[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 123 (Monday, June 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34640-34643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16355]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR)
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) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321, et seq.), 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 under the Clean Coal Technology Program
that would integrate the production of molten iron for steelmaking with
the production of electricity. The Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore
Reduction (CPICOR) project, proposed to be located within the Geneva
Steel Company's existing plant at Vineyard, Utah, would demonstrate the
integration of the High Intensity Smelting (HIsmelt)
ironmaking process with technology to generate electricity using steam
heated by combustion gas from the HIsmelt process. The EIS
will help DOE decide whether to provide 15% of the funding for the $1
billion proposed project.
The purpose of this Notice of Intent 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 potential impacts of the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives.
DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal
is addressed, DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of
the EIS from all interested parties. All comments must be received by
August 16, 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 at the Council Chambers of the Provo City
Center, 351 W. Center Street, Provo, Utah, at 7 p.m. on Thursday, July
15, 1999. In addition, DOE will host an informational session for
interested parties from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. on the day of the meeting
at the Council Chambers. Displays and other forms of information about
the proposed project 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 project.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to participate in the public
scoping process should be addressed to: Mr. Joseph Renk, NEPA Document
Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center,
P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940.
Individuals who would like to provide comments and/or otherwise
participate in the public scoping process should contact Mr. Renk
directly at telephone 412-892-6249; fax 412-892-4775; e-mail
[email protected]; or by recorded message at toll-free number 1-800-
276-9851.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about
this project or to receive a copy of the draft EIS when it is issued,
contact Mr. Joseph Renk 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, S.W., Washington, D.C.
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 provided authorization
and funds to DOE for conducting cost-shared Clean Coal Technology (CCT)
Program projects for the design, construction, and operation of
facilities that ``* * * shall advance significantly the efficiency and
environmental performance of coal-using technologies and be applicable
to either new or existing facilities * * *'' Under a solicitation in
1992 pursuant to this law (Round V of the CCT Program) and a subsequent
appropriation (Public Law 101-512), DOE selected for further
consideration for cost-shared funding a proposal from the CPICOR
Management Company for design, construction, and operation of a process
to integrate production of molten iron for steelmaking with production
of electricity for utility distribution.
The demonstration of the CPICOR project under the CCT Program would
fulfill an existing programmatic need. Although substantial deposits of
coal exist as a resource suitable for and capable of resolving critical
energy issues, there are a number of obstacles that present barriers to
its increased use. These impediments include: (1) Concerns about
environmental issues, such as acid deposition, global climate change,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions, and solid waste; (2)
commercial demonstration of acceptable coal use technologies; and (3)
technical and economic performance of the technologies. Thus, since the
early 1970's, DOE and its predecessor agencies have pursued research
and development programs that have included long-term, high-risk
activities to support the development of a wide variety of innovative
coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage.
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
[[Page 34641]]
technology can be seriously considered for commercialization, it must
be demonstrated. The financial risk associated with technology
demonstration is, in general, too high for the private sector to assume
without strong incentives or legal requirements. The CCT Program was
established by Congress and endorsed by the private sector as a way to
accelerate the development of innovative technologies to meet the
nation's near-term energy and environmental goals, to reduce the
business community's investment risk to an acceptable level, and to
provide incentives for the private 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 CPICOR Management Company, cost-shared financial
assistance for the design, construction, and operation of the proposed
project as described below. The project would cost approximately $1
billion; DOE's share would be nearly $150 million (15%). The proposed
project would be located at the existing Geneva Steel Company
facilities in Vineyard, Utah.
The CPICOR project would demonstrate the integration of the HIsmelt
ironmaking process with technology for power generation.
The HIsmelt process produces molten iron directly from
iron ore and coal in a single integrated operation without any
intermediate steps. In contrast, conventional ironmaking technology
practiced today requires two separate processes: (1) Initial production
of coke from coal in sequential coal charging, coking (heating coal in
the absence of air to drive off volatile organic compounds), and coke
removal and quenching operations, which result in emissions of
particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants (e.g., polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons); and (2) subsequent use of the produced coke as
both a heat source and a reducing agent in a blast furnace with iron
ore and limestone to reduce the iron ore to molten iron.
The CPICOR project would produce 3,300 tons per day of molten iron
and up to 160 megawatts of electricity (MWe). To produce molten iron,
iron ore, coal, and oxygen-enriched hot air would be injected into a
closed HIsmelt molten-bath reactor, which would minimize
hazardous air pollutant emissions. The metal bath is the primary
reaction medium in which carbon from the coal would reduce iron ore to
iron. Molten iron that collects in the bottom of the bath would be
continuously tapped from the vessel to maintain a constant level of
iron inside the vessel. Slag, would be tapped periodically and used to
coat and control the internal cooling system and reduce heat loss.
Based on equivalent production of iron, the HIsmelt
technology is capable of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by over 85%,
oxides of nitrogen by 35%, and particulate matter by over 85%, when
compared to conventional ironmaking technology. Desulfurization would
occur through reaction of sulfur in the reducing gas with limestone/
dolomite additives. The reducing atmosphere in the HIsmelt
process would minimize the formation of oxides of nitrogen. Another
environmental benefit of the HIsmelt process is its
ability to process iron oxide wastes (called reverts) produced from
conventional iron and steel production. The Geneva Steel site, as well
as many other U.S. ironmaking sites, currently houses large inventories
of reverts.
In addition to the HIsmelt unit, the plant would
include such new facilities as: an air separation unit to provide
approximately 1,000 tons of oxygen per day; a boiler to generate steam;
a steam turbine generator to produce electricity; a wet scrubber gas
cleaning system to remove particulate matter; and all necessary
auxiliary systems. Gas produced in the HIsmelt unit would
be combusted in the boiler to produce: (1) 5,500 tons per day of steam
for in-plant use by Geneva Steel and (2) additional steam required to
drive a 160-MWe steam turbine. About 140 MWe would be used for internal
process needs at the Geneva Steel facilities and the remaining 20 MWe
would be available for export to the existing power grid. Following a
successful demonstration of the CPICOR project, it is anticipated that
the existing coke ovens at the Geneva Steel site would not be replaced
as they reach the end of their useful life.
The CPICOR project would occupy approximately 17 acres of
previously disturbed land at the Geneva Steel site, and an additional 8
acres of previously disturbed land would be used during construction
for laydown, fabrication, and storage areas. Most construction would be
related to the HIsmelt unit, the air separation unit, and
the power plant unit. Extension of conveyors to transport coal and
other feedstocks to the HIsmelt unit would be required,
along with a new raw material storage facility. Control rooms for the
HIsmelt , air separation, and power plant units would be
required. Wherever possible, existing facilities and infrastructure
located at the Geneva Steel site would be used for the CPICOR project.
These include railway lines/spurs, coal rotary dumpsters, conveyors,
day bins, slag handling facilities, and water distribution and
wastewater treatment systems.
Project activities would include engineering and design,
permitting, procurement, construction, start-up, and demonstration.
Assuming timely delivery from the CPICOR project team of the
environmental information necessary for developing the EIS, DOE
anticipates a 15-month schedule (from date of publication of this
Notice of Intent) to complete the EIS and issue a Record of Decision.
Upon completing its NEPA review, if DOE decides to implement the
proposed action, construction would commence in the year 2001 and
demonstration would begin in the year 2003. Verification of the
commercial feasibility of the technology would be accomplished through
a 30-month test program, during which the plant would be operated on
several different types of coal, to test and demonstrate the viability
of the technology. Upon completing the demonstration program for DOE,
the facility would continue to operate as part of Geneva Steel's
commercial plant. The facility would be designed for a lifetime of 30
years.
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 CCT Program and directed DOE to pursue the
goals of the legislation by soliciting proposals and partially funding
(cost sharing) 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, 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
CCT Program that includes consideration of both programmatic and
project-specific
[[Page 34642]]
environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a
project. As part of the NEPA strategy, the EIS for the proposed CPICOR
project will tier off the Program's 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 CCT 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 CPICOR project is also 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 CPICOR
project. In the absence of DOE funding, the CPICOR project probably
would not be constructed; therefore, potential environmental impacts or
benefits related to its demonstration would not be realized. In
addition, the project would not contribute to the general objective of
the CCT Program, which is to make available to the U.S. energy
marketplace a number of advanced, more efficient, economically
feasible, and environmentally acceptable coal technologies.
If the CPICOR facility is not built, other reasonable alternatives
for producing coke and molten iron would need to be adopted by Geneva
Steel. While the option to do nothing (i.e., continue to operate the
blast furnaces using coke) is perhaps the most likely, especially in
the near future, it is undesirable because Geneva Steel's coke-making
capacity is declining, which would eventually lead to a total
dependence on imported coke for iron production. Another option would
be to modernize existing blast furnaces to lessen the requirements for
coke and to install new coke-making facilities with state-of-the-art
pollution controls that are needed to comply with the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In the EIS, DOE will
consider both of these options under the no-action alternative.
Because of DOE's limited role of providing cost-shared funding for
the proposed CPICOR project, and because of the advantages associated
with the proposed location, DOE does not plan to evaluate alternative
sites for the proposed project. The project participants initially
considered additional sites during their site selection process. Site
selection was governed primarily by benefits that could be realized by
the companies participating in the project. An existing plant site was
preferred because the cost associated with construction of the project
at a ``greenfield'' site in an undisturbed area would be much higher
and the environmental impacts likely would be much greater than at an
existing facility. The site selected for the project had to provide the
maximum benefit to the companies by closely meeting the project's
technical needs and integrating with existing infrastructure. Because
Geneva Steel Company's only facility is located at Vineyard, Utah, no
other sites were considered after Geneva Steel was selected as the
ironmaking partner for the project.
The existing Geneva Steel plant has several advantages because it
is an operating plant with land available for installation of new
facilities, and likely would have less impact associated with
construction and operation of the facilities. Much of the
infrastructure needed for the facilities, including the electric
transmission lines and towers, is already in place at the Geneva Steel
plant. The molten iron produced by the project can be used in its
liquid form at the steel mill. If not sited at a steel mill location,
pig iron would need to be produced, which would add a processing step
and increase costs. Since pig iron is not a finished product, it would
need to be remelted, thus decreasing overall energy efficiency.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis
in the EIS. This list is not intended to be all inclusive or 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 and human health
impacts on areas and populations surrounding the site resulting from
emissions during current and future facility operations;
(2) Water Resources: potential effects on surface water and
groundwater resources consumed and discharged;
(3) Infrastructure and Land Use: potential consequences to land,
utilities, transportation routes, and traffic patterns resulting from
the proposed project, in particular, due to changes in the amounts of
coal and iron ore required;
(4) Solid Waste: pollution prevention and waste management
practices, including impacts caused by the generation, treatment,
transport, storage, and disposal of solid wastes;
(5) Construction: impacts associated with noise, traffic patterns,
and construction-related emissions;
(6) Environmental Justice: potential for disproportionately high
and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations in the
surrounding community;
(7) Visual: impacts associated with new structures associated with
the proposed project; and
(8) Cumulative effects: incremental impacts of the proposed project
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions (e.g., incremental air emissions affecting air quality and
human health).
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 August 16, 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 August 16, 1999 (see ADDRESSES in this Notice).
A public scoping meeting to be conducted by DOE will be held in the
Council Chambers of the Provo City Center, 351 W. Center Street, Provo,
Utah, on Thursday, July 15, 1999, at 7 p.m. In addition, DOE will hold
an informational session at the same location from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on
the day of the meeting. Displays and other materials and DOE personnel
will be available to provide information about the proposed project.
[[Page 34643]]
DOE requests that anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping
meeting contact Mr. Joseph Renk, 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 (preferably
at the beginning of 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 overviews of the proposed CPICOR
project and the NEPA process. 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, D.C., this 22nd day of June, 1999.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 99-16355 Filed 6-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P