[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