[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5628-5634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision, Kentucky Pioneer Integrated Gasification 
Combined Cycle Demonstration Project, Trapp, Clark County, KY

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0318) to assess the environmental 
impacts associated with a proposed project that would be cost-shared by 
DOE and Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC (KPE) under DOE's Clean Coal 
Technology (CCT) Program. The project would provide a commercial scale 
application of a modified version of the British Gas Lurgi (BGL) 
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology utilizing a 
co-feed of coal and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). The proposed project 
location is a previously disturbed site owned by East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative (EKPC) approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) west of 
Trapp, Kentucky. After careful consideration of the potential 
environmental impacts, along with program goals and objectives, DOE has 
decided that it will provide approximately $60 million in Federal 
funding support (about 15% of the total cost of approximately $414 
million) to design, construct, and demonstrate the commercial scale 
operation of the technology proposed by KPE.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Roy Spears, National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National 
Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 
26507; telephone: (304) 285-5460; fax: (304) 285-4403; or e-mail: 
[email protected]. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, 
contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 
Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue,

[[Page 5629]]

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: (202) 586-4600; leave a message 
at (800) 472-2756; or fax: (202) 586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this Record of Decision 
pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal 
Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 
part 1021). This Record of Decision is based on DOE's Final EIS for the 
Kentucky Pioneer Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Demonstration 
Project (DOE/EIS-0318, December 2002).

NEPA Strategy for the Clean Coal Technology Program

    DOE developed a strategy for the CCT Program that includes 
consideration of both programmatic and project-specific environmental 
impacts during and after the process of selecting a proposed project. 
This strategy, called tiering (40 CFR 1508.28), refers to the 
consideration of general issues in a broader EIS (e.g., for the CCT 
Program), followed by more focused environmental impact statements or 
other environmental analyses that incorporate by reference the general 
issues and concentrate on those issues specific to the proposals under 
consideration.
    As part of the NEPA strategy, the EIS for the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC 
Demonstration Project tiers from the Clean Coal Technology Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (CCT PEIS) that DOE issued in November 
1989 (DOE/EIS-0146). The CCT PEIS evaluated two alternatives, the No 
Action Alternative, and the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative 
assumed the CCT Program would not continue and that conventional coal-
fired technologies with flue gas desulfurization and nitrogen oxide 
controls that met New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) would 
continue to be used. The NSPS (40 CFR part 60) were established under 
the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) to adopt emission 
standards for major new industrial facilities. The Proposed Action 
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 CCT Program began in 1986 as a collaborative effort among the 
federal government, state governments, and industry representatives to 
develop environmentally friendly solutions for using the Nation's 
abundant coal resources. The Program's goal is to demonstrate 
innovative technologies emerging from global engineering laboratories 
at a scale large enough to demonstrate the commercial merit of the new 
processes. Originally, the CCT Program was a response to concerns over 
acid rain, which is formed by reaction of water with oxides of sulfur 
and nitrogen emitted by coal-burning power plants. Industry-proposed 
projects were selected for further consideration through a series of 
five national competitions aimed at attracting promising technologies 
that had not yet been proven commercially.
    The Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project was selected for 
further consideration under the fifth solicitation (CCT-V) authorized 
under Pub. L. 102-154. The CCT Program relies on substantial funding 
from sources other than the federal government, as the participant 
supports the majority of the project cost. The Department of the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1986, a section of 
Pub. L. 99-190, introduced and defined cost-sharing for the program. 
The participant must agree to repay the government's financial 
contribution, with the basis for the repayment negotiated between the 
participant and the government, to ensure that taxpayers benefit from a 
successful project. Congress has directed that projects in the CCT 
Program should be industry projects assisted by the government and not 
government-directed demonstrations.

EIS Process

    On April 14, 2000, DOE published in the Federal Register (65 FR 
20142) a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Floodplain Involvement 
for the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project. The NOI announced 
a public scooping meeting and invited comments and suggestions on the 
proposed scope of the EIS. DOE held a public scoping meeting in Trapp, 
Kentucky, on May 4, 2000, at which 36 individuals signed in and five 
participants provided a total of 19 oral comments. Three individuals 
submitted eight written comments during the public comment period, 
which ended May 31, 2000. The comments helped DOE to establish the 
issues to be analyzed in the EIS and the level of analysis warranted 
for each issue.
    On November 16, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Availability for 
the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project Draft EIS in the 
Federal Register (66 FR 57717). The original comment period for the 
Draft EIS began on November 16, 2001, and would have ended on January 
4, 2002. To accommodate requests from the public, DOE extended the 
public comment period on the Draft EIS to January 25, 2002. The total 
comment period was 71 days. Public meetings were held on December 10, 
2001, in Lexington, Kentucky, and on December 11, 2001, in Trapp, 
Kentucky. DOE received 118 oral comments and 255 written comments, 
which helped to improve the quality and usefulness of the EIS.
    In December 2002, DOE issued the Final EIS and the Environmental 
Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability of the Final EIS 
in the Federal Register on December 13, 2002 (67 FR 76740). In the 
Final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to public 
comments on the Draft EIS. Among the issues raised in the comments were 
concerns about (1) The applicability of and compliance with state and 
local solid waste statutes; (2) the need for more details of the 
facility and BGL process; (3) the potential of the vitreous frit (a 
solid waste stream) to be hazardous; (4) the need for power in central 
Kentucky; (5) the impacts of the related transmission line; (6) impacts 
to the Kentucky River; (7) impacts of plant operation on air resources, 
including acid rain and greenhouse gases; (8) impacts of facility 
discharges on local drinking water; (9) potential impacts from spills; 
(10) impacts to the aesthetic and scenic resources of the area; (11) 
impacts to Kentucky Highway 89 and local traffic levels; and (12) 
cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other potential local 
developments.

Project Location and Description

    The Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project facility will be 
located in Clark County, Kentucky on a 121-hectare (300-acre) site 
within the 1,263-hectare (3,120-acre) J.K. Smith Site, owned by EKPC. 
The J.K. Smith Site is 34 kilometers (21 miles) southeast of the city 
of Lexington, 13 kilometers (8 miles) southeast of the city of 
Winchester, and 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) west of the community of Trapp, 
Kentucky. The plant will be located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 
mile) west of the J.K. Smith Site boundary closest to the community of 
Trapp. The 121-hectare (300-acre) project site was previously disturbed 
by preliminary construction activities in the mid-1980s, when EKPC 
began construction of the J.K. Smith Power Station. EKPC had completed 
preliminary grading, primary foundations, fire protection piping, and 
rail spur access infrastructure installation before the project was 
canceled in the early 1990s, when the

[[Page 5630]]

projected demand for electricity in the area failed to materialize. The 
Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project will be built on the 
portion of the site that was previously cleared and graded. The site is 
reached by Kentucky Highway 89 and accessed through a gated perimeter 
fence and access road. The access road is approximately 1.6 kilometers 
(1 mile) long from Kentucky Highway 89 to the project site. Plant 
access by rail would be from a freight rail line owned by CSX 
Transportation, Inc., which crosses the eastern side of the station. An 
existing railroad loop approximately 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) long will 
be used for raw material delivery and product transportation around the 
121-hectare (300-acre) project site.
    To support the project, EKPC plans to construct a new 138-kilovolt 
(kV) electric transmission line. The proposed line would extend 
northeasterly from the project site to the Spencer Road Terminal in 
Montgomery County, Kentucky, where it would interconnect with the 
existing local power grid. This transmission line would provide 
additional capacity adequate to accommodate the addition of the 
Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project and is consistent with the 
master plan for transmission outlets required for existing and future 
generation at EKPC's J.K. Smith Site. The proposed new transmission 
line would be approximately 27 kilometers (17 miles) in length, though 
the specific route for the line has yet to be determined. However, in 
the FEIS, DOE has examined, as appropriate, the general impacts that 
would be expected from this type of line.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utility Service (RUS), 
has approval authority for the capacity upgrade of the transmission 
line. Under RUS NEPA policies and procedures (7 CFR part 1794), RUS 
will prepare appropriate NEPA analysis of the impacts associated with 
the transmission line.
    The proposed project will be comprised of two parts: the ``power 
island'' and the ``gasification island.'' The power island will be 
comprised of two combined cycle turbine units that would generate most 
of the electricity at the site. These units could run on a natural gas 
feed or a synthesis gas (syngas) feed generated from Refuse Derived 
Fuel (RDF) pellets and coal in BGL gasifier units. The gasification 
island will consist of the following major facility components: (1) RDF 
pellet and coal receipt and storage sheds; (2) gasification plant; (3) 
sulfur removal and recovery facility; and (4) air separation plant. The 
production of syngas in the BGL process occurs in the gasification 
plant and utilizes the sulfur removal and recovery facility and air 
separation plant.
    The syngas firing process consists of the following four steps: (1) 
Generation of syngas from RDF pellets and coal reacting with steam and 
oxygen in a high temperature chemically reducing atmosphere; (2) 
removal of contaminants, including particulates and sulfur in the 
sulfur removal and recovery facility; (3) clean syngas combustion in a 
gas turbine generator to produce electricity; and (4) recovery of 
residual heat in the hot exhaust gas produced by the gas turbine. The 
residual heat will be used to generate steam in a heat recovery steam 
generator that produces additional electricity in a steam turbine, 
which is the combined cycle aspect of the plant.
    The solid fuel source for the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration 
Project will be high sulfur coal and RDF pellets. RDF pellets will be 
procured from a RDF pellet manufacturer. The two fuel sources will be 
shipped by rail directly to on-site storage. At a minimum, 50 percent 
of the feed will consist of high-sulfur coal from the Kentucky region 
during the one-year demonstration period.
    KPE intends to use high sulfur coal for direct delivery to the 
project site. Western Kentucky coal is generally considered the high-
sulfur coal region; however, Eastern Kentucky may also provide high-
sulfur coal supplies. Project economics will determine the supplier and 
the type of coal supplied. The facility will require approximately 
1,125 kilograms (2,500 tons) per day of coal, which equates to about 25 
railcars per day. Compared to entirely coal-fired electric generation 
technologies, this project will require less coal consumption to 
generate 540 MW.
    RDF is manufactured in a process that includes controlled steps for 
the processing of municipal solid waste (MSW) or common household 
waste. RDF pellets are stable and durable because they are made with 
relatively low moisture content. The process results in pellets with a 
relatively uniform size and shape and generally uniform energy content. 
RDF pellets also have a relatively low ash content and good handling 
and storage life before use. The RDF pellets will be procured from an 
existing manufacturer. RDF pellets are typically extruded into a 
uniform dense shape that makes them well suited to transportation and 
storage. The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 
Cabinet has determined that the pellets to be used in this facility 
qualify as RDF.
    The production of syngas in the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration 
Project facility will occur in a carefully controlled environment. 
Gasification technology is known to produce a very consistent syngas 
product, regardless of the variability of the feed. Though the RDF 
pellet composition is expected to be relatively constant, slight 
variations in the composition would have no effect on the composition 
of the syngas produced. The resulting syngas is expected to be 55 
percent carbon monoxide (CO), 30 percent hydrogen gas, 10 percent 
carbon dioxide, 5 percent methane and ethane, with a relatively small 
amount of sulfur in the form of hydrogen sulfide.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by 
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by non-
federal sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more 
limited role than if the federal government were the owner and operator 
of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a 
comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives for siting the project. 
However, in dealing with an applicant, the scope of alternatives is 
necessarily more restricted because DOE must focus on alternative ways 
to accomplish its purpose that reflect both the application before it 
and the role DOE plays in the decisional process. It is appropriate in 
such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the applicant's needs 
in establishing a project's reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the only reasonable alternative 
to the proposed action is the no-action alternative. The EIS includes 
two no-action alternative scenarios, which are discussed below. Other 
alternatives that did not meet the goals and objectives of the CCT 
Program, or the applicant, were dismissed from further consideration.

Proposed Action

    Under the Proposed Action, DOE will provide, through a Cooperative 
Agreement with KPE, financial assistance for the design, construction, 
and operation of the proposed Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration 
Project. All associated facilities for the power and gasification 
islands, including fuel storage, rail car unloading sites, and air 
emissions control equipment, will be constructed under the Proposed 
Action. In addition, EKPC plans to construct an electric transmission 
line. The proposed project would be designed for at least 20

[[Page 5631]]

years of commercial operation, beginning with a one-year CCT Program 
demonstration period. The proposed project would cost $414 million, of 
which DOE's share would be approximately $60 million, or 15 percent.
    The proposed project includes the design, construction, and 
operation of BGL gasification technology and associated facilities to 
provide a fuel source for the two planned turbines. Under the Proposed 
Action, the turbines would be fired using the syngas product generated 
by the gasification technology. The Proposed Action would demonstrate 
the following innovative technologies: (1) Gasification of RDF pellets 
and coal; and (2) use of a syngas product as a clean fuel in combined 
cycle turbine generator sets. This project would be the first 
commercial scale application of this modified co-feed version of the 
BGL gasification technology in the United States. The facility is 
expected to be operational for 20 years, with the first year committed 
to the demonstration of these technologies.

No Action Alternative

    An analysis of the No Action Alternative is included in the EIS, as 
required under NEPA. Under No Action Alternative 1, DOE would not 
provide $60 million in cost-shared funding for the project and no plant 
would be constructed as a result. DOE believes that this scenario is 
unlikely to occur but it is presented in the EIS because it serves as 
an analytical baseline for comparison of the environmental effects of 
the project.
    Under No Action Alternative 2, DOE would not provide $60 million 
cost-shared funding for the project; however, KPE would construct a 
natural gas-fired combined cycle plant, the power island portion of the 
overall project without the gasification component, at the proposed 
project location. This alternative includes all associated facilities 
required for the operation of the power island, including 
administrative offices, on-site utilities, steam-generating units, 
required air emissions control equipment, and wastewater treatment 
equipment. All water for the plant would be supplied from existing EKPC 
intake structures at the J.K. Smith Site. The EKPC transmission line 
would also be required to support this action.

Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    No Action Alternative 1 would not result in any adverse 
environmental impacts because no construction or change in activities 
would occur. Under No Action Alternative 1, however, beneficial 
socioeconomic impacts (jobs and revenue) would not be created and needs 
for electric power capacity in the region would not be supplied. This 
alternative would not meet CCT Program goals.
    This section summarizes the expected environmental impacts of the 
Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 2 on potentially affected 
environmental resource areas and discusses mitigation measures. The 
resource areas include: land use, socioeconomics, cultural resources, 
aesthetic and scenic resources, geology, air quality, water resources 
and water quality, ecological resources, noise, traffic and 
transportation, occupational and public health and safety, and waste 
management.

Land Use

    No Action Alternative 2 would disturb approximately 5 to 8 hectares 
(12 to 20 acres) of previously disturbed land for project construction 
activities. The foundation of the power island would occupy 
approximately 4.8 hectares (12 acres). All land use impacts from No 
Action Alternative 2 would also occur under the Proposed Action. In 
addition, the Proposed Action would disturb a maximum of 2.8 hectares 
(7 acres) of previously disturbed land for storage and rail car loading 
and unloading facilities. No effects are expected on surrounding land 
uses or local land use plans and policies under either alternative.

Socioeconomics

    No Action Alternative 2 would employ an average of 120 workers, 
with a maximum of 200, during construction. This would indirectly lead 
to the creation of another 138 to 230 jobs depending on the duration of 
peak construction levels. The facility operation would require 24 
employees for the 20-year life cycle of the plant; an additional 54 
jobs would be created indirectly as a result.
    The Proposed Action would employ an average of 600 workers, with a 
maximum of 1,000 during construction. This would indirectly lead to the 
creation of another 690 to 1,150 jobs depending on the duration of peak 
construction levels. The 20-year demonstration and operation period 
would require 120 employees; an additional 270 jobs would be created 
indirectly as a result. Property values for land tracts in the viewshed 
of the gasifier units may decrease.

Cultural Resources

    The J.K. Smith Site has been previously disturbed and cultural 
resources were identified and excavated during the initial development 
of the discontinued J.K. Smith Power Station in the early 1980s. The 
Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has confirmed that 
the Section 106 Review process was completed for the Kentucky Pioneer 
IGCC Demonstration Project's Area of Potential Effect in December of 
1980. The terms of the Memorandum of Agreement drawn up in conjunction 
with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the J.K. Smith 
Station have been met under the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration 
Project and no further identification, evaluation, mitigation, and 
consultation activities are required. In accordance with 36 CFR 
800.4(d), the SHPO finds that there is no effect on historic properties 
from No Action Alternative 2 or the Proposed Action.
    Deeply buried archaeological resources, including human remains, 
could be discovered during construction activities. To minimize the 
potential adverse effects to unanticipated discoveries during 
construction, basic information will be provided to workers involved in 
ground disturbing activities regarding the recognition of 
archaeological resources and Native American cultural items and the 
procedures to be followed upon discovery. The construction contractor 
will be required to assure that discovery procedures are implemented in 
all applicable cases.

Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

    The combined-cycle units that would be constructed under No Action 
Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action would not be visible from outside 
the site area and would have no visible plumes associated with them. 
The gasifier facility stacks installed under the Proposed Action would 
be approximately 65 meters (213 feet) tall and would be visible from as 
far away as Winchester, located 13.3 kilometers (8.3 miles) northwest 
of the project site. Fugitive dust emissions may temporarily affect 
visibility during construction at the site and would be mitigated with 
standard dust control measures. The visibility of the plumes associated 
with the Proposed Action would be dependent on weather and wind 
pattern; however, they would likely be visible from up to 12.8 
kilometers (8 miles) from the facility location.

[[Page 5632]]

Geology

    Minor impacts on the geologic resources, notably loss of prime 
farmland soils, are expected from the construction and operation of the 
No Action Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action. However, the impacts 
are expected to be minor, because the site has been previously graded 
and disturbed. The Proposed Action would have a slightly greater impact 
on geologic resources due to the additional support facilities required 
for operation. Disturbances associated with construction would be 
mitigated with runoff, erosion, and dust controls. Geologic hazards are 
not expected to have any effects on either No Action Alternative 2 or 
the Proposed Action.

Air Resources

    Air emissions would be similar in quantity under No Action 
Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action. Increases would occur in annual 
air emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide 
(CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter, and reactive 
organic gases. Under the Proposed Action, the greatest quantity of 
emissions would be from NOX (approximately 1,100 tons per 
year [TPY]), CO (approximately 800 TPY), and SOX 
(approximately 500 TPY). The Proposed Action would also result in 
increases in hazardous air pollutant emissions of approximately 9 TPY 
for all hazardous pollutants combined. More than half of this figure is 
attributable to the increase in nickel emissions; however, the overall 
increase would present little risk to human health and the environment 
(see Occupational and Public Health and Safety section, below). 
Pollutant emissions would be well within applicable standards; however, 
annual average emissions for NOX and particulate matter 
would approach the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Rule 
for Significant Impact Level Limits. The levels of particulate matter 
would also approach the 24-hour PSD limits.
    Emission control requirements (equipment design requirements and 
operational procedures requirements) for the proposed project have been 
established by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality and the EPA as 
part of the PSD permit approval process. Emission controls included as 
part of the PSD permit include enclosed storage of raw materials; 
fabric filters on limestone storage silos; covered conveyors for raw 
material transfer; drift eliminators on the cooling tower; and steam 
injection or other combustion controls on the gas turbines. During 
construction activities, fugitive dust will be minimized using standard 
dust control measures such as watering. Railcars will be covered to 
minimize fugitive dust from coal and RDF pellet transport to the site.

Water Resources

    No Action Alternative 2 would require 3.8 million liters per day 
(MLD) (1 million gallons per day [MGD]) of surface water from the 
Kentucky River for facility operations and would generate less than 1.5 
MLD (0.4 MGD) of wastewater. The Proposed Action would require 15.1 MLD 
(4 MGD) of surface water from the Kentucky River for facility 
operations and would generate 1.5 MLD (0.4 MGD) of wastewater. Treated 
wastewater would be discharged into the Kentucky River. The remaining 
13.6 MLD (3.6 MGD) would be used during the operation of the gasifier, 
turbine condensers, and fuel gas saturation process, as well as for 
other miscellaneous uses. It is expected that no significant impacts 
would occur to water levels as the amount of the intake required for 
the Proposed Action represents approximately 0.1 percent of the average 
calculated daily flow and 4 percent of the low flow conditions of the 
Kentucky River near the site. Coal and RDF pellets would be unloaded, 
stored, and conveyed in enclosed structures with concrete floors and 
would not impact water resources. No use of or discharge to groundwater 
resources is expected to occur during construction and operation of 
either facility.
    Potential water resources and water quality impacts for facility 
discharges will be minimized by pretreatment in a new wastewater 
treatment facility. Federal and state-issued permits regulating water 
usage and wastewater discharge would specify site-specific criteria to 
minimize potential impacts. The facility will be designed to minimize 
water usage, and any discharges would comply with federal and state 
wastewater and stormwater discharge permits.
    During low flow conditions, potential conflicts could exist between 
competing users of the river. To help minimize such conflicts, KPE will 
cease water withdrawals if drought conditions warrant or if requested 
by the state.
    Under the proposed action, minor activity to extend the water 
intake structure would be required alongside the river channel, 
however, no impacts to the floodplain would result. No wetlands have 
been identified in the project area and no impacts to wetlands would 
result.

Ecological Resources

    The construction of the facilities for No Action Alternative 2 
would result in the loss of approximately 4.8 hectares (12 acres) while 
the Proposed Action would result in a loss of 7.6 hectares (19 acres) 
of old-field vegetation and its respective habitat. No federal- or 
state-listed protected, sensitive, rare, or unique species have been 
identified at the project site location and suitable habitat for the 
federally-endangered running buffalo clover is not present. Therefore, 
there would be no impacts to any federal- or state-listed protected or 
endangered species from either No Action Alternative 2 or the Proposed 
Action. The thermal plume from wastewater discharge into the Kentucky 
River would likely not have an impact on aquatic organisms.
    Post construction mitigation landscaping will consist of a control 
program for non-native invasive plant species such as non-native 
thistles, fescue, and mustard. The site will be revegetated with a 
blend of native grasses and forbs. Due to the height of the emissions 
stacks, the Federal Aviation Administration requires stack lighting. To 
minimize bird strike mortality, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) has developed a set of voluntary recommendations for tower 
siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning. The gasifier 
stacks lighting system will be designed in consideration of the USFWS 
recommendations.

Noise

    The construction and operation of both No Action Alternative 2 and 
the Proposed Action would result in minor noise increases over existing 
background noise levels beyond the borders of the J.K. Smith Site. 
Vehicle and rail traffic associated with both alternatives would cause 
minor noise increases of less than 2 decibels over background noise 
levels in the nearby community of Trapp.
    Mitigation measures necessary to minimize noise impacts will be 
implemented for the proposed action. Buildings housing the gas turbine 
units will be designed to ensure a substantial reduction in noise 
transmitted to the outside. A reduction of gas turbine noise to 95 dBA 
or less, adjacent to the outside of the building, is a basic design 
requirement. In addition, the building housing the gasifiers will be 
designed to ensure a significant reduction in noise transmitted to the 
outside. A reduction of gasifier noise to 65 dBA or less, adjacent to 
the outside of the building, is a basic design requirement.

[[Page 5633]]

Traffic and Transportation

    Under No Action Alternative 2, approximately 100 to 200 vehicle 
trips, depending on the level of construction activity, would be made 
per shift change during facility construction. An additional 40 to 60 
heavy-duty truck trips per day would be made to and from the project 
site and rail cars would move heavy equipment to and from the site as 
needed. Approximately 48 vehicle trips per day would be made during 
facility operation, all utilizing Kentucky Highway 89. Since the 
existing traffic near the project site is light, this would result in 
little impact to local traffic. No rail cars are expected to be 
required for facility operation under No Action Alternative 2.
    Under the Proposed Action, approximately 500 to 1,000 vehicle 
trips, depending on the level of construction activity, would be made 
per shift change during facility construction. An additional 40 to 60 
heavy-duty truck trips per day would be made to and from the project 
site and rail cars would move heavy equipment to and from the site as 
needed. Traffic congestion may be heavy during afternoons when school 
buses operate along Kentucky Highway 89. Approximately 160 to 240 
vehicle trips per day would be made during facility operation, all 
utilizing Kentucky Highway 89. This would have a greater impact on 
local traffic than No Action Alternative 2 and mitigation measures, 
discussed below, will be implemented to ease the impact. KPE will be 
responsible for repairing any damage to local roads due to excessive 
use or overweight vehicles. Approximately one unit train (100 rail 
cars) would move in or out of the site each day during operation. 
Existing rail infrastructure onsite is sufficient to accommodate a full 
unit train, thus removing it from the mainline track. KPE will design 
and implement an Emergency Response Plan and a Spill Prevention, 
Control, and Countermeasure Plan that would detail response and clean 
up measures for any accidents resulting from fuel or waste 
transportation.
    The addition of turning lanes and a traffic signal will assist in 
regulating traffic flows at the intersection of the site access road 
and Kentucky Highway 89. Any changes to Kentucky Highway 89 will be 
made in conjunction with the 7th District of the Kentucky 
Transportation Cabinet. To facilitate traffic in and out of the project 
site, the access road would be widened to four lanes, or directional 
controls would be implemented. Directional controls refer to having 
both lanes travel in the same direction during peak usage of the road. 
Appropriate warning signs will be put in place if this method is 
adopted. Aside from scheduling rail deliveries in coordination with 
other main rail line traffic, no mitigation is required for rail 
transportation.

Occupational and Public Health and Safety

    Typical worker impacts present in the construction industry would 
be associated with facility construction under both No Action 
Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action. All noise and health impacts 
would be mitigated using standard industry safety measures. The 
Proposed Action would present a small increase in cancer risks to 
workers and the public due to hazardous air pollutant emissions 
associated with operation of the combustion turbines of the power 
island component. The estimated cumulative lifetime cancer risk, 
assuming continuous exposure for a 70-year period at the location of 
maximum annual average exposure which is within the J.K. Smith Site, is 
5E-05 (i.e., 50 per one million individuals) or a 0.005 percent 
increase in cancer risk per person. However, this cumulative lifetime 
cancer risk is a very conservative estimate due to assumptions and 
extrapolation procedures used in the analysis.

Waste Management

    Facility construction and operation would generate small quantities 
of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and wastewater under No Action 
Alternative 2. The construction of the Proposed Action would generate 
proportionately more wastes than No Action Alternative 2, as it would 
take four times as long to build. Operation of the Proposed Action 
would generate more wastewater and hazardous wastes than No Action 
Alternative 2. All wastewater will be treated before release into the 
Kentucky River. The gasifiers would generate vitrified frit and 
elemental sulfur, which DOE expects would be marketed. KPE will conduct 
appropriate tests to confirm the expectations that the frit is not 
hazardous. Ultimately, if the frit is found to be hazardous, KPE could 
decide to use a 100 percent coal feed, the impacts from which would be 
essentially the same as the impacts examined under the Proposed Action. 
Standard industry practices will be used to minimize the wastes 
produced during construction and operation of either facility. 
Hazardous wastes will be disposed of in approved hazardous waste 
landfills.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    No Action Alternative 1 is environmentally preferable because it 
would result in no impacts on any of the resource areas in the vicinity 
of the project site. Under No Action Alternative 1, however, the need 
for expanded electric power capacity in the region would not be met and 
beneficial socioeconomic impacts (jobs and revenue) would not be 
created, nor would the goals of the CCT Program concerning the 
demonstration of this co-feed BGL technology be achieved. The primary 
impacts from No Action Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action would be 
to land use, socioeconomics, visual and aesthetic resources, air 
resources, and traffic and transportation. The impacts from the 
Proposed Action generally would be small, and would be relatively 
greater to socioeconomics (beneficial), visual and aesthetic resources, 
air resources, and traffic and transportation in comparison to No 
Action Alternative 2. Unavoidable adverse impacts from No Action 
Alternative 2 and the Proposed Action would occur to aesthetic and 
scenic resources (the presence of a new facility and additional 
transmission line), water resources (withdrawals from the Kentucky 
River), ecological resources (habitat removal), and traffic and 
transportation (increase in local vehicle trips taken). No 
environmental justice impacts are expected under any of the 
alternatives.

Comments on the Final EIS

    The only comments that DOE received on the Final EIS were from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA stated that, in the 
Final EIS, DOE had resolved in a satisfactory manner EPA's comments on 
the Draft EIS regarding wetlands, transmission lines and towers, 
cooling tower discharge, air permitting, wind direction data, and other 
regulatory matters. However EPA expressed continued concerns about some 
potential impacts, including water, waste, ecological, and noise 
components of the project. DOE believes that mitigation measures for 
the proposed action adequately address EPA's concerns. For example, KPE 
has agreed to work with the State of Kentucky during extremely low 
river flow conditions and cease operations if requested. KPE also will 
test the vitrified frit to determine whether it is a hazardous waste, 
and will ensure that noise levels are acceptable. DOE will ask RUS to 
share their NEPA document(s) regarding the electric transmission line 
with EPA. Further, DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action

[[Page 5634]]

Plan in accordance with its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.331(a)), 
which will serve as a tool for monitoring mitigation commitments.

Decision

    DOE will implement the Proposed Action of providing approximately 
$60 million in cost-shared federal funding support to design, 
construct, and demonstrate the co-feed BGL technology proposed by KPE. 
The project is intended to demonstrate the combined removal of 
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter in a BGL co-feed 
technology at a size (540 MW) approximately 40 to 50 percent larger 
than other currently operating, 100 percent coal-fed gasifier systems. 
The project is expected to generate sufficient data from design, 
construction, and operation to allow private industry to assess the 
potential for commercial application of the larger scale co-feed BGL 
technology. This decision to provide cost-shared funding for the 
proposed project was made after careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts, as analyzed in the EIS.
    DOE's decision incorporates all practicable means to avoid or 
minimize environmental harm. In accordance with Section 1021.331(a) of 
the DOE NEPA regulations, DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action Plan 
that addresses mitigation commitments expressed in this ROD. Copies of 
the Mitigation Action Plan may be obtained from Roy Spears, NEPA 
Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26507; telephone: 
(304) 285-5460.

    Issued in Washington, DC on, this 29th day of January 2003.
Carl Michael Smith,
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 03-2512 Filed 2-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P