses surrounding the site. The 
existing treeline between the Lions Club Pavilion area and the site 
will be augmented with additional plantings to improve the visual 
buffer.
    Air Quality: On-site fugitive air emissions from earthmoving and 
excavation activities will be mitigated during construction through the 
application of proper construction practices, including periodic 
wetting and mulching. Disturbed land will be stabilized to the greatest 
extent practical. A permit (PAS-10-Y009-1) was obtained from the PADER 
Water Management Division on April 3, 1995 for on-site earthmoving 
activities.
    Maximum permitted air emissions during operation of the YCEP 
project include 2,891 tons/year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 127 tons/
year of particulate matter (PM10), 1,437 tons/year of oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX), 1,726 tons/year of carbon monoxide (CO), and 48 
tons/year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The project is expected 
to emit no more than 2,328,968 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2), 
which will equate to approximately 0.05 percent of CO2 emissions 
from U.S. fossil fuel combustion.
    Modeling results indicate that pollutant levels will be in 
compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) after 
the required offsets have been obtained. In addition, the increases in 
ambient concentrations for total suspended particles (TSP), particulate 
matter (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) will not exceed the allowable Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) increment consumption. Both Class I and Class II 
PSD increment analyses indicate no significant degradation of air 
quality is expected to occur in either the Shenandoah National Park 
(the closest Class I area), the Gettysburg National Military Park (a 
nearby Class II area).
    Because the project site exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard for ozone, offsets for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) must be 
obtained. Emissions from the YCEP facility must be offset by a ratio of 
1.15 to 1; emission reduction credits (ERCs) equivalent to 115 percent 
of the potential oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions will be 
obtained from the P.H. Glatfelter Company and the Transcontinental Gas 
Pipe Line Corporation. Under the Phase II provision of the Clean Air 
Act, Title IV, YCEP will also be obliged to purchase or obtain sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) ``allowances'' to continue to emit sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) into the ambient air after January 1, 2000.
    After offsets and allowances, actual (or expected) air emissions 
should result in a net reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2--650 tons/
year), oxides of nitrogen (NOX--415 tons/year), and particulate 
matter (PM10--7 tons/year). An increase is expected in carbon 
monoxide (CO--1,350 tons/year), volatile organic compounds (VOCs--35 
tons/year), and radionuclides (approximately 225 millicuries/year). Due 
to the expected net decreases in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides 
of nitrogen (NOX), the contribution of the project to levels of 
acid precipitation should be very low. The expected net reduction in 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions should minimize adverse impacts to 
visibility from regional haze due to light scattering. The net 
reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions could also help 
reduce adverse visual impacts.
    Cumulative cancer risk for all routes of exposure to facility 
emissions will be approximately three in one million. Most of this risk 
is attributable to radionuclide emissions. The YCEP project could 
deliver a maximum effective radiation dose of up to 0.03 millirem/year, 
which is not known to increase the incidence of disease, mutation, or 
teratogenic effects. The cumulative hazard index for exposure to 
noncarcinogenic emissions is less than 1, indicating no adverse effects 
on human health is expected from facility operation.
    A Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height analysis based on 
EPA's Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack 
Height was completed for the project using building design and facility 
layout information. The maximum GEP height for the main stack was 
determined to be 137.2 meters (450 feet). YCEP plans to build a stack 
with a height of 120 meters (395 feet). Because the planned stack 
height is less than the calculated GEP formula height, 

[[Page 43442]]
additional air quality modeling analyses were conducted to determine if 
excessive groundlevel concentrations will occur. For carbon monoxide 
(CO) and particulate matter (PM10), the worst-case groundlevel 
concentrations will be below EPA and PADER significance levels. For 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 
groundlevel impacts will be above significance levels (and thus 
required PSD increment consumption analyses to be calculated). The 
percentage of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) PSD increments to be consumed will range from 10 to 27 
percent. The cumulative PSD incremental consumption will range from 22 
to 85 percent.
    To avoid excess build-up of dissolved solids in the recirculating 
cooling water and to replace water lost through evaporation, make-up 
water from the secondary clarifiers of the P.H. Glatfelter Company 
wastewater treatment plant will be added to the recirculating water. 
This wastewater will contain measurable levels of dissolved solids, 
salts, and chemical compounds that will be released from the cooling 
tower in the form of drift and through volatilization. These drift/
volatiles would contain inorganic trace elements such as phosphate, 
manganese, total cyanide, and selenium, and organic compounds such as 
chloroform. Inorganic trace elements are expected to behave as solid 
materials, travel with the cooling tower drift as water droplets, and 
impact the ground as water deposition. One of the organic compounds, 
chloroform, will be present in the make-up water at a concentration of 
0.081 mg/L and its expected maximum groundlevel concentration (through 
volatilization) is 3.05  x  10-3 g/m3. Residents 
located in the surrounding area will be exposed to cooling tower 
emissions.
    Operation of the cooling tower is not expected to result in fog or 
ice on railroads in the surrounding area. Cooling tower-induced fogging 
and/or icing may occur for up to 5.2 hours/year within a 200-meter 
(656-foot) radius of the cooling tower to the southeast and south-
southeast within site boundaries. Plume shadowing is expected to occur 
entirely within YCEP's property fenceline. Adverse impacts associated 
with fogging, icing, or plume shadowing are expected to be minimal.
    It is not expected that the pH of local rainwater will be 
measurably lowered in the region by projected facility emissions, and 
no noticeable chemical alternation of regional soils will result from 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) or oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. 
No meaningful reduction in crop production will be attributable to the 
YCEP project. Except for mercury, maximum soil concentrations of trace 
elements attributable to the facility will be approximately 100 times 
lower than existing soil concentrations. Mercury concentrations will be 
approximately equal to existing soil concentrations. One researcher 
claims that mercury is phytotoxic at levels close to existing soil 
concentrations, but other researchers believe mercury is not phytotoxic 
until reaching concentrations that are approximately 10 times higher 
than those expected to result from the project. Although it is not 
possible to specifically assess all possible effects on crops and 
trees, trace element emissions from the facility are not expected to 
adversely impact plants used for food and feed.
    Odor-producing compounds that could potentially be emitted from the 
cooling tower are expected to be primarily released during primary and 
secondary treatment of wastewater before that wastewater is used by the 
facility. Therefore, use of process wastewater from the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company is not expected to aggravate existing ambient odors. 
Odor-producing compounds from the cooling tower are not expected to 
cause additional odor problems in the local community.
    Geology and Soils: Construction activities for the electrical 
interconnection alignment will include pole placement, foundation 
installation, and clearing of rights-of-way. Temporary roads will be 
needed to provide access for construction equipment. For level terrain, 
earth moving will not be required, but where steep slopes are present, 
extensive earth moving activities will be required to provide a stable 
base for these temporary roadways. To protect existing ground, 
temporary roads will be created that have a stone fill on top of a 
geotextile filter cloth. Following completion of construction, 
temporary roads will be removed and the land will be restored to pre-
existing conditions. Excess soil remaining following completion of 
construction activities will be available for reuse by local 
contractors as fill.
    Construction practices at the facility will be consistent with 
approved guidelines for erosion and sedimentation control. An erosion 
and sediment control plan has been submitted to the York County 
Conservation District and PADER for review and comment. Erosion will be 
minimized by beginning cleanup and revegetation operations immediately 
following completion of construction activities. Facility structures 
will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake 
motion as specified in section 1612 of the BOCA National Building Code. 
Other mitigative measures will include constructing perimeter silt 
fencing, restricting heavy truck traffic to designated corridors during 
very wet or dry periods; implementing dust-abatement practices as 
needed; constructing sedimentation basins along runoff interception 
and/or discharge channels; and stabilizing these channels.
    An unimproved access way will be maintained along the interconnect 
right-of-way to facilitate periodic maintenance and inspection. 
Complete clearing within a right-of-way will be limited to a 12.2-meter 
(40-foot) wide portion centered directly under the wire, called the 
``wire zone.'' Selective clearing will occur in the ``edge zone,'' 
located on either side of the wire zone, allowing compatible tree and 
brush species to be left in place. Tall deciduous trees that create a 
safety hazard will be removed from the entire right-of-way area. The 
methods commonly used to clear rights-of-way are expected to minimize 
soil disturbance.
    No operation is planned that will impact soil quality. If a spill 
occurs, procedures contained in YCEP's Preparedness, Prevention, and 
Contingency (PPC) plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure 
(SPCC) plan will be followed.
    Water Resources and Water Quality: During construction of the 
cogeneration facility and associated utility corridors, impacts to 
water resources and aquatic ecosystems may result from equipment and 
vehicle access, earth disturbance, sedimentation, erosion from exposed 
soils, damaged vegetation, and placement and compaction of fill to 
support new rail lines [impacting an area approximately 7.6 meters (25 
feet) wide and 426.7 meters (1,400 feet) long]. Appropriate measures to 
control erosion and sedimentation will be implemented; however, minor 
impacts may still occur during utility line installation. Stormwater 
runoff will be minimized through facility design features, dust 
control, and implementation of a facility-specific stormwater pollution 
prevention plan. Stormwater runoff during construction will be 
collected at the existing P. H. Glatfelter Company stormwater/sediment 
pond. An existing stand of vegetation between the construction area and 
the site perimeter will be maintained as a buffer for stormwater 
runoff. The stormwater management collection system will be constructed 
in accordance with York County Conservation District 

[[Page 43443]]
requirements. Proper installation, maintenance, and monitoring of 
structural stormwater controls will minimize potential impacts to 
surface water from stormwater runoff.
    Removal of streamside vegetation along the electrical corridor will 
impact water resources by causing an increase in the stream 
temperature. The stream's flowing water and narrow width within these 
reaches should serve to minimize the effects of this temperature 
increase.
    Approximately 4 acres (1.6 hectares) of floodplain will be 
disturbed during construction of facilities. Placement of utility poles 
will occur on approximately 0.013 acres (0.005 hectares) of the 100-
year floodplain. An estimated 4 to 8 utility poles will be located on 
land belonging to P. H. Glatfelter Company and 10 to 14 utility poles 
will be located on land controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. 
Temporary routes will be developed to allow personnel and equipment 
access for construction; some segments will occur within the 500-year 
floodplain. Portions of the rail ladder tracks and a rail spur will 
also be located on land within the 100-year floodplain. The steam and 
condensate return pipeline to P. H. Glatfelter Company is expected to 
require placing permanent pipe supports within the floodplain. The 
electrical interconnection between the YCEP Cogeneration Facility and 
the Met-Ed substation at Bair, PA, will also be located within the 
floodplain for a portion of its length.
    Water supply requirements during operation will average 4.2 million 
gallons per day (mgd); 4.0 mgd will be utilized for cooling unit make-
up requirements. Internal recycle/reuse procedures will be employed to 
minimize water demands. The P. H. Glatfelter Company's wastewater will 
be used directly in the cooling tower, and no additional surface water 
releases from Lake Marburg are expected. The project would affect water 
quality in Codorus Creek directly by changing the effluent 
characteristics of the P. H. Glatfelter Company's wastewater discharge, 
and indirectly by reducing flow in Codorus Creek due to increases in 
consumptive use.
    During a low-flow year, concentrations of most constituents will 
increase by an average of 9.5 percent near the outfall, and by 3.5 
percent at the York gaging station. During lowest flow conditions [as 
determined by Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) requirements], 
an increase of approximately 20 percent is expected. When compared to 
concentrations following expected improvements from Pulp Mill 
modernization, potential concentrations of most constituents will 
increase by 4.6 percent at the outfall and 1.6 percent at the York 
gaging station. Overall, loadings (i.e., mass) of constituents will 
generally remain the same after Pulp Mill modernization. A decrease in 
effluent biochemical oxygen demand loadings (10 percent) and suspended 
solids loadings (4 percent) are expected as a result of higher levels 
of wastewater treatment resulting from the Pulp Mill modernization.
    Evaporation of 2.8 mgd of wastewater effluent due to cooling tower 
operation will reduce the discharge flow at the outfall from 12.5 mgd 
to 9.7 mgd. The greatest effect from increased consumptive use will be 
immediately downstream of the P. H. Glatfelter Company's discharge. It 
is expected that the impact from this increase in consumption will be 
attenuated further downstream, where flow will decrease 4.9 percent 
[from 88 to 84 cubic feet per second (cfs)] during normal flow periods 
and 9.6 percent (from 45 to 41 cfs) during low-flow years; minimum flow 
will decrease to about 17 cfs (from 21 cfs). Consumptive wastewater 
loss due to evaporation will reduce P. H. Glatfelter Company's 
wastewater effluent volume by 25 percent. The cooling tower's 
consumptive use will help reduce the amount of heated wastewater 
discharged to Codorus Creek, and thereby will decrease creek 
temperature. In-stream temperatures will decrease by 1 to 2 degrees in 
the summer and 2 to 3 degrees in the winter. Decreased creek 
temperature will tend to improve the dissolved oxygen concentration 
downstream from the P. H. Glatfelter Company's outfall. Removal of 
streamside vegetation for utility corridors could result in increases 
in water temperature. Operation of the cogeneration facility will 
degrade water color and cause a subsequent increase from Pulp Mill 
modernization improvements to 165 color units.
    To monitor potential adverse impacts to Codorus Creek due to 
facility operation, YCEP will conduct periodic sampling and testing. On 
a quarterly basis and during low-flow events for the duration of the 
project's demonstration phase, YCEP will sample for temperature, color, 
total dissolved solids, lead, copper, chloride, free cyanide, 
phenolics, and chloroform both upstream and downstream of the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company's discharge. The results will be provided to the 
Department of Energy and made publicly available to the local public 
reading rooms by YCEP.
    Biological Resources and Biodiversity: Land disturbances resulting 
from construction activities could have an adverse impact on the 
biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems. Habitat types potentially 
impacted by construction of the cogeneration facility include 
approximately 12 acres (4.8 hectares) of cultivated land, 2 acres (1.2 
hectares) of maintained area (including a softball field), 0.3 acres 
(0.12 hectares) of successional field, and small areas of hardwood 
forest (less than 0.1 acre or 0.04 hectare).
    Approximately 0.3 acres (0.08 hectares) of wetlands (within the 
100-year floodplain) will be occupied by the new steam and condensate 
return pipeline corridor facilities. Wetland values, such as floodplain 
stabilization, ecological diversity, and water quality improvement, are 
expected to be minimally impacted by the project. Fencing will be 
installed around the perimeter of all off-site jurisdictional wetland 
areas on P. H. Glatfelter Company property. Coordination, including on-
site review with the Army Corps of Engineers, will take place prior to 
any wetland disturbing activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
mitigation recommendations will be explicitly followed.
    Construction of the power line will alter some wildlife habitat, 
disturb some riparian and forest vegetation, and cause impacts to soil 
and vegetative resources. Work in the electrical interconnection 
corridor is planned for the dry season to minimize damage to vegetation 
and soils, and to expedite construction. Vegetation removal along the 
utility lines and electrical interconnections will result in the loss 
of approximately 3.7 acres (1.5 hectare) of disturbed upland woody 
vegetative and 0.8 acres (0.3 hectares) of wetland woody vegetation on 
the P. H. Glatfelter Company property; 0.9 acres (0.4 hectares) of 
wooded area along stream crossings and on Army Corps of Engineers Flood 
Control Property will also be removed. Stream crossings will be 
strategically placed to coincide with areas already impacted by roads 
or rail. The stringing operation of tossing the pulling rope across the 
creek and carrying it to the next pole will help minimize impacts to 
riparian habitat.
    It is expected that vegetation removal and clearing within the 
Indian Rock Dam project will affect the area licensed to the 
Pennsylvania Game Commission. Habitat modification in this area will 
require coordination with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Pennsylvania Game Commission prior to construction. Vegetation 
management strategies will be used to minimize forest fragmentation. 
Low impact clearing methods planned for this 

[[Page 43444]]
operation will avoid the use of heavy equipment, and all vegetation 
removed will be left in the right-of-way. Logs and limbs will be 
reduced to chip materials and left as mulch.
    When conducting selective clearing or cutting within the right-of-
way, an effort will be made to prevent damage to ``compatible'' plants 
that do not interfere with electrical transmission. Use of a chemical 
herbicide will be required to control stumps of deciduous trees; 
herbicides will be used in compliance with environmental protection 
rules. Temporary access roadways will later be returned to their 
original state.
    The Pennsylvania Game Commission has stated that impacts to 
wildlife habitats on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land within the 
utility corridor right-of-way can be addressed through proper 
mitigation. As part of the Mitigation Action Plan for the project, YCEP 
is required to comply with the following provisions:
     Riparian areas along Codorus Creek cleared for 
transmission lines are to be planted with various low growing shrub 
species to replace lost wildlife habitat.
     Construction of the transmission line through Pennsylvania 
Game Commission property is to be coordinated with the agency to avoid 
conflicts with hunting seasons, farming, and other management 
activities.
     To increase breeding habitats for waterfowl species, wood 
duck nesting boxes and other water fowl nesting structures are to be 
placed along Codorus Creek to replace nesting areas lost because large 
trees are removed. Kestrel nesting boxes, bat boxes, and other wildlife 
nesting/resting structures are to be placed on the single-shaft steel 
or wooden poles supporting the transmission line.
     Warm season grass species are to be planted to provide 
both food and cover for wildlife at different times of the year.
     To provide cover for wildlife, brush piles are to be 
constructed with the vegetation cleared or trimmed during pole and 
transmission line placement.
    Evaluations of projected physio-chemical changes to Codorus Creek 
suggest that biodiversity within the aquatic ecosystem could 
potentially be adversely impacted. Although the Pulp Mill Modernization 
Project should result in beneficial impacts to the creek because 
reductions in effluent concentrations of inorganic dissolved solids 
(especially chloride) and wood pulping products (e.g., tannins and 
lignins) will reduce in-stream salinity, total organic carbon, 
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and color, these 
gains will be partially or totally offset by the project. Reductions in 
concentrations of chloride will be partially offset, and total 
dissolved solids and color units will increase slightly over 
concentrations existing prior to modernization. Concentrations of most 
inorganic constituents, although reduced by the Pulp Mill Modernization 
Project, will increase above the concentrations observed before 
modernization. For organic constituents, most concentrations will 
remain below the concentrations observed before the Pulp Mill 
Modernization Project.
    Projected pollutant concentrations will increase, but they are not 
expected to exceed EPA ambient water quality criteria at either mean-
flow or low-flow year conditions. For both low- and mean-flow 
conditions, projected concentrations of manganese, selenium, and 
chloroform will be less than the EPA ambient water quality criteria. A 
comparison of projected low- and mean-flow concentrations of aluminum 
and cyanide using recalculated acute and chronic water quality criteria 
for warm water aquatic species indicate that these chemical 
concentrations will be below levels likely to adversely impact aquatic 
organisms in Codorus Creek. Available toxicity data for copper, 
adjusted for the hardness values in P. H. Glatfelter Company's 
discharge and in Codorus Creek, indicate that toxic impacts will not 
occur.
    During low-flow years, reduced flow could potentially affect 
aquatic organisms immediately downstream from the P. H. Glatfelter 
Company's outfall because mixing will be reduced and habitats may be 
lost or segregated where the depth and cross-sectional areas of Codorus 
Creek are reduced. Impacts on aquatic communities will be attenuated as 
the drainage from sources below the P. H. Glatfelter outfall increase 
the downstream volume.
    Because rare or threatened plant or animal species have not been 
reported on the site or along associated utility corridors, no impacts 
to such species are expected as a result of the project.
    Human Health and Safety, Including Waste Disposal: Construction- 
and operation-related risks will be minimized by YCEP's adherence to 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Air Products 
and Chemicals, Inc. health and safety standards. Construction permits 
and safety inspections will also be employed in an effort to minimize 
the frequency of accidents and further ensure worker safety. 
Implementing appropriate engineering controls will minimize potential 
impacts. Operation equipment will be required to meet all applicable 
safety design and inspection requirements, and personal protective 
equipment will meet regulatory and consensus standards for adequacy.
    YCEP will develop an internal Spill Prevention, Control, 
Countermeasure, and Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan (SPCC) for the 
prevention of accidents, which will include explicit procedures to be 
followed in an emergency. The SPCC plan, required by the EPA, will also 
outline engineering design measures incorporated into the facility to 
minimize the potential for oil and chemical spills. Oil and grease 
drums will be kept inside buildings to prevent exposure to rainfall. 
All transport piping will be constructed of compatible material to 
prevent corrosion or deterioration by the liquid being carried. Prior 
to plant start-up and the first delivery of chemicals, the facility 
will develop a Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency (PPC) plan 
that will include procedures for prompt handling and reporting of any 
spill in accordance with regulatory requirements as well as a list of 
measures to mitigate such a release. The facility will have a Plant 
Safety Standard Practice Manual that will serve as a guide for 
providing a safe and healthy work environment for employees, visitors, 
contractors.
    Employees will be trained in safety procedures prior to working in 
the facility and refresher training will be provided. Employees who 
potentially could be exposed to chemicals will be trained on their safe 
handling.
    Approximately 7,646 cubic meters (10,000 cubic yards) of waste will 
be generated over the 3-year construction period, and approximately 3 
tons/month of municipal waste will be generated during operation of the 
YCEP Cogeneration Facility. Most of the municipal waste will consist of 
paper and cardboard, which will be disposed through a private 
contractor. The only solid waste potentially produced from construction 
and operation of utility lines will be woody debris associated with 
right-of-way clearings during periodic vegetative control activities. 
Some woody debris will be left in place to promote habitat use by 
upland game species.
    During full operation, it is expected that up to 270,000 tons/year 
of ash byproducts will be generated. YCEP will test the ash waste prior 
to disposal to ensure its nonhazardous classification under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The ash handling system, 
located in the ash silo area, will include ash conditioning equipment 
to dampen the ash with water, thus minimizing the potential for 
fugitive dust emissions prior to loading into 

[[Page 43445]]
totally enclosed 25-ton net capacity trucks. These trucks will be used 
in accordance with applicable state regulations. YCEP proposes to 
transport the ash byproduct to the Harriman Coal Corporation (Harriman) 
in Schuylkill County, PA. The impact from disposal of the ash byproduct 
will be positive and long-term because of its beneficial use in mine 
reclamation.
    It is expected that the facility will qualify as a small quantity 
generator of hazardous waste (less than 1,000 kilograms per month) and 
will meet all applicable state and federal requirements. Spent 
degreasing solvents will be the only hazardous waste generated by the 
facility.
    YCEP proposes to use aqueous ammonia instead of anhydrous ammonia 
in its selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system because aqueous 
ammonia is safer to handle and store. The ammonia storage tank will be 
located within a fully contained and diked concrete area to provide 
sufficient secondary containment. Although using chlorine dioxide 
solution as the biocide in the cooling water recirculating system is 
more expensive than chlorine gas, the use of chlorine dioxide was 
determined to be the best alternative for this cooling water treatment 
application because it avoids the need to store and use gaseous 
chlorine material; tends to react with organics by oxidation (including 
phenols) and does not appreciably produce chlorinated organics; and 
does not tend to contribute to the formation of chloroform or 
trihalomethanes.
    YCEP will apply a general policy of ``prudent avoidance'' in 
residential areas, near schools, churches, and other public gathering 
places when locating utility lines, to reduce the potential for impacts 
from electromagnetic fields (EMFs). YCEP has accepted, as a general 
guideline, the Met-Ed policy of attempting to maintain a 100-meter 
(328-foot) minimum setback. Magnetic field levels in the vicinity of 
the line will be minimized through the use of a triangular conductor 
layout. The maximum magnetic field predicted is 150 milligauss inside 
the switchyard at Bair, which is less than the magnetic field expected 
from a vacuum cleaner at a distance of 0.3 meters (1 foot). The field 
intensity will fall off rapidly and the highest field expected beyond 
the switchyard perimeter fence is 10 milligauss, equivalent to the 
field from a vacuum cleaner at 1.2 meters (4 feet). The expected 
magnetic field intensity at the closest residence is less than 1 
milligauss, which equates to the magnetic field of a digital clock at a 
distance of 1.2 meters (4 feet). YCEP has negotiated purchase options 
on two residential properties near the switchyard in Bair, and will 
assume ownership of these properties. For the proposed rail/trail along 
the York-Hanover trolley route, the areas of maximum exposure would be 
near the existing Bair Substation and directly beneath transmission 
lines entering the switchyard. This is a distance of approximately 107 
meters (350 feet), and trail users will potentially be exposed to 
magnetic fields of 10 milligauss. Beyond this point, magnetic fields 
will drop off drastically, and trail users will be exposed to fields 
between 1 and 5 milligauss for approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 
miles).
    Noise: The projected increase in noise resulting from construction 
activity at the site is expected to be 3 dBA or less (a barely 
discernible increase) at all receptor locations and through all 
construction phases. Construction of the electrical intraconnection, 
wastewater discharge line, and steam and condensate return lines will 
be of limited duration and will occur near the existing noise sources 
at the P. H. Glatfelter Company paper mill.
    There will be some noise associated with construction of the power 
transmission line and expansion of the switchyard facility, which will 
be located more than 122 meters (400 feet) from the nearest residence. 
Noise levels affecting these and other residences in Bair, PA will be 
comparable to those produced by similar standard construction 
activities. Once constructed, the switchyard facility will be 
landscaped with trees and shrubs around its outside perimeter fence to 
help buffer noise from facility operations.
    Construction activities will involve the purging of dirt and 
construction debris from steam systems. Because purging could result in 
very high noise levels, special mitigation measures will be utilized, 
such as using silencers, minimizing the occurrence, scheduling purging 
during less sensitive times of the day, and providing advance notice to 
the potentially affected public.
    Adverse impacts from increased noise levels are expected during 
operation. Primary sources of project operation noise will come from 
steam venting and rail car coupling. A vent silencer will be installed 
to lessen the noise associated with the release of steam. Coupling 
activities will be of short duration. In addition, low noise design 
equipment will be used, as appropriate. When necessary to provide 
further sound attenuation, equipment noise sources will be enclosed in 
insulated buildings designed to absorb noise. Additional noise 
mitigation features incorporated into the facility design include 
extended fan housings on the cooling tower, thermal and acoustic 
insulation around the induced stack draft fan, and discharge silencers 
on the ventilation and forced draft fans. The spatial orientation of 
major noise production structures are planned to block direct 
propagation of noise to off-site receptors.
    Transportation and Traffic: A peak employment of 974 persons during 
construction will result in an additional 712 vehicles accessing the 
project site, with an average increase in employee traffic of 178 
vehicles per day. An increased accident risk of fewer than 4 accidents 
per year could potentially occur during the construction period.
    York Road and Colonial Valley Road will experience a degradation in 
Levels of Service (LOS), from LOS D to LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. 
During the p.m. peak hour, traffic on Colonial Valley Road at the 
westbound approach of York Road will operate at LOS D compared to LOS C 
without construction traffic. Northbound traffic turning west into the 
project site at the York Road and Roundwood Facility Access Drive 
intersection will operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour compared 
to a LOS A without construction traffic; traffic exiting the facility 
will operate at LOS F. During the p.m. peak hour, LOS F conditions will 
exist for traffic exiting north and south onto York Road. Southbound 
traffic on York Road at the Jefferson Road and Lehman Road intersection 
will operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour compared to an LOS C 
without construction traffic.
    All material laydown and employee parking areas will be located on 
site. In addition, to address the existing problem of occasional 
disruption to traffic flow on York Road from an overflow of log truck 
queues on the driveway, an additional truck parking area to accommodate 
the queue will be provided. Facility security will enforce a ban on on-
street parking. Traffic conditions throughout the construction period 
will be monitored. If congestion is noted, additional mitigation 
measures, such as scheduling of shifts to further avoid peak periods or 
the stationing of traffic control personnel at critical locations, will 
be instituted.
    The electrical interconnections will cross township roads used by 
farmers and residents, but construction activity will be scheduled to 
minimize disturbances to traffic on these roads. Construction will slow 
traffic and measures will be taken to minimize this impact.

[[Page 43446]]

    The projected increase in traffic resulting from operation of the 
facility will be approximately 125 vehicles per day, for a total 
projected access driveway volume of 325 vehicles per day. An increased 
accident risk of approximately 2 accidents per year could occur during 
the operation of the facility. Levels of Service (LOS) during both the 
a.m. and p.m. peak hours will be degraded. An increase of 5 percent in 
total intersection traffic at York Road and Colonial Valley Road is 
expected during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. At the 
intersection of York Road and the Roundwood Facility Access Drive, 
traffic could increase as much as 8 percent during the a.m. peak hour 
and 8.5 percent during the p.m. peak hour. At the York Road, Jefferson 
Road, and Lehman Road intersection, an increase of 5 percent in total 
traffic during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours is expected during 
operation. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection has 
been approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
    Land Use: The site of the facility in North Codorus Township will 
be purchased by YCEP. Project approval must be obtained under the North 
Codorus Township Land Development and Subdivision Ordinance. Non-
industrial land uses, primarily residences located south of the site, 
will not be buffered from the facility by either distance or 
intervening industrial structures. A vegetative screen will be provided 
by landscaping to shield these residences from the YCEP facility. No 
change in land use trends and controls will be required for 
construction of the cogeneration facility or the utility pipeline.
    Impacts to land use will occur during construction of some portions 
of utility corridors as a result of temporary disturbances during pole 
installation. Construction and placement of each pole will disturb 
approximately 2.3 square meters (25 square feet) of surface and could 
require access to the area for periodic maintenance. The electrical 
interconnection will not prevent existing land uses of light industry, 
agriculture, wildlife conservation, and flood control. In some 
instances, the electrical interconnection will cross wooded or riparian 
lands and will require removal of some woody vegetative cover. Within 
the identified right-of-way, the alignment will permanently alter 
industrial or wooded/riparian land uses. No permanent conversion of 
prime agricultural land is expected to occur.
    Before installation of the switchyard at the Bair substation, YCEP 
must obtain approval from the West Manchester Township Zoning Hearing 
Board for a ``special exception use'' for public utilities. YCEP must 
prove that construction at the electric switchyard at the Bair 
substation will not discourage use of adjacent land and buildings and 
that the location, nature, and height of new buildings, walls, and 
fences will not impair the value of adjacent land and buildings. 
Specifically, YCEP must show that the public utility will not emit any 
obnoxious noise, glare, dust, odor, vibration, electrical disturbance, 
or have other objectionable impacts. Once the electric switchyard is 
completed, the surrounding area will be landscaped to be compatible 
with local scenery. YCEP is considering a design change for the 
switchyard so it can be built entirely on existing Met-Ed property, and 
thus not require a zoning exception.
    Pollution Prevention: The YCEP Cogeneration Facility will implement 
the pollution prevention programs that have been adopted by Air 
Products. Air Products has adopted the voluntary Chemical Manufacturers 
Association (CMA) Responsible Care Pollution Prevention Code of 
Management Practices. The facility is expected to be in full compliance 
with the code within 4 years after start-up.
    The facility's material handling systems for coal, limestone, and 
ash byproducts will be completely enclosed to minimize fugitive dust 
emissions to the environment. Potential emission points in the material 
handling systems will be equipped with dust control systems. Chemical 
and storage areas will be equipped with secondary containment to avoid 
discharge to the surrounding environment. In the event of a tank leak 
or a system leak, spilled liquid will be retained within the concrete 
containment area. Tanks will include a lock valve that will open to a 
sump. To reduce the potential for equipment failures, a preventive 
maintenance program will be implemented.
    Other pollution prevention measures include the selection of water 
treatment chemicals that do not adversely impact the environment (e.g., 
the cooling tower circulating water system will use a phosphate-based 
rather than a heavy-metal based treatment program, and ash byproducts 
will be used for mine land reclamation rather than landfill disposal.
    General good housekeeping practices (e.g., neat and orderly storage 
of chemicals, prompt cleanup of small spills, regular refuse removal, 
maintenance of clean, dry floors, and proper storage of containers away 
from walkways and roads) will be followed at the facility.
    Cultural Resources: Three historical districts and eight individual 
historical resources within the viewshed of the facility site, and one 
district and three individual historical resources within the viewshed 
of the electrical interconnection route were identified as eligible for 
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Bureau for 
Historic Preservation (the Bureau) originally determined that the 
cogeneration facility would have an adverse visual effect on one 
historical district and three historical individual resources but 
decided, that for two of the resources, planned landscaping would 
mitigate the adverse effects. Consequently, an unavoidable adverse 
visual impact to one district and one individual resource will result. 
For these, non-traditional mitigation measures are being negotiated 
between the Department and the Bureau. A draft Memorandum of Agreement 
has been written calling for YCEP to publish a history and self-guided 
tour of the Dempwolf Architectural Firm and to assist the Bureau with 
computer coding, mapping, and general organization of York County 
historical survey records. The Bureau has indicated that through these 
non-traditional methods, mitigation of the unavoidable visual effects 
is possible. Construction and alignment of project pipelines will not 
affect historic properties. No evidence of archeological resources has 
been found. Therefore, no archeological impacts are expected from 
construction of either the facility or associated utility corridors.
    Socioeconomic Resources: Because of the skilled construction labor 
force existing in the York County area, it is expected that much of the 
construction workforce for the project will be hired regionally. This 
will have a positive, but temporary, impact on regional unemployment 
rates. During construction, supporting local retail establishments will 
be positively impacted by increased revenues, and the regional economy 
may benefit from an influx of wage dollars.
    To the extent practical, the 70 person full-time workforce for the 
operational facility will be derived from the local labor force. The 
impact of these newly created positions, along with new positions in 
related sectors, will be positive but not significant (i.e., less than 
a 0.1 percent reduction in York County's unemployment rate). Increased 
tax revenues may benefit local and state infrastructure and government 
programs, including schools, roadway systems, and hospitals; this could 
have a positive impact on local property 

[[Page 43447]]
values. However, other factors, such as visual appearances, noise, and 
traffic may have negative impacts on real estate values.
    Because much of the labor force will be supplied locally, increased 
demands on public and community services will be minimal. A fire water 
system, designed in conformance with Uniform Fire Code and applicable 
National Fire Protection Association standards, will minimize impacts 
to community fire protection services from facility operation.
    The Lions Club picnic pavilion and fishing area will receive a 
long-term, direct negative impact from the introduction of additional 
industrial structures into the viewshed. The electrical interconnection 
corridor will cross a mix of land uses including light industrial, 
agricultural, conservation, and flood control properties. Placement of 
the electrical poles will entail a visual impact. Compared to baseline 
conditions, water quality for the protection and propagation of fish 
and wildlife and for recreation in or on the water should be minimally 
impacted by the project.
    The project should provide consumers with predictably priced 
electricity. It is not possible to speculate what effect the project 
will have on long-term electric rates because of uncertainties in 
energy markets and the specific factors that contribute to long-term 
analyses.
    Environmental Justice: Neither construction nor operation of the 
facility and associated utility corridors will have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income or 
minority communities. The minority community located in Jackson 
Township is not expected to experience visual or noise-related impacts 
due to its distance from the utility corridor and electric switchyard.

Proposed Project at the Alternative Site Location

    Substantial construction activities would be required to build the 
cogeneration facility at the West Manchester site. Approximately 20 
percent of the 47-acre (19-hectare) site [9.4 acres (3.8 hectares)] 
would be developed. The industrial function of the facility at the West 
Manchester site would be consistent with existing structures located at 
the J.E. Baker Company surface mining and brick manufacturing complex.
    Air Quality: Projected air emission rates, without offsets or 
allowances, would include 2,300 tons/year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
107 tons/year of particulate matter (PM10), 1,212 tons/year of 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 1,454 tons/year of carbon monoxide (CO), 
and 39 tons/year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Emissions 
generated by the main boiler would be controlled through selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) for limiting oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
emissions to 0.125 lbs/MMBtu, a baghouse for limiting emissions of 
particulate matter (PM10) to 0.011 lbs/MMBtu, and limestone 
injection into a single train ACFB boiler to limit sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emissions to 0.25 lbs/MMBtu. The West Manchester site is 
located in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (NOTR) that exceeds 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. Therefore, oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) offsets would be required. With offsets, the 
overall (net) NOX levels would be reduced by 182 tons/year.
    A comparison of anticipated emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM10) 
between the 227-megawatt coal-fired facility at the West Manchester 
site facility and at the North Codorus site, indicates that these 
emissions at the West Manchester site would exceed the levels of these 
emissions at the North Codorus.
    Modeling analysis indicates that operation of the cooling unit at 
the West Manchester site would have minimal impacts on the roadways and 
railroad surrounding the facility. Emigs Mill Road, east of the cooling 
unit, would experience less than 30 minutes of fogging annually as a 
result of operation of the West Manchester facility. No other roadways 
surrounding the facility would be impacted. There would be no occasions 
where the cooling unit would also induce icing on roadways adjacent to 
the facility. The cooling unit plume would cause less than 15 minutes/
year of fogging and/or icing on adjacent Yorkrail tracks. Results of a 
study conducted by Dr. Ducatman, Director of the West Virginia 
University's Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, 
concluded that the groundlevel concentrations of emissions from the 
facility at the West Manchester site would not expose the York County 
community to a health risk.
    Geology and Soils: Construction impacts to soil would include loss 
of excavated soil from water and wind erosion, reduction of soil 
quality from mixing topsoil with subsoil, and soil compaction from 
activities of construction equipment. Construction involving site 
grading, preparation, and placement of fill would alter the existing 
topography, and excavation would be necessary. Non-organic soils found 
on the site would be expected to be suitable for uses such as compacted 
fill for loaded structures, pavements, and embankment construction, as 
well as for landscaping and grading purposes. A total of 98,763 cubic 
meters (129,169 cubic yards) of on-site excavated materials would be 
used for site preparation and access roadway construction.
    Water Resources and Water Quality: Water supply requirements for 
construction of the facility at the West Manchester site would be 
30,000 to 100,000 gallons per day (gpd), which would be supplied by the 
York Water Company municipal distribution system; no adverse impact to 
company service would be expected. In addition, handling, treatment, or 
discharge of sanitary wastes during construction would not be expected 
to impact existing sewage systems or surface water.
    Dewatering would be required during construction activities if a 
shallow water table were encountered, but water table levels would 
return to their original contours following completion of dewatering 
activities. No long-term impacts to groundwater would occur. No 
construction would occur within the 100-year floodplain.
    Water supply requirements during operation of the facility at the 
West Manchester site would range between 2.8 and 3.0 mgd. Adequate 
surface water resources would be available to meet water supply needs 
during normal and excess rainfall periods. A net water savings of 80 to 
180 gpm would be obtained through recycling and reuse. Consumptive use 
for the facility at the West Manchester site would range from 2.5 to 
2.6 mgd, which is greater than the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 
(SRBC) regulatory threshold of 20,000 gpd. Consequently, the facility 
in West Manchester would be subject to SRBC's consumptive use 
compensation requirement.
    All ambient water quality and thermal discharge criteria would be 
met. Within the discharge's zone of initial dilution, the total 
dissolved solids (TDS) concentration is expected to increase by 
approximately 100 mg/L; following complete mixing, an increase of 30 
mg/L is anticipated. In-stream TDS concentrations are expected to 
remain below the 500 mg/L standard. The PADER thermal discharge 
criterion would be met because of available in-stream dilution capacity 
and the facility's use of a stormwater retention pond on the West 
Manchester site for cooling. The facility at the West Manchester site 
would also be capable of meeting the effluent limitations for 

[[Page 43448]]
total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, chlorine residual, zinc, 
and polychlorinated biphenols defined by EPA's pretreatment standards 
for new sources.
    Biological Resources and Biodiversity: No construction of site 
facilities would take place in a wetland; however, electric 
transmission lines and non-contact discharge pipelines would cross 
narrow wetlands. A permit to construct these utility corridors would 
need to be obtained. The most probable electric transmission line route 
would cross a narrow wetland associated with Honey Run. The crossing 
would consist of an overhead span, and vegetation in the existing 
meadow wetland would not require additional management for right-of-way 
maintenance. No alterations to wetlands would be expected to occur. The 
non-contact wastewater discharge pipeline would cross approximately 4.8 
kilometers (3 miles) of wetlands between the West Manchester site and 
its discharge to Codorus Creek. Short-term impacts to herbaceous 
wetlands have occurred previously with placement of underground utility 
pipelines. A limited, temporary impact to wetlands would also occur if 
a natural gas pipeline were installed along a proposed alternative 
route. The route would cross few wetlands and all construction would 
take place in areas that were previously altered for roadway 
construction and use. Construction in wetlands would occur during 
periods of low flow and if necessary, flow would be diverted during 
construction. Following completion of construction, affected areas 
would be restored to their original contour, and altered areas would be 
revegetated with appropriate species.
    No threatened or endangered plant or animal species were reported 
to occur on the West Manchester site or within the area of proposed 
associated infrastructure routes.
    Noise: Increased outdoor noise levels at four residences closest to 
the project at the West Manchester site would be clearly perceptible. 
Daytime noise levels at two residences to the north and east of the 
site and at the golf course located to the west of the site would 
increase by approximately 14 to 20 dBA. The noise increase at more 
distant receptors to the south and southeast would range from 3 to 12 
dBA.
    The purging of steam systems of dirt and construction debris would 
be scheduled for several brief periods; this process may result in 
extremely high noise levels. To limit the impact from noise during this 
process, special mitigation measures would be utilized, including 
efforts to minimize the extent of the process, scheduling the process 
during daylight hours, and providing advance notice to the potentially 
affected public.
    Transportation and Traffic: Traffic studies indicate that traffic 
flow is already slow in many of the affected areas and would be 
aggravated. Along the East Berlin Road, one intersection (East Berlin 
Road/Emigs Mill Road) would experience a change in level of service 
(LOS) during p.m. peak hours. A decline from LOS D to LOS E would be 
expected at this intersection from construction traffic. Most Route 30 
intersections, which are already operating at unsatisfactory levels of 
service, would be expected to experience significant impacts during 
construction. Once the facility is operational, only one intersection 
(Route 30 and Emigs Mill Road) would experience a decline in level of 
service. During the a.m. peak hour, facility traffic would cause 
southbound traffic on Emigs Mill Road to decline from LOS C to LOS D. 
Plans are underway, independent of this project, to improve highway 
conditions.
    Land Use: The West Manchester site would be located within the 
General Industrial Zone, which is the most intensive level of 
industrial zoning in the township. Even though the site is designated 
to be used for industrial purposes, construction of the facility would 
impact existing agricultural land use. Coordination would be conducted 
with the appropriate zoning authority. Utility interconnection 
corridors may require a Conditional Use Permit because the project is 
not included as a specifically permitted use within the General 
Industrial Zone. The West Manchester site is of adequate size to comply 
with the minimum area requirements that apply to this General 
Industrial Zone. Most of the proposed facility structures would be less 
than the 30.5-meter (100-foot) maximum permitted height or could 
accommodate required setback distances. Features exceeding the maximum 
height (e.g., the facility stack) would require zoning approval.
    Environmental Justice: Construction and operation of the facility 
at the West Manchester site has the potential to impact both minority 
and low-income communities. Although the site is located in an 
industrialized area, three census tract block groups within a 5-
kilometer (3.1-mile) radius contain minority population concentrations 
higher than the county average. In addition, a low-income community is 
located in the same census tract block group as the West Manchester 
site. Thus, there is a potential for greater environmental justice 
impacts from the project at the West Manchester site compared to the 
preferred alternative.

No-Action Alternative

    Substantial construction activities would be required for the gas-
fired facility and the coal-fired facility options. The number of acres 
developed for the coal-fired facility would be similar to that for the 
preferred alternative [approximately 38 acres (15.4 hectares)]. 
Approximately 10 acres (4 hectares) would be developed for the gas-
fired facility. No construction would be required for the PJM 
Interconnection Power Pool option.
    Many impacts from construction, which apply only to the coal-fired 
facility and gas-fired facility options, would be similar to impacts 
identified for construction of the preferred alternative. Because 
generic sites were analyzed, it is assumed that appropriate sites would 
be used and thus no adverse land use, cultural resources, or 
environmental justice impacts would occur. During construction of the 
gas-fired facility, monthly employment would average approximately 180 
persons compared to 350 for the preferred alternative; consequently, 
less traffic impact would result. Employment during construction of the 
coal fired facility would be similar to employment for the preferred 
alternative and all related impacts would be comparable. Impacts 
associated with operation of the three no-action alternative options 
are as follows.
    Setting: It is assumed that the additional structures for the gas-
fired and coal-fired facilities would not alter visual quality. The 
tallest structures for the coal-fired facility would be similar in 
height to those of the preferred alternative. The gas-fired facility's 
exhaust stack would be between 45.7 and 61 meters (150 and 200 feet) 
tall [compared to the 120.4-meter (395-foot) stack associated with the 
preferred alternative]. Building height would be approximately 30.5 to 
45.7 meters (100 to 150 feet) tall [compared to 57.9 meters (180 feet) 
for the preferred alternative]. There would be no new structures to 
alter visual quality for the PJM Interconnection Power Pool option.
    Air Quality: Anticipated air emission rates during operation of a 
gas-fired facility would include 26 tons/year of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 23 tons/year of particulate matter (PM10), 240 tons/
year of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 144 tons/year of carbon monoxide 
(CO), and 35 tons/year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 
Anticipated air emission rates 

[[Page 43449]]
during operation of a coal-fired facility would include 2,456 tons/year 
of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 108 tons/year of particulate matter 
(PM10), 1,226 tons/year of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 1,474 
tons/year of carbon monoxide (CO), and 41 tons/year of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). Compared to the preferred alternative, the coal-fired 
facility emissions would be approximately 15 percent less because it 
would burn less coal and produce less energy, since it would not supply 
steam to an adjacent host. Radionuclide emissions would be much lower 
from a gas-fired facility when compared to any of the coal-fired 
options.
    If either the gas-fired or the coal-fired facility were to be 
located in the NOTR, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) offsets would be 
required. Under the gas-fired facility option, the overall (net) oxides 
of nitrogen (NOX) reduction would be 36 tons/year and under the 
coal-fired facility option, the overall (net) reduction would be 184 
tons/year. Secondary emissions associated with the gas-fired facility 
would be less than for the preferred alternative because fewer workers 
would be required and the need for rail delivery of coal and shipments 
of limestone-ash byproduct would be eliminated.
    Under the PJM Interconnection Power Pool option, 0.4 percent of the 
existing total capacity of the facilities would be utilized by Met-Ed. 
No increases in air emissions at existing PJM facilities would occur.
    Water Resources and Water Quality: No increases in water supply 
requirements or wastewater discharges would occur from the purchase of 
existing electrical capacity from the PJM pool. One mgd of freshwater 
would be required for cooling under the gas-fired facility option; 2.5 
mgd would be required under the coal-fired facility option. The gas-
fired facility would be expected to use 200,000 gpd for boiler make-up 
and to discharge approximately the same amount. The coal-fired facility 
would be expected to use 340,000 gpd for boiler make-up. For the gas-
fired facility option, non-cooling water consumption would decrease 40 
percent compared to the preferred alternative; for the coal-fired 
facility option, the decrease would be 15 percent. Discharges from both 
the gas-fired and coal-fired facilities would be expected to raise 
water temperature in the receiving surface water bodies.
    Biological Resources and Biodiversity: It is possible that because 
of reduced spatial requirements for the gas-fired facility, less 
disturbance to wildlife habitats would take place. No other impacts to 
biological resources or biodiversity would be expected from any of the 
no-action alternative options.
    Human Health and Safety: Impacts from the coal-fired facility 
option would be similar to those for the preferred alternative; however 
approximately 10 to 15 percent less ash byproduct would be generated 
because less fuel would be consumed. There would be no coal handling 
requirements or related mitigation measures needed for the gas-fired 
facility option. Instead, special procedures for natural gas (e.g., 
leak detection) would be implemented. Less municipal waste, compared to 
the preferred alternative would be generated and no ash byproduct would 
be produced. Current facility health and safety procedures would not be 
affected with the PJM Interconnection Power Pool option. No impacts to 
the health and safety of employees or the local population would occur 
with any of the no-action alternative options.
    Noise: It is expected that noise levels for the coal-fired facility 
option would be equivalent to those of the preferred alternative. For 
the gas-fired option, noise attributed to coal handling and processing 
equipment would be eliminated. Because there would be no increase in 
operating activity at existing facilities with the PJM Interconnection 
Power Pool option, there would be no impact on existing noise levels.
    Transportation and Traffic: Impacts to transportation and traffic 
would be similar between the preferred alternative and the coal-fired 
facility option. No additional impacts to traffic or transportation 
would occur with the PJM Interconnection Power Pool. It is assumed that 
for the gas-fired facility option, operation impacts to transportation 
and traffic would be less than those for the preferred alternative 
because of reduced employment levels. In addition, impacts from rail 
traffic for coal delivery and truck traffic for limestone delivery and 
ash removal would be avoided. If the gas supply is interrupted, 
however, continuing supplies would need to be delivered by tandem 
trucks, thus impacting the transportation infrastructure.
    Socioeconomic Resources: $75 million in federal funds would not be 
expended for any of the no-action alternative options. Socioeconomic 
resources would benefit from the sale of excess capacity with the PJM 
power pool option; but because the sale of 227 megawatts represents 
only 0.4 percent of the total capacity available for sale, the increase 
would not be significant. Socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, 
property tax revenue, electricity cost) for the coal-fired facility 
option would be similar to those of the preferred alternative.
    The payment of property tax, under the gas-fired facility option, 
would be approximately 40 to 60 percent less than for the preferred 
alternative. Employment would be 25 to 30 workers compared to 70 
employees for the preferred alternative. Because the source of fuel 
would most likely originate in the Gulf of Mexico, additional revenues 
associated with the sale of Pennsylvania coal would not be realized for 
the gas-fired facility option.

Comments Received

    The Department received comments on the YCEP Final Environmental 
Impact Statement from 14 commenters/groups.
    Nina Huizinga from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Resources' Office of Policy and Communication stated that PADER had no 
comments. Steven Hill congratulated the Department on its ``timely 
completion and absolute thoroughness'' of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. Barry G. Hoffman, District Engineer for the 
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's Engineering District 8-0, 
informed the Department that Air Products had submitted an application 
for the required traffic signal and the District had no substantive 
comments [note: approval for the signal (permit no. 84-55) was made to 
North Codorus Township on March 6, 1995]. Roland Bergner commented that 
the Pennsylvania Game Commission concurred with the selection of the 
Flood Control Property alternative as the preferred electric 
interconnect corridor route. Mr. Bergner reiterated the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (USACE) requirement that during the final design phase, 
both agencies must approve YCEP's mitigation measures for alleviating 
impacts to wildlife associated with construction across USACE property. 
The Department is aware of this stipulation and is including this 
requirement in its Mitigation Action Plan.
    Ronald Davis, Chief, Engineering Services of the Air Quality 
Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), 
submitted four substantive comments with supporting documentation. His 
comments were related to analyses of secondary effluent (process 
wastewater) samples that were recently collected by PADER and YCEP from 
the P.H. Glatfelter Company's Outfall 001. The PADER analyses indicated 
the presence of several compounds [specifically, residual agricultural 
pesticides (Aldrin, 

[[Page 43450]]
BHC, and propachlor) and herbicides (MCPA and dalapon) and three 
additional volatile organics (1,4-dioxane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 
and formaldehyde)] that were not identified in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. The YCEP cooling tower is designed to utilize the 
process wastewater for cooling tower make-up water, and would evaporate 
an estimated maximum 2.8 million gallons per day during the cooling 
process.
     The first comment stated that several of the compounds 
detected in wastewater are classified by the U.S. EPA as carcinogens. 
Most of the other detected compounds have non-carcinogenic toxicity. 
Except for chloroform, none of these contaminants had been previously 
identified by YCEP or reviewed by PADER.
    The Department reviewed the analytical data submitted by both PADER 
(1 sampling event--analyses conducted by PADER Bureau of Laboratories) 
and YCEP (4 sampling events--analyses conducted by Lancaster 
Laboratories), and found that results of the analyses differed between 
sampling events, between the laboratories conducting the analyses, 
between the analytical technique used, and, when tested, between the 
varying ``hold times'' (time between sample collection and analysis). 
Some compounds were believed to be present in one sample, but were not 
found in other samples. In addition, some compounds were thought to be 
present by one laboratory and not the other, and some compounds were 
thought to be present by both laboratories, but at very different 
concentration. Thus, one needs to understand the limitations of the 
results presented, since there seems to be some inherent uncertainty 
with respect to the accuracy and/or precision of the analytical data 
generated. These limitations and uncertainties are explored below.
    Most of the organic components indicated as present in PADER's 
wastewater analyses were tentatively identified compounds (TICs). TICs 
are compounds analyzed through screening techniques (gas 
chromatographic/mass spectrometric analyses), where the spectra 
obtained from components in the sample are matched with a computerized 
spectral database of possible compounds. The TICs were not generally 
quantified in the PADER laboratory report, as denoted by the letter 
``J'' behind the values for some of the analyses. [The ``J'' 
designation is a laboratory data qualifier used in the EPA's Contract 
Laboratory Program to indicate that a reported value is estimated.]
    Although several organic compounds were tentatively identified by 
PADER's analyses, further component-specific analytical validation 
methods did not indicate the presence of many of these compounds. To 
verify TIC results, a pure sample (of the compound indicated by the TIC 
result) should be rerun on the same equipment to determine if retention 
times match those of the TIC and to determine if actual spectral 
results obtained with the mass spectrometer match those indicated by 
the computerized library. If both of these match then can one state 
with reasonable certainty that a TIC represents a compound that is 
truly present. In summary, only compounds identified and quantified 
according to EPA methodology (in the manner indicated above) are 
detected. TIC's are not present until confirmed; they are only presumed 
present.
    The EPA has provided specific guidelines for evaluating the 
usability of laboratory data in quantitative risk assessments. As a 
general rule, only positively identified compounds that are listed 
within a methods list of compounds to be identified (i.e., the 
instrument response factor has been derived based on a multipoint 
standards curve for each of these chemicals) can be used in risk 
assessment calculations, and then only if they are present above the 
method quantification limit once corrected for field and laboratory 
blanks. EPA guidance allows substantial leeway on use of TICs, but one 
cannot identify ``method list'' chemicals (e.g., bromodichloromethane) 
as TICs (please note that nearly all of the compounds presumed to be 
present are compounds having methods list), automatically printout the 
first chemical on a computer hitlist as being the TIC, or use 
quantification levels derived from TICs for anything but estimating 
relative importance of the compound.
    As a conservative measure for health effects analysis, DOE acted on 
the premise that all analysis results were valid until proven 
otherwise, and conducted a risk screening of DOE's targeted 21 
potentially hazardous compounds at the highest concentrations 
``detected'' in any of the analyses.
    Concurrent with risk screening conducted by DOE, YCEP submitted a 
``Human Health Risk Assessment for the YCEP Cooling Tower Drift,'' to 
PADER on July 12, 1995, and its Addendum on July 20, 1995. A copy of 
this health risk assessment was received and reviewed by DOE. Both 
YCEP's health risk assessment and DOE's risk screening concluded that 
the recently detected compounds in P.H. Glatfelter Company wastewater 
posed no increased human health risks. Both YCEP's human health risk 
assessment and DOE's screening assessment are in the public reading 
rooms.
    DOE determined that although potential emissions of most compounds 
detected in the recent sampling events were not assessed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, the addition of these compounds (at the 
highest detected concentrations) to emissions from the proposed cooling 
tower are expected to pose no additional human health risks. Therefore, 
the general human health risk conclusions reached in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement are not measurably altered. It should 
also be noted that the health risk analyses conducted in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement were based on measurements made using a 
simulated cooling tower, which arguably would generate more accurate 
release data than that based on pure extrapolation of analytical 
measurements made on wastewater samples.
    PADER's laboratory analyzed the wastewater outfall for one sampling 
campaign (4/17/95), and Lancaster Laboratories, an EPA-accredited 
facility, analyzed wastewater samples taken during four sampling 
campaigns (3/13/95, 4/17/95, 5/18/95, and 6/21/95). DOE reviewed and 
evaluated all of these available data in identifying components in the 
wastewater and in assessing potential health effects from cooling tower 
operation. As stated before, many of the organic compounds identified 
by PADER's laboratory were only tentatively identified during screening 
analyses, but were not confirmed in their validation analyses, which 
support the general findings of Lancaster Laboratories.
     The second comment stated that five (5) of the detected 
compounds are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as defined in the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments. The compound detected at the highest level 
was formaldehyde at 0.3 mg/L. Based on this level, the potential 
emissions of formaldehyde from the YCEP cooling tower would be over one 
ton/year. PADER's sampling results indicated that potential HAP 
emissions from the cooling tower have not been fully investigated, and 
that there is a need to determine the amount of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) that will be emitted from the process.
    The volatile and semi-volatile (methods lists) analyses conducted 
by the PADER and YCEP laboratories included scans for over 120 
different compounds. Additional analyses for pesticides, herbicides, 
and base neutral 

[[Page 43451]]
components bring the total quantity of compounds analyzed in excess of 
160, with 55 of these components being on the Clean Air Act Amendments 
list of HAPs.
    The Department's review of the sampling analysis data submitted by 
PADER determined that five of the compounds presumed to be present 
(chloroform, formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 
1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane), were HAPs. The Department then 
estimated the amounts of these five compounds that would be emitted 
from the cooling tower. Four of the HAPs are volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), except 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane). These four volatile 
compounds were assumed to be released from the cooling tower in vapor 
(100 percent evaporation) form. The 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane 
was assumed to be released primarily in the form of drift (0.005 
percent of the water recirculation rate).
    Based on the maximum potential concentrations of tentatively 
identified HAPs in the make-up water, the proposed YCEP cooling tower 
operation would be expected to release an additional 2.8 tons/year of 
HAPs beyond the amount (0.57 tons/year) assessed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement. It should be noted that, based on 
confirming analyses for volatile and non-volatile components that would 
be used for regulatory purposes, only chloroform was detected in the 
samples with any degree of confidence. PADER's formaldehyde analyses 
which yielded a concentration of 0.3 mg/L may be invalid due to the 
presence of a pale yellow color in the sample as well as the exceedance 
of maximum holding time prior to analysis. Subsequent analyses by 
Lancaster Laboratories indicate the formaldehyde levels are less than 
57 g/L. However, the method (water) blank had a background 
level of 48.5 g/L, which generated a corrected analytical 
result below the detection limit. If one extrapolates based on the 
validated analytical information obtained during the recent sampling 
campaigns, the total emissions for VOCs (including HAPs) from the 
cooling tower would be approximately 0.11 tons/year, which is less than 
that reported in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (0.57 tons/
year).
    The Department determined that although potential increased 
emissions (2.8 tons/year) of HAPs presumed to be present in the recent 
sampling events were not assessed in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement, the incremental health risks associated with these expected 
additional emissions from the proposed cooling tower would pose no 
additional environmental or human health risks, and that the human 
health risk conclusions reached in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement are not measurably altered. Analytical results suggest that 
the health risk could be lower than that reported in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement due to the lower chloroform emissions 
from the cooling tower.
    A monitoring stipulation has been included in the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Permit to resolve issues related to 
the actual amount of volatile organic compound and HAPs emissions from 
the YCEP facility. This stipulation reads as follows: Within 60 days of 
issuance of this plan approval, the applicant shall submit a cooling 
water sampling protocol to the Regional Air Quality Program Manager for 
approval. The protocol shall address the following analyses: a. 
Volatile organic compounds; b. semi-volatile organic compounds; c. 
chloroform; d. formaldehyde; e. dimethylsulfide; f. chlorinated 
herbicides; and g. organochloride pesticides. The sampling of the 
Glatfelter effluent/YCEP cooling tower evaporant stream shall be 
conducted on a monthly basis. Sampling results in accordance with this 
condition shall be submitted to the Department [PADER] within 30 days 
of completion of the laboratory analysis. Sampling results shall be 
used to verify compliance with the 50 tons/year VOC emission limit and 
to verify that HAP concentrations in the cooling water are consistent 
with the sampling values known to the Department [PADER] prior to 
issuance of this plan approval. Sampling shall be conducted for at 
least 1 year (12 consecutive months) or until the maximum production 
rate of the source is achieved, as deemed appropriate by the Department 
[PADER] based upon review of the information collected. At the 
conclusion of the monthly sampling program, the Department [PADER] 
shall specify sampling frequency which shall continue for the life of 
the project. The applicant may recommend a sampling frequency and other 
changes to the protocol at that time. The long term sampling program 
may include correlation with the NPDES monitoring results at the P.H. 
Glatfelter Company. [See DOE's mitigation commitment concerning the 
cooling tower sampling results below under Mitigation Action Plan]
     A third comment made by PADER stated that a number of the 
newly identified pollutants are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 
that the total potential emissions (from the cooling tower) could be 
greater than two tons/year. When these emissions are added to the 49 
tons/year identified from other sources in YCEP's air permit 
application, the total project emissions exceed 50 tons/year; 
therefore, New Source Review might now apply to VOC emissions from the 
project. PADER also detected 76.2 mg/L of total organic carbon in the 
wastewater, and questioned if the cooling tower might release this 
organic carbon to the air as VOCs.
    The Department's review of data submitted by PADER determined that 
up to an additional 4.2 tons/year of identified VOCs could be emitted 
from the proposed YCEP cooling tower, if VOCs are confirmed to be 
present in the make-up water at the maximum detected concentrations 
using appropriate protocols. If these emissions (4.2 tons/year) are 
accurate and when combined with the circulating fluidized bed boiler 
emissions exceed the New Source Review (NSR) threshold for VOCs of 50 
tons/year, an additional regulatory review would be required. However, 
as a condition for providing cost-shared funding for the YCEP project, 
net VOC emissions for the YCEP facility will not exceed 50 tons/year as 
prescribed by law.
    Chloroform levels measured for samples collected during recent 
sampling events indicate an almost 10-fold reduction (when compared to 
concentrations analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement). 
This reduction is probably due to the effects of the P. H. Glatfelter 
Company's Modernization Project, which went online in the fall of 1994, 
since similar reductions in many of the surrogate parameters have been 
observed (e.g., color, specific conductance, chemical oxygen demand, 
total organic carbon). The highest formaldehyde concentration (0.3 mg/
L) that was used in the estimation of maximum VOC emissions by the 
Department could be in question due to analytical interferences noted 
by the laboratory that conducted the analyses. More recent formaldehyde 
analyses indicate that its presence is non-detectable. Thus, there is a 
possibility that further analyses of current and future data will 
indicate that the total VOC emissions will be less than 50 tons/year, 
and that the component contributed by the cooling tower could be less 
than 0.57 tons/year (as previously reported in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement). In light of the discrepancies and non-validation 
found in the analytical analyses between samples and 

[[Page 43452]]
laboratories, additional sampling would be required to more accurately 
establish the overall amount of VOC emissions that would be emitted. 
More recent analyses conducted suggest that VOC emissions from the 
cooling tower could be approximately 0.11 tons/year.
    To address this issue as part of the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) Permit for the YCEP Project, PADER's Ronald Davis 
has stated that the following language has been included in the PSD 
permit (which was issued on July 25, 1995): ``Annual actual volatile 
organic carbon emissions from all activities at the YCEP facility shall 
not exceed 50 tons for any consecutive twelve month period. This limit 
is based upon the VOC applicability threshold contained in Chapter 127 
Subchapter E of the New Source Review of the Department's rules and 
regulations.''
    Another stipulation of the permit (as outlined in the previous 
response) will require YCEP to conduct sampling to determine, in part, 
VOC emissions. If total VOC emissions on an annualized basis exceed 50 
tons/year, YCEP would be required under law to mitigate the effects by 
demonstrating lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) for VOC 
emissions. If initial operational data indicate a potential VOC 
exceedance, YCEP could pursue a number of options (including 
operational or engineering controls at the combustor) to reduce the 
VOCs on an annualized basis for the entire facility to less than 50 
tons/year. As a condition for providing cost-shared funding for the 
this project, net VOC emissions for the YCEP facility will not exceed 
50 tons/year as prescribed by law.
    The need for a New Source Review is a regulatory issue which will 
be determined by PADER based on operational data. As noted earlier, 
PADER has not determined the need for a New Source Review at this time, 
but will require YCEP to monitor the P.H. Glatfelter Company wastewater 
for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, 
chloroform, formaldehyde, dimethyl disulfide, chlorinated herbicides, 
and organochloride pesticides. Data from this monitoring will provide 
the basis for the determination of whether additional mitigative 
measures would be required. PADER, in its capacity as the regulatory 
agency would determine the need for a New Source Review, and (if 
required) the conditions would be outlined and enforced by PADER's 
permit. Previously unaccounted VOC emissions from the proposed cooling 
tower are not expected to alter conclusions in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement regarding health risks or environmental impacts.
    The issue of whether the 76.2 mg/L of total organic carbon in the 
wastewater contains volatile constituents has been addressed through 
the EPA standardized volatile organic compound analyses of the 
wastewater samples conducted by the various laboratories. It is not 
unusual to find that the carbon associated with volatile constituents 
does not total the organic carbon in the entire wastewater sample due 
to the presence of color-containing non-volatile components. These 
color-containing components are derivatives of wood structure such as 
lignin, a non-volatile, complex sugar derived from wood. In addition, 
total organic carbon analyses involve air stripping methodology to 
remove inorganic constituents, such as carbon dioxide, bicarbonates, 
and carbonates. Therefore, the measurement of total organic carbon may 
represent the non-volatile organic carbon fraction and may not 
contribute to additional VOC emissions.
     PADER's fourth comment stated that compounds possessing 
very low odor thresholds were present in the wastewater and that 
release of these compounds in the air, both as a vapor and in water 
mist, may result in odors being generated in the area.
    The Department reviewed PADER's analysis results and identified 
dimethyl disulfide as the presumptively present compound having the 
most significant odor-causing potential. Assuming dimethyl disulfide is 
present in the make-up water at the maximum reported concentration, 130 
micrograms/liter (g/L), a worst case ambient air concentration 
was calculated. The results of these calculations estimated an ambient 
air concentration (6.0  x  10plus-minus6 g/m3) which 
is five orders of magnitude less than the lowest reported odor 
detection threshold for dimethyl disulfide (3.0 g/m3) (K. 
Verschueren, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, New 
York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983). Therefore, the Department 
determined that the addition of these emissions (at the highest 
detected concentrations) would pose no additional odor impacts. Thus, 
the conclusions reached in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
regarding odor are not measurably altered.
    Since receipt of the comments from Mr. Davis, Pennsylvania has 
issued the air permit for the YCEP facility. In its press release 
announcing issuance of the air permit, Michael Steiner, acting director 
of the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP's) southcentral 
region office noted that DEP required YCEP to conduct a health risk 
assessment showing that the project will not result in significant 
human health risk. The health assessment requested by PADER is 
available in the public reading rooms.
    Mr. John R. Pomponio, Acting Director, Environmental Services 
Division, EPA Region 3, submitted two major comments for consideration.
     The first comment was related to the human health risks 
associated with the constituents identified in the wastewater analyses 
conducted by PADER. This wastewater is to be used for cooling tower 
purposes. The EPA requested that a human health risk assessment be 
prepared for the compounds identified in the PADER laboratory analyses: 
oil and grease, total organic carbon, chemical oxygen demand, methylene 
blue active substances (MBAs), formaldehyde, ammonia, nitrobenzene, 
toluene, bromide, bromofluorobenzene, bromodichloromethane, 2,4,6-
tribromophenol, phenols, 2-fluorophenol, terphenyl, 2-fluorophenyl 
(sic), 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, carbon disulfide, 
dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfone, 1,4-dioxane, propachlor, aldrin, 
hexachlorocyclohexane (all congeries), cyanide, sulfide, sulfate, 
fluoride, nitrates, nitrites, and metals (sodium, calcium, potassium, 
magnesium, iron, aluminum, strontium, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, 
zinc, lithium, titanium, mercury, barium, boron, chromium [+6] and 
chromium [total]). The human health risk assessment should address all 
potential exposure pathways resulting from both the air cooling towers 
and the wastewater discharge. In addition, possible remediation of the 
wastewater from the P.H. Glatfelter Company should be examined.
    Please see above the responses to comments received from Ronald 
Davis, Chief, Engineering Services of the Air Quality Program, 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), which 
outline the utility of analytical data generated by PADER and Lancaster 
Laboratories.
    The Department and YCEP conducted concurrent health risk 
assessments to address EPA's concerns. These studies were screening 
studies (i.e., assessing maximum exposure pathways under maximum 
exposure scenarios) in order to assess whether more refined analyses 
were appropriate.
    In terms of performing risk analyses on the components identified 
by EPA, those items which are surrogate or compound non-specific 
parameters (i.e., 

[[Page 43453]]
oil and grease, total organic carbon, chemical oxygen demand, and MBAs) 
do not lend themselves to risk assessment methodology, since the 
cornerstone of health effects analyses is to assign risk to specific 
compound exposure or an aggregation of specific compound exposures. As 
such, the information provided in these surrogate parameters is 
inappropriate for conducting quantitative risk assessments and for 
these basic reasons were not included in the health risk analyses 
conducted.
    Eight compounds listed by EPA for investigation were internal 
standards used by PADER's analytical laboratory in conducting its 
analyses. These compounds included bromofluorobenzene, 2-fluorophenol, 
2-fluorobiphenyl, 2,4,6-tribromophenol, 1,2-dichloroethane-(d4), 
toluene-(d8), nitrobenzene-(d5), phenol-(d6), and terphenyl-(d14). An 
indication that some of these were internal standards was the notation 
that these compounds contained deuterium (as noted by the suffix 
``d''), an isotope of hydrogen. The fact that these compounds were 
internal standards introduced into the sample by the analytical 
laboratory obviates the need for their inclusion in the health risk 
analyses.
    Many of the constituents analyzed by PADER's laboratory which were 
listed by EPA for further health effects investigation were below 
detection limits. These constituents included sulfide, fluoride, boron, 
hexavalent chromium, total chromium, total mercury, molybdenum, 
lithium, titanium, free cyanide, oil and grease, and MBAs. Since these 
components were not above the limits of detection, these were not 
included in the health risk assessment.
    Many of the constituents on EPA's list are essential human 
nutrients, considered by toxicological experts to be largely non-toxic 
at ``environmental exposure'' conditions, as evidenced by their lack of 
inclusion in two of the most common risk assessment data bases 
(Integrated Risk Information System [IRIS] and Health Effects 
Assessment Summary Tables [HEAST]). These common constituents include 
components such as sodium, sulfates, calcium, potassium, magnesium, and 
iron. EPA guidance suggests that chemicals that are essential human 
nutrients, present at low concentrations (i.e., only slightly elevated 
above naturally occurring levels), and toxic only at very high doses 
need not be considered further in quantitative risk assessments. 
Examples of these chemicals include iron, magnesium, calcium, 
potassium, and sodium. Some of the components on EPA's target list were 
detected in the wastewater at concentrations less than Primary or 
Secondary National Interim Drinking Water Standards for Inorganics 
(Federal Register, Feb. 1978, No. 266). These levels are established to 
protect the public against both ``nuisance'' and health effects 
(assuming consumption of approximately 2 liters of water each day). For 
instance, barium was detected at 429 g/L; the primary drinking 
water standard is 1,000 g/L. Manganese was detected at 40 
g/L; the secondary drinking water standard is 50 g/L. 
Sulfate was detected at 190 mg/L; the secondary drinking water standard 
is 250 mg/L. Zinc was detected at 28 g/L; the secondary 
drinking water standard is 5,000 g/L. Another method for 
estimating the effects of these essential human nutrients is to compare 
the effective dose with recommended daily dietary allowances. Even if 
one unrealistically assumes that an average male ingests 2 liters of 
the cooling tower wastewater daily [note: the maximum expected drift 
exposure of cooling tower water for a person would be 9  x  10-7 
liters/day], many of the components consumed would be less than the 
daily dietary allowances. For example, calcium consumption would be 
approximately 31 percent of the recommended daily dietary allowances 
for a 23-50 year old male; sodium consumption would be about 50 
percent; potassium consumption would be about 4 percent; iron 
consumption would be approximately 15 percent; magnesium consumption 
would be 7 percent; zinc consumption would be 0.4 percent; and 
manganese consumption would be about 3 percent of the recommended daily 
dietary allowances.
    To address EPA's concerns, additional human health risk analyses 
were conducted by Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM) (Human 
Health Risk Assessment for the YCEP Cooling Tower Drift, 11 July 1995, 
and Addendum to Human Health Risk Assessment for the YCEP Cooling Tower 
Drift, 20 July 1995). As a response to the EPA letter submitted to the 
Department on July 14, 1995, the Addendum assessed human health risks 
to additional chemicals not in the first report.
    A step-wise approach was used in the ERM analysis. The first step 
was to determine the chemicals of concern and their concentrations in 
the wastewater, based on analyses conducted on the wastewater streams. 
The compounds which were incorporated into the analyses based on this 
analytical screening protocol in the initial July 11, 1995 ERM Report 
were the following: pesticides (congeners of hexachlorocyclohexane 
[alpha BHC, beta BHC, delta BHC], aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, 
propachlor); herbicides (dalapon, MCPP, MCPA, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB), and other 
compounds (formaldehyde and chloroform). The Addendum analyzed or 
reanalyzed the following constituents: organics (dimethyl disulfide, 
dimethyl sulfone, formaldehyde, chloroform, phenol, carbon disulfide, 
aldrin, beta BHC); metals (aluminum, strontium, manganese, vanadium, 
zinc, barium, boron, and lithium), and inorganics (ammonia, cyanide, 
fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, and bromide). Aldrin and B-BHC were 
reanalyzed in the Addendum at concentrations higher than in the 
original report. Formaldehyde and chloroform were reanalyzed in the 
Addendum using a more conservative transport mechanism (i.e., 100 
percent volatilization from cooling tower; dispersion based on droplet 
behavior in order to maximize groundlevel concentration). Although 
dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfone, and bromide have no risk-based 
concentrations available from EPA Region 3 (which suggest that these 
pose negligible risk to human health at the trace concentrations 
present in the cooling tower), they were included in the Addendum to 
demonstrate that groundlevel concentrations will be negligible.
    Estimates of steady-state concentrations of the chemicals following 
three cycles within the cooling tower were derived based on the 
expected volatility behavior of the compounds in the tower. Estimates 
of airborne concentrations and deposition rates for each of the 
chemical constituents were derived. In addition, in the July 11, 1995 
Report, soil concentrations that would occur if chemicals were 
deposited over the facility lifetime of 30 years were estimated. Human 
health risks associated with the emissions from the cooling tower based 
on inhalation and potential residential exposures to soils affected by 
deposition were then determined by comparison with EPA Region III Risk-
Based Concentrations (RBC's) which are acceptable levels for inhalation 
and residential use of soil. These RBC's are reported to prevent (1) 
carcinogenic effects at a target lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6 
for known and potential carcinogenic chemicals; and (2) non-
carcinogenic effects for systemic toxicants at a target hazard quotient 
of 1.0.
    The results in the July 11, 1995 Report indicate that in every case 
for which an RBC was known, the predicted airborne 

[[Page 43454]]
concentration of components analyzed in this risk assessment was at 
least four orders of magnitude smaller than the RBC; for some 
compounds, the predicted concentration is more than eight orders of 
magnitude smaller. This means that there is essentially no chance of 
airborne concentration of constituents being great enough to cause 
adverse health effects to the surrounding population. The risk 
assessment results for the soil ingestion pathway are similar to the 
air pathway. None of the compounds are predicted to accumulate to 
levels approaching their RBC for soil ingestion. The calculated soil 
concentration for each constituent with a known RBC is at least two 
orders of magnitude smaller than the RBC; for most of the compounds, it 
is at least five orders of magnitude smaller.
    The results in the July 20, 1995 Addendum indicate that for non-
volatile chemicals, the predicted airborne concentration is at least 
four orders of magnitude smaller than the RBC; for some compounds, the 
predicted concentration is nearly eight orders of magnitude smaller. 
These results seem to suggest that there is essentially no chance of 
airborne concentrations of non-volatile drift constituents being great 
enough to cause adverse health effects to the surrounding population. 
For volatile constituents, such as chloroform and formaldehyde, the 
predicted airborne concentrations are nearly two orders of magnitude 
smaller than the RBCs. The predicted airborne concentrations for the 
VOCs are extremely conservative given that the dispersion modeled for 
the water droplets in the drift was used to estimate VOC dispersion. In 
actuality, the VOC vapors, which are lighter than water droplets, would 
disperse over a greater area, resulting in much lower groundlevel 
concentrations.
    Another risk assessment was conducted by the Department to validate 
the general conclusions reached in the RBC-based health effects 
analysis presented above. The assessment considered risks from 
inhalation as well as risks from both oral ingestion and dermal 
absorption, and made conservative assumptions for exposure and dose 
which would tend to overstate risks to human health. It was determined 
by the Department that the human exposure route via contact with P. H. 
Glatfelter Company wastewater was not a primary route due to the fact 
that the Codorus Creek is not used as a drinking water source in the 
area, and therefore there are no viable exposure points for ingestion 
of the wastewater. In addition, if the wastewater exposure route was a 
primary exposure pathway, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
discern or isolate any unique or toxicological effects due to the 
project, since the wastewater is currently being discharged to Codorus 
Creek.
    The methodology used was slightly more rigorous than the 
aforementioned study, since hazard quotients and risk values were 
specifically calculated for the compounds investigated. The two major 
exposure pathways examined were inhalation and ingestion under maximum 
effective dose scenarios. This maximization of effective oral dose 
obviates the need to calculate oral doses from indirect ingestion 
(e.g., soil ingestion, beef, fish, milk, and water consumption). The 
following compounds were analyzed: aldrin, ammonia, alpha-BHC, beta-
BHC, delta-BHC, bromodichloromethane, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol, 
carbon disulfide, chloroform, cyanide, dalapon, dimethyl sulfide, 
dimethyl trisulfide, dimethyl sulfone, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, 1-
hexadecene, heptachlor epoxide, MCPA, MCPP, phenol, propachlor, 
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1-(2-thienyl)-1-propanone, strontium, and 
vanadium. Although delta-BHC, dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfone, 1-
hexadecene, and 1-(2-thienyl)-1-propanone have no risk-based 
concentrations available from EPA Region 3 (which suggest that these 
pose negligible risk to human health at the trace concentrations 
present in the cooling tower), they were included in the Addendum to 
demonstrate that groundlevel concentrations will be negligible. Based 
on the assumptions and methodology used in this screening assessment, 
the results indicate that the compounds investigated would not pose a 
measurable and adverse risk to human health. For non-carcinogenic 
substances, hazard quotients are all less than 1, indicating that these 
substance would not adversely affect human health. For carcinogenic 
substances, risk factors are less than 1 in 1 million, which is below 
the EPA's presumptively safe range (1  x  10-4 to 1  x  10-
6), except for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in a combined ``worst-case'' 
inhalation and dermal absorption dose, when the risk is approximately 4 
in 1 million. Further assessment does not appear to be warranted, since 
PADER identified 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane as a ``tentatively 
identified compound'' (TIC) during its analysis of P.H. Glatfelter 
Company wastewater. Although EPA guidance (EPA, Risk Assessment 
Guidance for Superfund Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part 
A), EPA/540/1-89/002, p. 5-19, 1989) allows for the use of TICs for 
human health risk assessments, caution is recommended - particularly if 
inclusion of the TIC at the detected concentrations would dominate the 
risk assessment. In the case of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, other 
analyses, including a split sample, do not confirm the presence of the 
compound, and PADER's own volatile organics analysis for which 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane was a ``Target Compound'' did not detect a 
concentration 65 times lower than the concentration used for this 
screening assessment.
    Based on the health risk assessments conducted for the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and two conducted for this document, the 
acceptable health risk levels associated with evaporative and drift 
emissions from the cooling tower do not currently support the need for 
further wastewater treatment. In addition, in the unlikely event that 
emissions from the cooling tower contribute to regulatory or health 
risk exceedances during operation (i.e., for HAPs and VOCs), there are 
a number of options that YCEP could pursue to remedy the situation.
     EPA's second comment dealt with regulatory concerns 
related to major source thresholds of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
(10 tons/year of individual HAP; 25 tons/year of aggregate HAP) and 
toxic release inventory requirements.
    These issues are related to regulatory concerns that would need to 
be coordinated with PADER for resolution. However, under the 
requirements of the CAA Amendments of 1990, the YCEP facility is not 
currently required to address hazardous air pollutants listed in 
Section 112(b) of the CAA. According to Section 112(n), Other 
Provisions, (1) Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, the EPA must 
perform a study before deciding if Section 112(b) is applicable to 
electric utility steam generating units. A draft study was issued in 
June 1995. As a general requirement of the Clean Coal program, the 
Environmental Monitoring Plan for the proposed project will contain a 
requirement for reporting monitoring results from project operation for 
some selected air toxics (as outlined in Table 4.4-1 of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement).
    DOE has received a letter from Robert Kramer, Acting Chief, 
Environmental Assessment Branch, EPA Region III, which states that the 
EPA's initial review of the human health risk assessments for the 
cooling tower indicates that the EPA's concerns have been addressed. 
EPA will conduct a more in-depth analysis over the coming weeks, and 
will advise DOE of any changes to their initial concurrence. 

[[Page 43455]]

    Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance of the Office of the Secretary, United States Department of 
Interior (DOI), submitted four comments relative to the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for this project. These same comments 
were made earlier (letter received on December 22, 1994; Volume IV, 
Written-94, Final Environmental Impact Statement) relative to the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application for 
the York County Energy Partners (YCEP) project.
     The first comment suggested that air quality could be 
expected to improve because reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
oxide, (sic., dioxide) emissions from the P. H. Glatfelter Company 
would be made federally enforceable concurrent with this permit.
    Section 4.1.2.3 (Volume I, pg. 4-21) of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement states that an enforceable restriction would apply to 
P. H. Glatfelter's Power Boiler No. 4, so that this boiler could 
operate for an equivalent of 720 hours per year at full (100 percent) 
load. An accompanying reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) would 
result from restriction of operation of Power Boiler No. 4. 
Furthermore, Section 3.1.2 (Volume I pg. 3-2) and 4.1.2.1 (Volume I, 
pg. 4-10) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement also discuss the 
regulatory requirements applicable to this project.
     A second comment indicates that (for future reference) the 
DOI wishes the permitting authority to notify the Federal Land Manager 
of all major sources on a case-by-case basis and model for those 
sources even if the distance from a Class I area is greater than 
required by current regulations (100 km), when there is a potential to 
affect air quality in such a Class I area.
    Comment is noted for future projects. The Department is responsible 
for developing NEPA documentation to assess the effects of potential 
actions on health and the human environment, regardless of distance 
from the proposed action if there is the possibility of potential, 
measurable effects. DOE has made extensive contact with the DOI on this 
project, as evidenced by the correspondence contained in Volume IV of 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement. These letters are dated March 
16, 1992; March 3, 1993; July 21, 1993; September 22, 1993; September 
23, 1993; May 27, 1994; and December 22, 1994.
     A third comment from DOI agreed that nitrogen oxide 
emissions should be determined during compliance testing, and requested 
that the BACT emission levels for other pollutants should also be 
determined and set at lower levels than the levels proposed, if testing 
indicates lower levels can be achieved on a continuous basis.
    This same comment was made earlier by DOI and responded to by the 
Department during the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (W-BJG-12/22a, Volume IV, pg. Written-96). The Department 
believes this matter has been adequately addressed in the comment 
response. In addition, a discussion of BACT and air pollution control 
equipment for this project is found in Section 4.1.2.2 of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (Volume I, pg. 4-17.)
     A final comment by Mr. Taylor indicated that the DOI 
wanted to see both nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions to be 
made federally enforceable and permanent.
    This issue was also presented earlier by DOI and the Department 
considers its response to DOI's concerns to be complete (see response 
W-BJG-12/22b, Volume IV, pg. Written-96).
    Alan J. Barak, the attorney for Mr. Richard and Mrs. Joan Clark and 
Stop Targeting Our People (STOP) submitted a ``Request/Demand for 
Supplement or New EIS'' with three specific comments and supporting 
documentation.
     The first comment asserted that the Department failed to 
include the ruling by the West Manchester Township Zoning Hearing Board 
that construction of the Bair switchyard is contrary to the Township's 
zoning laws and that a construction permit had been denied.
    The Department described the West Manchester Zoning Ordinance in 
Section 3.2.9.2 (page 3-144) and further discussed it in Sections 
4.1.14.9 (page 4-192) and Section 9.7 (page 9-19) of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, the issue, including the 
then forthcoming hearing, was covered in the responses to several 
comments, such as D-50/17 (Volume II, page DEC-109), D-51/16 (Volume 
II, page DEC-113), and D-53/8 (Volume II, page DEC-117). Thus, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement included information that was as 
current as possible. This Record of Decision provides more recent 
information in the Project Status discussion. Since final resolution of 
this issue is still pending due to YCEP's appeal of the West Manchester 
Township Board's decision, it is not currently ripe for the Department 
to address. Furthermore, in addition to appealing the West Manchester 
Township decision, YCEP has prepared preliminary designs for a mini-
substation arrangement which could be constructed entirely on existing 
Met-Ed property, thus negating the zoning issue. Therefore, the 
Department concludes that building the proposed switchyard at the Bair 
substation (which is the environmentally preferred utility corridor 
route) remains viable. Met-Ed has indicated to YCEP that it preferred a 
conventional interconnection requiring the adjacent lot and Specific 
Exemption, and only in the event that YCEP was unsuccessful in 
receiving approval for this conventional interconnection would Met-Ed 
consider other interconnection alternatives, including the mini-
substation design.
     The second comment stated that the Department did not 
address EPA's determination that alternative plant designs could lower 
the plant's polluting emissions by 70 percent. This point raises the 
question of YCEP's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis.
    The Department publicly responded to EPA-suggested design changes 
in its response to Comment W-PHK-1/31a (Volume IV, page WRITTEN-229). 
Additional responses to EPA issues were provided in the following 
agency correspondence which are reproduced in Appendix E (Volume IV) of 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement: June 9, 1994, letter to Diana 
Esher (EPA) from Jan Wachter (METC); January 17, 1995, letter to 
William G. Browne (EPA) from Gary Kinsey (YCEP); February 15, 1995, 
letter to Peter Kostmayer (EPA) from Gary Kinsey (YCEP); February 22, 
1995, letter to Peter Kostmayer (EPA) from Gary Kinsey (YCEP); March 1, 
1995, letter to Ronald Davis (PADER) from Bradley Hahn (YCEP); March 2, 
1995, letter to Ronald Davis (PADER) from Gary Kinsey (YCEP); March 21, 
1995, letter to Peter H. Kostmayer (EPA) from Thomas Bechtel (METC); 
and April 4, 1995, letter to William Browne (EPA) from Gary Kinsey 
(YCEP). Based on its own analysis and information provided by the 
boiler manufacturer, the Department has concluded that incorporating 
the design changes suggested by EPA is neither technically nor 
economically feasible and would not satisfy the Department's purpose 
and need as set forth in Section 1.3.1 (page 1-8) and Section 1.3.2 
(page 1-11) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement because the 
recommended design changes cannot be incorporated without abandoning 
the proposed technology. Ultimately, the final determination of the 
adequacy of YCEP's BACT analysis is a matter for the regulatory agency 
(PADER). PADER issued the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
permit on July 25, 1995 thus accepting YCEP's BACT analysis based on 
the atmospheric 

[[Page 43456]]
circulating fluidized bed (ACFB) technology to be employed.
     The final comment stated that the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement did not address the fact that Met-Ed has undertaken a 
``study showing that the power from the facility will cost its 
customers $900 million more than readily available alternative power'' 
and has ``filed an action at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission * 
* * to void the power purchase contract.''
    The commenter cited two sources as references to the Met-Ed study. 
Both of these sources are provided in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement. The March 14, 1995, letter from A.M. Seltzer is reproduced 
in Appendix E and the January 27, 1995, letter from A. M. Seltzer is 
provided as Comment W-AMS-1/27 with the Department's response beginning 
on page WRITTEN-153, both in Volume IV of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. The Department also updated the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement from the Draft using relevant information provided by 
Met-Ed. A new alternative was described (Volume I, Section 2.2.4.3, 
page 2-85) and associated impacts analyzed (Volume I, Section 4.3.3, 
page 4-249), and the subsection on Utilities under Section 4.1.12.3 
(Volume I, page 4-169) was revised to incorporate the relevant 
information on potential impacts to utility rates. In addition, 
responses to several comments present the results of the Met-Ed study 
[e.g., D-119/11 (Volume II, page DEC-249), D-137/17 (Volume II, page 
DEC-285), and J-152/5 (Volume III, page JAN-305)]. The Project Status 
section of this document presents the latest information the Department 
has on the action taken by Met-Ed to void the power purchase contract.
    In summary, the Department agrees that if YCEP is unable to build 
the switchyard at the Bair substation or if Met-Ed should win an appeal 
and the power purchase contract is void, then additional analyses, 
which could include the development of a Supplemental Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, may be necessary. The Department's NEPA 
process (10 CFR 1021.314) provides for supplement analysis to address 
substantial changes or significant new information relevant to 
environmental concerns. The results of supplement analysis, if 
required, cannot be predetermined. Moreover, the parties have not 
exhausted all possible remedies. Therefore, the issues are not ripe for 
Departmental consideration at this time. NEPA does not require that all 
permits be issued or that all compliance questions be resolved before 
an agency's decision on a proposed action can be made.
    John and Margaret Klunk submitted three comments with supporting 
documentation.
     The first comment pertained to U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) provisional data on organochlorine and trace elements.
    These data are from bed sediment and fish tissue collected in 1992 
from 18 sites in the lower Susquehanna River Basin, including one site 
in Codorus Creek, downstream from both the YCEP facility and the city 
of York. The provisional data indicate the occurrence of contaminants 
and are not intended to determine impacts on human health or aquatic 
life. Also, according to the USGS, because of the small data set used, 
differences in contaminant concentrations among species or even within 
species are not easily explained and site comparisons between unlike 
species are not valid and are only generally comparable using like 
species. The Pennsylvania Interagency Workgroup reviewed the data and 
determined that no public health advisories were warranted. The 
Department does not believe these data significantly change the 
description of Codorus Creek water quality as presented in Chapter 3, 
Affected Environment, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and 
thus, do not alter the environmental impact analysis presented.
     The second comment pertained to the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's 1993 Toxics Release Inventory, which became 
available in March 1995. As a result of its total releases of 1,818,951 
pounds, the P. H. Glatfelter Company was listed first among 
Pennsylvania facilities for total toxic releases.
    In the Department's discussion of the affected environment, more 
current Toxics Release Inventory data were used. As indicated in 
Section 3.1.2 (page 3-14) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
the Department based its assessment on 1994 air emissions reported to 
the EPA on Form R.
     Mr. and Mrs. Klunk's final comment pertained to 
correspondence from the P. H. Glatfelter Company to PADER's Regional 
Water Quality Manager regarding National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issues.
    These issues are currently subject to negotiation between the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company and the state agency. It would be inappropriate for 
the Department to project possible outcomes from these discussions. 
However, obtaining an NPDES permit and complying with its provisions 
are required for the facility to operate in the Commonwealth. A 
discussion on how NPDES permits are enforced is presented in the 
Department's response to Comment D-82/24 (Volume II, page DEC-175) in 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
    Carl Vallow believed that the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement's discussion on the effects from the YCEP facility on 
recreation and Lake Marburg was insufficient. He stated that adequate 
assurances still need to be provided that the ``massive'' increase in 
water usage will not be detrimental to the recreational activities and 
advantages of Lake Marburg. The Department believes that the 
discussions presented in Sections 4.1.4.2.8 (page 4-114) and 4.1.12.3 
(page 4-168) on impacts to Lake Marburg and recreational facilities, 
including Codorus State Park, support the conclusions that recreational 
activities on Lake Marburg will not be adversely impacted by the 
project. In addition, the Department provided responses to comments 
related to Mr. Vallow's concerns. Please see the responses to Comments 
D-270/2 (Volume II, page DEC-547), J-32/25 (Volume III, pages JAN-65), 
J-179/19 (Volume III, page JAN-359), and W-JK-1/28mm (Volume IV, page 
WRITTEN-195) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
    Ms. Genevieve Ketterman submitted five comments.
     She expressed her belief that there would be effects of 
the project, especially due to evaporative losses, on water supplies, 
water quality, and ``the atmosphere.'' The Department believes that the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement addresses water resource issues in 
depth in Section 4.1.4 (page 4-98) and Section 4.1.14.4 (page 4-177). 
The effects of evaporation on air quality and atmospheric conditions 
are discussed in Section 4.1.2.9 (page 4-44).
     Ms. Ketterman's second comment questioned the need for 
power in the local area. The Final Environmental Impact Statement 
discusses the need for power in the Met-Ed service area, including York 
County, in Section 1.3.4 (page 1-14), in the response to Comment D-83/5 
(Volume II, page DEC-177), and also in Appendix K (Volume IV).
     Ms. Ketterman also mentioned that the proposed facility 
would ``place a burden on Met-Ed,'' and thus would negatively impact 
consumers. This issue is addressed in great length in Section 4.1.12.3 
(page 4-169) and in the responses to Comment D-119/11 (Volume II, page 
DEC-249) and Comment J-152/5 (Volume III, page JAN-305).

[[Page 43457]]

     Fourth, Ms. Ketterman stated that despite the offsets, the 
facility ``still means more emissions and pollution.'' Section 4.1.2.3 
(page 4-21) discusses the net reductions in emissions of many criteria 
pollutants and the expected increases of some pollutants. However, 
detailed analyses determined that emissions of all pollutants are 
expected to be within established limits. Section 4.1.2.11 (page 4-63) 
describes the health effects of these emissions and shows that no 
adverse impact is expected.
     Finally, Ms. Ketterman questioned the worthiness of this 
project for DOE funding. The Department uses established procedures on 
the selection of a project as described in Section 1.4 (page 1-16) of 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and diligently follows each 
step. This Record of Decision presents the Department's concise 
articulation of its decision to fund the YCEP project under the Clean 
Coal Technology Demonstration Program.
    Robin Sigworth submitted seven substantive comments.
     M. Sigworth first claimed that the Department uses the 
assertion that ``the area is already heavily polluted... to justify... 
further pollution and environmental degradation.'' In the NEPA process, 
the Department must consider the baseline conditions of the affected 
area when assessing the impacts of a proposed project. Consequently, 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement does, in fact, recognize that 
the York County area, as a historically industrialized region, has 
higher ambient levels of some pollutants. For instance, Section 3.1.4.1 
(page 3-27) presents the baseline conditions of Codorus Creek water 
quality, noting that the creek has been degraded in the past, due in 
large part to municipal and industrial discharges and agricultural 
runoff. The Department recognizes that the assessed impact from 
increasing emissions or concentrations of pollutants in a previously 
degraded area may not be as significant as for a pristine area. In 
degraded areas, even a small incremental increase could result in a 
negative impact. The analysis of impacts associated with the YCEP 
facility, relative to the baseline conditions, indicated that few 
adverse impacts are expected. Mitigation measures, outlined in the 
Department's Mitigation Action Plan, will be implemented to alleviate 
those adverse impacts that cannot be avoided (e.g., habitat loss on 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land).
     Second, M. Sigworth believed that the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement deceives readers by misrepresenting Met-Ed's opinion 
of the project, the need for power, and the effect of the project on 
electric rates. The Department included all correspondence from Met-Ed 
in Appendix E (Volume IV) and provided responses to Comment W-AMS-1/27 
beginning on page WRITTEN-153 in Volume IV. Information presented in 
the body of the Final Environmental Impact Statement represents the 
Department's assessment of the situation, incorporating the opinions of 
and the information provided by a vast number of sources, including 
Met-Ed. The need for power is evaluated in Section 1.3.4 (page 1-14), 
in the response to Comment D-83/5 (Volume II, page DEC-177), and also 
in Appendix K (Volume IV). An adequate discussion of projected utility 
rates can be found in Section 4.1.12.3 (page 4-169) and in the 
responses to Comment D-119/11 (Volume II, page DEC-249), Comment D-137/
17 (Volume II, page DEC-285), and Comment J-152/5 (Volume III, page 
JAN-305).
     Third, M. Sigworth suggested that the Department did not 
``fully address the impacts on the human community.'' The Department 
believes that the local community and its various resources (e.g., 
cultural and socioeconomic) are accurately described throughout Chapter 
3 and included in the corresponding assessments of environmental 
consequences in Chapter 4. For instance, the Department has included 
specific local residences as noise and visual receptors [Section 4.1.7 
(page 4-144) and Section 4.1.1 (page 4-3), respectively], and included 
all York County area residents, regardless of age, race, sex, or 
religion, etc. in the health risk analysis [Section 4.1.2.11 (page 4-
63)].
     Fourth, M. Sigworth questioned the `` `pollution reduction 
figures' based on shutting down (emphasis Sigworth's) an unmodified [P. 
H. Glatfelter Company] Power Boiler No. 4.'' As Section 4.1.2.3 (page 
4-23) describes in substantial detail, all estimated emission rates are 
based on the enforceable curtailment of Power Boiler No. 4 to 720 hours 
of operation per year. M. Sigworth also notes that ``this same boiler 
was due for an environmental overhaul regardless of [DOE's decision].'' 
This is true and reflected in the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) values 
used in analyses presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 
As discussed in Section 4.1.2.3 (page 4-23), the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Amendments of 1990 required the P. H. Glatfelter Company to install 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on Power Boiler No. 4, 
which was completed in July 1994. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 
4.1.2.1 (page 4-16), the CAA Amendments of 1990 require that RACT 
emissions levels be used as the existing baseline source in calculating 
Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs).
     Fifth, to the suggestion that the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement has ``poorly 'reasoned away' the documented fog 
problems,'' the Department disagrees and believes a thorough evaluation 
was performed and presented in the discussion of current fog conditions 
in Section 3.1.2 (page 3-15) and in the response to Comment D-62/8 
(Volume II, page DEC-135).
     Sixth, M. Sigworth surmises that the Department has 
``failed to discuss contingency enforcement fine levels for 
offenders.'' The Department's role in this proposed project is not that 
of a regulatory agency. Fines are established by legislation and 
enforced by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection 
Agency and PADER. Consequently, this is not a deficiency in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.
     Finally, M. Sigworth concludes that ``significant impact 
studies on property values'' are not presented in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement. The Department believes the analysis of 
impacts to real estate provided in Section 4.1.12.2 (page 4-166) and 
Section 4.1.14.12 (page 4-197) to be sufficient.
    Mr. Pat Brown submitted a reproduction of a page from the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (Volume IV, page WRITTEN-123) containing 
the responses to two comments he had previously submitted. He was of 
the opinion that the Department's replies were not written from the 
perspective of someone whose life would be directly affected by the 
project.
     Mr. Brown noted that the response to W-PB-01/16a did not 
clearly state whether or not the proposed facility would adversely 
affect the quality of life in the community and did not address the 
issue of health effects on children. He also noted that money cannot 
replace anyone's health.
    The Department included reference to the economic benefits that 
could result from construction and operation of the YCEP facility 
because financial security is reasonably included in a definition of 
``quality of life.'' Mr. Brown is correct that the response does not 
specifically address health effects to children; however, because of 
the concerns regarding children, prior to issuance of the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement, the Department reassessed health risks 
(particularly to children) for 

[[Page 43458]]
boiler stack and cooling tower emissions. This information is presented 
in Section 4.1.2.11 (page 4-65) of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement. The Department's analysis indicated that the project should 
not adversely affect the health of children. Throughout the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, the Department presents its evaluation 
of environmental consequences in terms of the likelihood of occurrence; 
consequently, unequivocal claims are not made.
     The second comment referred to the size of the YCEP 
facility. Mr. Brown indicated that the Department's statement ``[t]he 
plant size * * * is necessary to fulfill the needs of DOE's Clean Coal 
Technology Program,'' in the response to Comment W-PB-01/16b, could be 
translated to ``first on the list is to qualify for grant money.''
    The scale of the single-boiler fluidized-bed unit [which will be 
25% larger than any other unit built, under construction, or being 
planned] was a factor in the Department's decision to select the 
proposed project for demonstration under the Clean Coal Technology 
Program. As noted earlier in this Record of Decision, the Department 
believes that development of ACFB technology at the scale which will be 
used in the YCEP Cogeneration Facility will accelerate the 
commercialization of this maturing clean coal technology. If the ACFB 
technology had been proposed at a smaller scale, it is probable that 
the Department would not have viewed it as a technology requiring 
demonstration, and thus, would not have considered funding it under the 
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program.
    Dr. Richard Dabb submitted a comment where he reiterated his 
personal opposition to the project and asserted that his concerns 
regarding adverse impacts to human health were not adequately reviewed. 
The Department disagrees. The Department analyzed every report 
previously submitted by the York County medical and osteopathic 
communities, provided summaries in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (page 4-69), and incorporated information from the reports in 
an expanded health risk assessment discussion in Section 4.1.2.11 (page 
4-63). In addition, responses to specific health effects issues were 
provided for more that 30 comments, including: D-85/3; D-241/17; D-242/
11; D-243/2; D-255/11; D-256/1; D-257/4; J-85/21; J-111/3; J-112/3; J-
121/7; J-124/13; J-131/13; W-ACP-12/15a; W-HES-1/04a; W-LFL-12/14; W-
MK-1/28; W-PNK-1/3; W-PNP-12/94d; W-RS-1/27d; and W-YCMS-1/30.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately 
$75 million in cost-shared federal funding support to YCEP for the 
construction and operation of the ACFB technology as described in the 
FEIS and summarized earlier in this Record of Decision. The YCEP 
project will demonstrate ACFB technology in a cogeneration setting at a 
single-boiler utility-scale which is approximately 25 percent larger 
than any ACFB planned or in current operation. The project is expected 
to generate sufficient data from the design, construction, and 
operation to allow private industry to more accurately assess the 
commercial potential of utility-scale (250-400 MWe) ACFB technology 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. The 
Department has evaluated the projected environmental impacts and 
weighed the costs and benefits of proceeding with the proposed action, 
and has determined that the benefits of early commercialization of the 
technology described in the FEIS outweigh the limited environmental 
impacts, which will be largely mitigated by the actions described in 
this Record of Decision.

Mitigation Action Plan
    Section 1021.331(a) of the Department of Energy regulations 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part 1021) 
states that the Department shall prepare a Mitigation Action Plan that 
addresses mitigation commitments expressed in the Record of Decision. 
As a condition of providing federal funds under the Clean Coal 
Technology Demonstration Program, the Department will require that 
those mitigative measures, to which it has committed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and more specifically outlined and 
discussed in the Mitigation Action Plan, will be implemented during the 
construction and demonstration periods of the YCEP project.
    In the course of making its decision, the Department analyzed the 
information presented such as environmental and human health impacts 
and associated mitigation measures, and determined that some of the 
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the 
cogeneration facility, which include sound engineering and proper 
construction practices, and that some of the mitigation measures are 
part of existing YCEP/Air Products operating procedures. These 
measures, which are considered part of the project, prevent or reduce 
the likelihood of an adverse impact from occurring. However, the 
Department also concluded that some adverse impacts are unavoidable 
and, therefore, is requiring YCEP to complete additional mitigation or 
monitoring measures that will lessen the severity of adverse 
environmental impacts. All practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm from the proposed action have been adopted. As part 
of its agreement with the Department, YCEP is required to prepare an 
Environmental Monitoring Plan and submit associated reports. The 
Department will require YCEP to incorporate the following mitigation 
measures into its Environmental Monitoring Plan and to document related 
activities in quarterly reports.

Codorus Creek Monitoring

    For the duration of the demonstration phase, YCEP will collect 
samples from Codorus Creek both upstream and downstream of the P. H. 
Glatfelter Company discharge. Samples of temperature, color, total 
dissolved solids, lead, copper, chloride, free cyanide, phenolics, and 
chloroform will be analyzed each quarter and during low-flow events.

Sampling of P.H. Glatfelter Company Effluent/Cooling Tower Evaporant 
Stream

    YCEP will conduct monthly sampling of P.H. Glatfelter Company 
effluent/YCEP cooling tower evaporant stream as required by its PSD 
permit, and will analyze the following components: volatile organic 
compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, chloroform, formaldehyde, 
dimethylsulfide, chlorinated herbicides, and organochloride pesticides. 
These sampling/analysis results will be submitted both to the PADER and 
the Department within 30 days of completion of the laboratory analysis. 
As a condition of this Record of Decision, these sampling results will 
be made public by YCEP. YCEP will announce the availability of these 
sampling results in the local reading rooms through notice in the local 
newspapers.
    Sampling results will be used to verify compliance with the 50 
tons/year VOC emission limit and to verify that hazardous air pollutant 
concentrations in the cooling water are consistent with the sampling 
values known to PADER and the Department prior to issuance of 

[[Page 43459]]
both the PSD Air Permit and this Record of Decision. Net VOC emissions 
from the YCEP facility will not exceed 50 tons/year on an annualized 
basis as prescribed by law.

Use of Geotextile Fabric for Temporary Roads

    To protect existing ground, YCEP will create temporary roads that 
have a stone fill on top of geotextile filter cloth. This measure will 
be taken, as needed, throughout the construction period. After 
construction, the stone fill and textile cloth will be removed.

Shrub Planting of Riparian Areas

    YCEP will plant low growing shrub species in riparian areas along 
Codorus Creek that have been cleared for transmission lines. Plantings 
will take place as soon as possible following clearing, and under 
favorable planting/establishment conditions.

Providing Nesting Structures

    YCEP will place wood duck nesting boxes and other water fowl 
nesting structures along Codorus Creek wherever large trees are 
removed. YCEP will also place kestrel nesting boxes, bat boxes, and 
other wildlife nesting/resting structures on the single-shaft steel or 
wooden poles supporting the transmission line. The number, type, and 
placement of nesting boxes will be mutually agreed upon by YCEP and the 
Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Planting Warm Season Grasses

    YCEP will plant warm season grass species. This measure will be 
performed, as needed, throughout the construction phase, during 
favorable planting conditions for seedling establishment. Unsuccessful 
seedings will be reseeded the following spring.

Brush Pile Construction

    YCEP will construct brush piles with vegetation cleared or trimmed 
for pole and transmission line placement. This measure will be 
performed, as needed, throughout the construction phase. The number and 
placement of brush piles will be mutually agreed upon by YCEP and the 
Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Reducing Logs and Limbs to Mulch

    YCEP will reduce logs and limbs from cleared areas to chip 
materials and leave them as mulch. This measure will be performed, as 
needed, throughout the construction phase.

Steam Purge Notification

    At the end of the construction phase, YCEP will take steps to 
minimize the impact to local residents from the loud noise associated 
with purging dirt and debris from the steam systems. These measures may 
include providing advanced notice, minimizing the occurrence, 
scheduling activities during less sensitive hours, and/or using vent 
silencers.

Purchase of Residences

    Although the expected magnetic field intensities at the residences 
closest to Bair substation is less than 1 milligauss, YCEP will 
negotiate purchase options for two properties near the Bair substation, 
so it can assume ownership.

On-Street Parking Ban

    During construction, YCEP facility security will enforce a ban of 
on-street parking at the North Codorus site by posting signs, 
patrolling the area, and arranging for vehicles to be towed if 
necessary.
Traffic Monitoring

    YCEP facility security will monitor traffic conditions throughout 
the construction period. If congestion is noted, additional mitigation 
measures will be implemented. These measures may include scheduling of 
shifts or stationing traffic control personnel at critical locations.

Traffic Signal Installation

    YCEP will communicate with the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that a 
traffic signal is installed at the York Road/Jefferson Road/Lehman Road 
intersection before construction begins.

History/Tour of Dempwolf Architectural Firm

    In accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department 
and the Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, YCEP will 
publish a history and self-guided tour of the Dempwolf architectural 
firm for distribution to the public. An outline, draft, and final draft 
of the Dempwolf self-guided tour materials will be prepared and 
reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation. YCEP will provide 500 
copies of the publication for distribution and a reproducible copy for 
Historic York, Inc. The publication will be completed within 1\1/2\ 
years after the Memorandum of Agreement becomes effective.

Assist Bureau for Historic Preservation with Computer Coding

    In accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department 
and the Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, YCEP will 
provide the Bureau for Historic Preservation with a qualified 
consultant, having a working knowledge of the Pennsylvania Historic 
Resource Survey Form and York County resources. This individual will 
work for a total of 15 days for 7\1/2\ hours each day and will assist 
the Bureau with computer coding, mapping, and general organization of 
York county historical survey records. Work will be completed within 6 
months after the Memorandum of Agreement becomes effective.
    Procedures currently are in place for Department oversight of 
project activities. A Mitigation Action Plan for the YCEP Cogeneration 
Facility has been developed that identifies how the Department will 
ensure that YCEP implements all mitigation commitments and provides a 
schedule for completion. This plan describes all of the mitigation 
measures, including those incorporated into the project that prevent or 
reduce the likelihood of an adverse impact occurring. Copies of the 
Mitigation Action Plan may be obtained from Dr. Suellen A. Van 
Ooteghem, Environmental Project Manager, Morgantown Energy Technology 
Center, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880. Telephone 
(304) 285-5443.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 1995.
Patricia Fry Godley,
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-20551 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P