[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14710-14713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7487]



[[Page 14710]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Proposed McIntosh Unit 4 Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed 
Demonstration Project

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE 
NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021), to assess the potential 
environmental and human health impacts of a proposed project to expand 
the C. D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant in Lakeland, Florida. The proposed 
project, selected under DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program, would 
demonstrate both Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed (PCFB) and 
Topped PCFB technologies. The proposed project would involve the 
construction and operation of a nominal 238 MWe (megawatts of electric 
power) combined-cycle power plant designed to burn a range of low- to 
high-sulfur coals. The EIS will help DOE decide whether to provide 44% 
of the funding for the currently estimated $440,000,000 proposed 
project.
    The purpose of this Notice is to inform the public about the 
proposed action; present the schedule for the action; announce the 
plans for a public scoping meeting; invite public participation in (and 
explain) the scoping process that DOE will follow to comply with the 
requirements of NEPA; and solicit public comments for consideration in 
establishing the proposed scope and content of the EIS. The EIS will 
evaluate the proposed project and reasonable alternatives.

DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal 
are addressed, DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content 
of the EIS from all interested parties. All comments must be received 
by May 21, 1999, to ensure consideration. Late comments will be 
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments 
in writing and by telephone, DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting 
in which agencies, organizations, and the general public are invited to 
present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the range of 
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS. The 
scoping meeting will be held in the City of Lakeland's City Commission 
Chambers, 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, Florida at 7 p.m. 
on April 13, 1999. On the day of the meeting, from 1 p.m. until 7 p.m. 
preceding the meeting, DOE will host an informational session for 
interested parties in a conference room adjoining the City Commission 
Chambers. Displays and other forms of information about the proposed 
action and its location will be available, and DOE personnel will be 
available to answer questions. The public is invited to this informal 
session to learn more about the proposed action.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to participate in the public 
scoping process should be addressed to:

Mr. Joseph Martin, Document Manager, Federal Energy Technology Center, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 
26507-0880

    Individuals who would like to provide comments and/or otherwise 
participate in the public scoping process should contact Mr. Martin 
directly at telephone 304-285-4447; toll free number 1-800-432-8330 
(ext. 4447); fax 304-285-4469; or e-mail [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
this project or to receive a copy of the draft EIS for review when it 
is issued, contact Mr. Joseph Martin at the address provided above. For 
general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact:

Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance 
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20585-0119, 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-
472-2756

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Agency Action

    Under Public Law 102-154, the U.S. Congress authorized and funded 
DOE to conduct cost-shared Clean Coal Technology Program projects for 
the design, construction, and operation of facilities that 
significantly advance the efficiency and environmental performance of 
coal-using technologies and apply to either new or existing facilities. 
DOE's purpose for this proposed action, which is known as the McIntosh 
Unit 4 PCFB Demonstration Project, is to establish through successful 
technology demonstration, the commercial viability of a Topped PCFB 
combustion combined-cycle plant. Funding for this action would be made 
available through the novation (substitution of a new obligation for an 
old one) of two previous Clean Coal Technology Program awards: (1) 
Cooperative Agreement DE-FC21-91MC27364, DMEC-1 Limited Partnership's 
PCFB Demonstration Project; and (2) Cooperative Agreement DE-FC21-
94MC31261, Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project. The decision to 
combine the two projects into one at a new location was made because of 
diminished prospects for proceeding at their original sites due to 
uncertainties regarding regional power requirements. The City of 
Lakeland, however, is in an area experiencing substantial growth in 
demand for electricity. In addition, combining the two projects would 
save taxpayers more than $30,000,000 in Federal cost sharing (compared 
to building two projects separately) without sacrificing the original 
objectives.
    Over the next several decades, increases in demand for electric 
power and replacement of a significant amount of electric power 
generating capacity that is approaching the end of its design service 
life are expected to require the construction of new generating 
stations. The most abundant domestic fuel, coal, continues to represent 
an attractive energy source for new generating capacity. The proposed 
McIntosh Unit 4 PCFB Demonstration Project would fulfill an established 
DOE programmatic need to demonstrate advanced technology that may 
improve the environmental performance and efficiency of coal-fired 
power generation facilities.
    Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have 
pursued research and development programs that include long-term, high-
risk activities through the proof-of-concept stage in developing 
innovative concepts for a wide variety of coal technologies. However, 
the availability of a technology at the proof-of-concept stage is not 
sufficient to ensure its continued development and subsequent 
commercialization. Before any technology can be considered seriously 
for commercialization, it must be demonstrated. The financial risk 
associated with technology demonstration generally is too high for the 
private sector to assume without strong incentives. Congress 
established the Clean Coal Technology Program to accelerate the 
development of innovative technologies to meet the nation's near-term 
energy and environmental goals, to reduce technological risk to the 
business community to an acceptable level, and to provide incentives 
for the private

[[Page 14711]]

sector to pursue innovative research and development directed at 
providing solutions to long-range energy supply problems.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative 
agreement with the City of Lakeland, Florida, cost-shared financial 
assistance for the design, construction, and operation of the proposed 
McIntosh Unit 4 PCFB Demonstration Project, described below. The 
proposed project would last 121 months after novation of prior 
agreements (see Background and Need for Agency Action) and would cost a 
total of approximately $440,000,000; DOE's share would be approximately 
$195,000,000 (44%).
    The proposed project would be constructed at the existing C.D. 
McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant, which is located in the City of Lakeland, 
Florida along the northeastern shore of Lake Parker. The current 
McIntosh Plant is an industrial site encompassing about 530 acres. The 
Plant includes three fossil-fuel-fired steam electric units, two 
diesel-powered peaking units, and one simple-cycle gas turbine peaking 
unit; water treatment facilities; fuel handling facilities (oil storage 
and coal handling and storage); air pollution control facilities; 
wastewater treatment facilities; by-product treatment and storage 
facilities; and an ash disposal area. Further, the City of Lakeland is 
adding to the McIntosh Plant a simple-cycle power generation unit that 
will use a Siemans Westinghouse 501G turbine to generate a nominal 250 
MWe. In addition to the McIntosh Plant, the City of Lakeland owns and 
operates the Larsen Power Plant, which also is located on Lake Parker 
approximately 2 miles south of the McIntosh facility. The Larsen Plant 
provides 243 megawatts of electric power capacity and is fueled by oil 
and natural gas.
    The Lake Parker area has been extensively mined for phosphate; 
several ponds and wetlands have formed in depressions left from these 
past mining activities. Mud Lake, a small wetland, is located to the 
north and adjacent to the fence line of the McIntosh Plant, but outside 
the proposed footprint of the PCFB Demonstration. A significant natural 
resource, the Class I Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, is 
located approximately 55-60 miles northwest of Lakeland. The McIntosh 
Plant site lies above the 100-year statistical flood frequency 
elevation.
    PCFB technology is a combined-cycle power generation system that is 
based on the pressurized combustion of solid fuel to generate steam, 
combined with the expansion of hot pressurized flue gas through a gas 
turbine. The technology can be subdivided into the basic PCFB cycle 
(first generation or ``Non-Topped'') and Topped PCFB cycle (second 
generation or ``Advanced'').
    In the basic PCFB cycle, hot pressurized flue gas is expanded 
through a gas turbine at a temperature of less than 1400 deg.F. Tubes 
contained in the PCFB generate, superheat, and reheat steam for use 
with the most advanced steam turbines. Hot, pressurized combustion gas 
leaving the PCFB can drive a gas turbine for additional power 
generation. Combustion and fluidizing air is supplied from the 
compressor section of the gas turbine to the PCFB combustor located 
inside a pressure vessel. Dried coal and sorbent (usually limestone) 
are fed to the combustor using a conventional pneumatic transport 
system employing lock hoppers. The limestone sorbent captures sulfur in 
situ as sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are controlled by 
temperature and pressure. Particulate matter is removed from the flue 
gas exiting the combustor using cyclones and barrier filters located 
between the PCFB and the gas turbine. The hot gas cleaned by the filter 
system expands through the gas turbine, exhausts to a heat recovery 
unit, and vents to a stack. The heat recovered from both the combustor 
and the heat recovery unit is used to raise, superheat and reheat steam 
for use in the steam turbine. Approximately 25% of the total power 
produced is generated in the gas turbine, and the balance is generated 
in the steam turbine.
    The topped PCFB technology integrates a carbonizer island and gas 
turbine topping combustor into the PCFB cycle. The carbonizer is an 
air-blown jetting, fluidized bed operating at 1600 deg.F to 1800 deg.F. 
Dried coal and sorbent are fed to the carbonizer using a conventional 
pneumatic transport system employing lock hoppers. The coal is 
devolatilized and partially gasified to produce a low-BTU synthesis gas 
and a solid residue (called char) that is removed from the carbonizer 
and transferred to the PCFB for combustion. The limestone sorbent 
captures sulfur as calcium sulfide and also acts as a stabilizer to 
prevent bed agglomeration and to aid in partial gasification. The 
particulate matter (char plus reacted and unreacted sorbent) in the 
synthesis gas is removed using a cyclone and hot gas particulate filter 
system similar to that used for the PCFB. This collected material, 
together with the main char flow from the carbonizer, is transferred to 
the PCFB to complete combustion and sulfur removal. The hot clean 
synthesis gas is burned in the topping combustor to raise the turbine 
inlet temperature to the firing temperature of the gas turbine.
    The planned project would involve two sequential demonstrations as 
follows:
    (1) The first demonstration would be a PCFB cycle that would come 
on-line in July 2002 and would provide approximately 145 MWe of coal-
fired generating capacity. The system would have a gas turbine inlet 
temperature under 1400 deg.F.
    (2) The second demonstration, which would be constructed and 
brought on-line approximately two years later, would convert the PCFB 
system to a Topped PCFB system by adding a carbonizer island that 
includes a topping combustor. The addition of the carbonizer system 
would generate a coal-derived, low-BTU synthesis gas that would be 
burned in the topping combustor to raise the turbine inlet temperature 
to more than 1900 deg.F. In order to provide the total power that the 
City of Lakeland needs from the project, an auxiliary coal-fired heat 
recovery steam generator would provide the necessary steam superheating 
and feedwater heating. The net effect would be an additional 93 MWe of 
power output.
    Under the proposed action, the McIntosh Unit 4 would be designed to 
burn a wide range of coals including high ash-high sulfur coals that 
are expected to become available in the future at substantially lower 
prices than mid-to-low-sulfur bituminous coals. Further, limestone for 
the circulating fluidized bed would be obtained from a number of nearby 
Florida limestone quarries; ash produced during the processing would be 
disposed of in an existing landfill or marketed to others after such 
markets are identified.
    The majority of the project's water makeup requirements would be 
met by using secondary treated sewage effluent in the cooling tower. 
Service water, which is potable water from the public water utility, 
would be used only for boiler water makeup feed to the demineralizer 
system. Wastewater from the PCFB Demonstration unit would be treated on 
site, by neutralization and removal of heavy metals, before being 
returned to the Glendale wastewater treatment facility, which is owned 
by the City of Lakeland, for discharge.
    To ensure that the PCFB technology meets applicable emissions 
limits, gaseous emissions from the plant would be controlled, as 
required, using state-of-the-art technology. For example, the amount of 
high sulfur coal would be

[[Page 14712]]

reduced or sulfur dioxide would be removed using limestone scrubbers; 
the oxides of nitrogen would be controlled by managing combustion 
temperature and pressure, or by using selective non-catalytic reduction 
technology; and particulate matter would be removed by barrier filters 
or electrostatic precipitators.

Alternatives

    Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that agencies discuss the 
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS. The purpose 
for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives. 
Congress established the Clean Coal Technology Program with a specific 
purpose: to demonstrate the commercial viability of technologies that 
use coal in more environmentally benign ways than conventional coal 
technologies. Congress also directed DOE to pursue the goals of the 
legislation by means of partial funding (cost sharing) of projects 
owned and controlled by non-Federal government sponsors. This statutory 
requirement places DOE in a much more limited role than if the Federal 
Government were the owner and operator of the project. In the latter 
situation, for example, DOE would be responsible for a comprehensive 
review of reasonable alternatives. However, in dealing with an 
applicant, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted. It 
is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the 
applicant's needs in establishing a project's reasonable alternatives.
    An overall strategy for compliance with NEPA was developed for the 
Clean Coal Technology Program that includes consideration of both 
programmatic and project-specific environmental impacts during and 
after the process of selecting a project. As part of the NEPA strategy, 
the EIS for the proposed McIntosh Unit 4 demonstration project will 
tier off the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 
that was issued by DOE in November 1989 (DOE/EIS-0146). Two 
alternatives were evaluated in the PEIS: (1) the no-action alternative, 
which assumed that the Clean Coal Technology Program was not continued 
and that conventional coal-fired technologies with flue gas 
desulfurization and nitrogen oxide controls, to meet New Source 
Performance Standards, would continue to be used; and (2) the proposed 
action, which assumed that the clean coal projects would be selected 
and funded, and that successfully demonstrated technologies would 
undergo widespread commercialization by the year 2010.
    The range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS 
for the proposed McIntosh Unit 4 demonstration project is narrowed in 
accordance with the overall NEPA strategy. The EIS will include an 
analysis of the no-action alternative as a reasonable alternative to 
the proposed action of providing cost-shared funding support for the 
proposed project. DOE will consider other reasonable alternatives that 
may be suggested during the public scoping period.
    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide partial 
funding for the design, construction, and operation of the project. In 
the absence of DOE funding, the McIntosh Unit 4 facility probably would 
not be constructed, although the City of Lakeland could construct the 
proposed project without DOE cost-shared funding. If the proposed 
McIntosh Unit 4 is not built, other alternative sources for electric 
power would be necessary for the City of Lakeland to meet future 
demands of its customers. Such alternatives could include purchasing 
power from other sources, adding generation capacity that does not rely 
on PCFB technology (e.g., natural gas), or using some other current 
technology. Lakeland could also consider repowering old existing units 
at the McIntosh site. In the EIS, DOE will consider these variations of 
the no-action alternative.
    Because of DOE's limited role of providing cost-shared funding for 
the proposed McIntosh Unit 4 PCFB project, and because of advantages 
associated with the proposed location, DOE does not plan to evaluate 
alternative sites for the proposed project. An existing plant site is 
preferred because the costs associated with a ``greenfield site'' in an 
undisturbed area would be much higher and the environmental impacts 
likely would be greater than at an existing facility.
    Project activities would include engineering and design, 
permitting, fabrication and construction, testing, and demonstration of 
PCFB technology and Topped PCFB technology. The EIS will assume that 
the proposed facility would continue its commercial operation after the 
demonstration of Topped PCFB technology is completed. DOE plans to 
complete the EIS and issue a Record of Decision within 15 months of 
this Notice, assuming timely delivery of information from the City of 
Lakeland necessary for development of the EIS.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis 
in the EIS. This list, which is based on analyses of similar projects, 
is not intended to be all-inclusive nor a predetermined set of 
potential impacts, but is presented to facilitate public comment on the 
scope of the EIS. Additions to or deletions from this list may occur as 
a result of the scoping process. The issues include:
    (1) Atmospheric resources: potential air quality impacts resulting 
from air emissions during current and future operations of the McIntosh 
Plant (e.g., effects of ground-level concentrations of criteria 
pollutants and trace metals on surrounding residential areas and 
sensitive areas (such as the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, 
(a Class I refuge located approximately 55-60 miles northwest of 
Lakeland));
    (2) Water resources: potential effects on surface water and 
groundwater resources consumed and discharged, including any impacts on 
wetlands;
    (3) Infrastructure and land use: potential effects resulting from 
the transport of additional coal and limestone required for the 
proposed project;
    (4) Solid waste: pollution prevention and waste management 
practices, including impacts caused by generation, treatment, 
transport, storage, and disposal of ash;
    (5) Construction: impacts associated with noise, traffic patterns, 
and construction-related emissions;
    (6) Changes in the sources of coal for the overall plant;
    (7) Environmental Justice issues with respect to the surrounding 
community;
    (8) Cumulative effects that result from the incremental impacts of 
the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions.

Public Scoping Process

    To ensure that all issues related to this proposal are addressed, 
DOE will conduct an open process to define the scope of the EIS. The 
public scoping period will run until May 21, 1999. Interested agencies, 
organizations, and the general public are encouraged to submit comments 
or suggestions concerning the content of the EIS, issues and impacts to 
be addressed in the EIS, and the alternatives that should be analyzed. 
Scoping comments should clearly describe specific issues or topics that 
the EIS should address in order to assist DOE in identifying 
significant issues.
    Written, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned comments should be 
communicated by May 21, 1999 (see ADDRESSES). A public scoping meeting 
to be conducted by DOE will be held in the City of Lakeland City 
Commission

[[Page 14713]]

Chambers on April 13, 1999, at 7 p.m. The address of the City 
Commission Chambers is: 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, 
Florida. In addition, DOE will hold an informational session at the 
same location from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. on April 13. Displays and other 
materials and DOE personnel will be available to provide information 
about the proposed action.
    DOE requests that anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping 
meeting contact Mr. Joseph Martin, either by phone, fax, computer, or 
in writing (see ADDRESSES in this Notice). Individuals who do not make 
advance arrangements to speak may register at the meeting and will be 
given the opportunity to speak after all previously scheduled speakers 
have made their presentations. Speakers who wish to make presentations 
longer than five minutes should indicate the length of time desired in 
their request. Depending on the number of speakers, it may be necessary 
to limit speakers to five minute presentations initially, with the 
opportunity for additional presentations as time permits. Speakers can 
also provide additional written information to supplement their 
presentations. Oral and written comments will be given equal 
consideration.
    DOE will begin the meeting with an overview of the proposed 
McIntosh Unit 4 demonstration project. A presiding officer will be 
designated by DOE to chair the meeting. The meeting will not be 
conducted as an evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-
examined.
    However, speakers may be asked to clarify their statements to 
ensure that DOE fully understands the comments or suggestions. The 
presiding officer will establish the order of speakers and provide any 
additional procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of March, 1999.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 99-7487 Filed 3-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P