[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6563]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 21, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision; Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project, Denali
Borough, AK
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision; Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project, Denali
Borough, AK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0186) to assess the environmental
impacts associated with the Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP), a proposed
demonstration project near Healy, Alaska that would be cost-shared by
DOE and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA),
a state agency, under DOE's Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program. After
careful consideration of these impacts, along with program goals and
objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide approximately $110
million in federal funding support (about 48% of the total cost of
about $227 million) for the construction and operation of two
integrated clean coal technologies to be demonstrated in the HCCP.
The National Park Service (NPS) raised concerns that increased
emissions from the combined operation of the HCCP and the existing
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., (GVEA) Unit No. 1 at Healy
would adversely affect the nearby Denali National Park and Preserve
(DNPP). In response to those concerns, DOE facilitated negotiations
between the project participants and the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) (the parent department of the NPS). The negotiations
were successfully concluded and a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by
DOI, DOE, AIDEA, and GVEA on November 9, 1993. Under the Agreement, DOI
has supported the issuance of the final EIS and has withdrawn its
request for an adjudicatory hearing to reconsider the air quality
permit issued to AIDEA for the HCCP by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
The cornerstone of the Memorandum of Agreement is the planned
retrofit of Unit No. 1 to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2.
The Agreement calls for Unit No. 1 to be retrofitted with low-NOx
burners after the start-up of the HCCP to decrease Unit No. 1 emissions
by approximately 50%; the Agreement also requires that SO2
emissions from Unit No. 1 be reduced by 25% using duct injection of
sorbent. After retrofit of the Unit No. 1, the combined emissions of
both units are expected to be only slightly greater than the current
emissions from Unit No. 1. In addition, the Agreement requires that the
combined emissions from the site be reduced temporarily to current Unit
No. 1 levels if a visibility plume or haze attributable to the site is
observed. Furthermore, the Agreement may be renegotiated to require
further mitigation, including a permanent limitation on site emissions
at current Unit No. 1 levels, if such observed impacts persist.
The Agreement will become effective contingent upon its
incorporation into the ADEC air quality permit. DOE's decision to
provide cost-shared funding for the HCCP is likewise contingent on
incorporation of the terms of the Agreement into the permit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the EIS,
contact Earl W. Evans, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Clean Coal
Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology
Center, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236. Telephone (412) 892-5709.
For further information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight [EH-25], Office of
Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone (202) 586-4600
or (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this Record of Decision
pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508)
and DOE regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This Record of Decision is
based on the DOE Final EIS for the Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project
(DOE/EIS-0186).
An overall strategy for compliance with NEPA was developed for the
CCT Program, consistent with the CEQ NEPA regulations and DOE
regulations for compliance with NEPA, that includes consideration of
both programmatic and project-specific environmental impacts during and
after the process of selecting a project. This strategy is called
tiering (40 CFR part 1508.28), which refers to the coverage of general
matters in a broader EIS (e.g., for the CCT Program) with subsequent
narrower statements or environmental analyses incorporating by
reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the
issues specific to the particular project under consideration.
The DOE strategy has three principal elements. The first element
involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic EIS for the CCT
Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the potential
environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of each of
22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies in the year 2010.
The Programmatic EIS evaluated: (1) A no-action alternative, which
assumed that the CCT Program was not continued and that conventional
coal-fired technologies with flue gas desulfurization controls would
continue to be used for new plants or as replacements for existing
plants that are retired or refurbished and (2) a proposed action, which
assumed that CCT Program projects were selected for funding and that
successfully demonstrated technologies undergo widespread
commercialization by 2010.
The second element involved preparation of a preselection, project-
specific environmental review of the HCCP based on project-specific
environmental data and analyses that the offeror supplied to DOE as
part of the proposal.
The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA
documents for each selected project. For the HCCP, DOE determined that
an EIS should be prepared to address project-specific concerns. As part
of the overall NEPA strategy for the CCT Program, the HCCP EIS draws
upon the Programmatic EIS and preselection environmental reviews that
have already analyzed many alternatives and scenarios (e.g.,
alternative technologies and sites).
Project Description
The HCCP would be located on the southern edge of the Interior
Basin of Alaska, about 80 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 250 miles
north of Anchorage. The facility is proposed to be built adjacent to
the existing 25-MW Healy Unit No. 1 conventional pulverized-coal unit
owned and operated by GVEA in a rural setting along the east bank of
the Nenana River, about 2.5 miles east-southeast of Healy. Healy Unit
No. 1 has been operating as a baseload power plant since November 1967
and has an expected operating life until at least 2007. The facility
employs 29 people. The 65-acre site is located about 4 miles north of
the nearest border of DNPP and 8 miles north of the entrance to DNPP.
The HCCP site would be classified for land use as an industrial
site. The majority of the site has sustained surface alteration from
the construction and operation of the existing Healy Unit No. 1
generating plant, support buildings, coal storage areas, ash ponds,
roads, electric substation, and transmission lines.
The combustion technology to be demonstrated is the TRW Applied
Technologies Division entrained combustion system with limestone
injection to capture SO2 in the flue gas. The heart of the system
consists of twin all-metal combustors connected by short ducts to the
boiler. First-stage precombustors burn about 25% of the coal, and
exhaust gas from the precombustors is mixed with intake air to preheat
the main (or slagging-stage) combustors that burn the remaining 75% of
the coal. As the coal burns, molten slag collects on the walls of the
combustors and flows toward openings in the bottom of the main
combustors where it falls into water-filled slag tanks. The slagging
combustors decline slightly from horizontal to aid in the flow of the
molten slag. Some slag solidifies on the water-cooled surfaces and
serves to insulate and protect the metal walls from erosion and
excessive temperatures. The main combustion sections operate at a
slight air deficiency to reduce the amount of NOx produced. In the
boiler, combustion products mix with additional air to complete the
combustion reactions. The combustors are coupled with a specially
designed boiler that, in addition to its heat recovery function,
produces low NOx levels, functions as a limestone calciner, and
accomplishes first-stage SO2 removal. Therefore, flue gas from
combustion is expected to contain lower concentrations of SO2 and
NOx than flue gas from conventional combustion.
The postcombustion technology to be integrated with the advanced
combustion system is the Joy Technologies, Inc./Niro Atomizer spray
dryer absorber for a second stage of SO2 removal and particulate
removal. The flue gas would mix with an atomized spray that includes
activated lime from the limestone injection during combustion,
resulting in additional chemical reactions to remove SO2 and PM. A
baghouse provides further capture of PM and SO2 before the flue
gas exits through the stack. A portion of the lime collected by the
spray dryer and the baghouse would be recycled to the spray dryer and
used for SO2 removal, thereby increasing SO2 removal
efficiency while reducing solid waste.
The integrated process is expected to demonstrate at least 90%
SO2 removal. It is also anticipated that at least 20% of the total
available sulfur in the flue gas would be captured in the combustion
process and at least 70% in the flue gas desulfurization system. Of the
total ash generated, 60-90% would be removed from the combustors as
slag and from the boiler hoppers as bottom ash. Most of the remaining
ash would be removed in the baghouse.
The integrated process is suitable for repowering existing
facilities or for new facilities. If successfully demonstrated, it
would provide an alternative technology to conventional pulverized-coal
boilers with conventional flue gas desulfurization controls, while
lowering overall operating costs and reducing the volume of solid waste
generated by conventional technology in current use.
Project Status
Project activities to date have been limited to the application for
permits and approvals necessary to construct and operate the HCCP, and
the preparation of designs and specifications necessary to apply for
these permits and approvals, prepare the EIS, and provide assurance
that this innovative technology will meet permit requirements.
On September 3, 1992, the Alaska Public Utility Commission (APUC)
issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which will
allow AIDEA to provide electric service from the HCCP. The APUC also
approved a power sales agreement under which GVEA will purchase the
output of the HCCP from AIDEA. The Trustees for Alaska, a non-profit,
public interest, environmental law firm, appealed this decision, and on
November 24, 1993, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, affirmed the APUC's decision. The Trustees for
Alaska have appealed this ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. On
January 27, 1994, the Superior Court granted the Trustees for Alaska's
motion to stay the Certificate pending a final ruling by the Alaska
Supreme Court. Also, on March 10, 1993, the ADEC issued a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit for the HCCP. AIDEA
has applied to ADEC to have the provisions of the Memorandum of
Agreement discussed in the SUMMARY incorporated into the PSD permit.
AIDEA is also in the process of obtaining other permits and approvals.
Alternatives
Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by
nonfederal-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
for siting the project. However, in dealing with an applicant, the
scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted, because the
agency must focus on alternative ways to accomplish its purpose which
reflect both the application before it and the functions it 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 reasonable alternatives to
the proposed action are the no-action alternative (including scenarios
reasonably expected as a consequence of the no-action alternative) and
an alternative site nearer the coal mine fuel source.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is the provision of approximately $110 million
in cost-shared federal funding support, which is about 48% of the $227
million total cost, for the construction and operation of two
integrated clean coal technologies to be demonstrated in the HCCP, a
new 50-MW coal-fired power generating facility at Healy, Alaska. The
two technologies to be demonstrated are the TRW entrained combustion
system and the Joy spray dryer absorber. These technologies have been
designed to achieve reduction in emissions of SO2, NOX, and
particulate matter (PM) while being energy efficient technologies
capable of being used in new facilities or retrofitted to existing
units. The technologies would be dependent on each other as part of an
integrated system.
AIDEA conceived, designed, and proposed the HCCP in response to a
Program Opportunity Notice issued by DOE in May 1989 to solicit
proposals. DOE's role is limited to providing the cost-shared funding
for AIDEA's proposed project. In addition, AIDEA and DOE have different
objectives to be attained through the HCCP: DOE's objective is to
demonstrate the technologies, while AIDEA's intent is to promote
economic development, in this case by increasing Alaska's coal-fired
electrical generating capacity.
Coal would be supplied for the HCCP by Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.,
(UCM) from its open-pit Poker Flats Mine and other reserves, located
about 4 miles north of the proposed site. GVEA has entered into a power
sales agreement for the purchase and distribution of the electricity
that would be generated by the HCCP. AIDEA has assembled a team
composed of GVEA, UCM, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation, TRW, and Joy to design, build, and operate
the power plant. The project participant would obtain all applicable
permits for the HCCP and would comply with all applicable laws,
regulations, and ordinances. AIDEA initially proposed a site about 4
miles north of the currently proposed site. The participant
subsequently proposed, with DOE approval, to move the proposed HCCP 4
miles south after AIDEA limited the project to a power generation
facility because the initially proposed co-located coal-upgrading
operations were not expected to be economical because of their early
stage of development.
No Action
This alternative does not provide federal cost-shared funding for
the HCCP. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT Program (DOE/EIS-0146)
evaluated the consequences of no action on a programmatic basis. Under
the no-action alternative for the HCCP, the commercial readiness of the
proposed technologies for the combined removal of SO2, NOX,
and PM would not be demonstrated at Healy, Alaska, and probably would
not be demonstrated elsewhere because there are currently no other
similar proposals in the CCT Program. The opportunity to demonstrate
these technologies would likely be lost. As a result, commercialization
of the technologies could be delayed or might not occur because the
utility and industrial sectors tend to utilize known and demonstrated
technologies over new, unproven technologies.
Under the no-action alternative, two reasonably foreseeable
scenarios could result. Neither scenario would contribute to the
objectives of demonstrating the economic feasibility and environmental
acceptability of new coal utilization and pollution control
technologies.
First, GVEA could continue to operate the present power plant and
continue to buy natural-gas-generated power from Anchorage utilities
without building any new generating facilities. No construction
activities or changes in operations would occur. Coal requirements and
electricity generation would remain constant, and there would be no
change in current environmental impacts of plant operations.
Second, a conventional coal-fired power plant equivalent in
capacity to the proposed project could be built in the Healy area by
the project participants or other parties without DOE's financial
assistance to meet the power demand. The best available conventional
control technologies would be required. These would likely include dry
scrubbers that use lime to remove SO2 from the flue gas, low-
NOX burners, and a baghouse to remove PM. The dry scrubbers would
generate a solid waste that, along with the PM from the baghouse, would
be returned to the UCM Poker Flats Mine for disposal. The new plant
would lessen or eliminate the need to buy power from Anchorage
utilities to the same extent as the HCCP.
Alternative Site
The feasibility of siting coal-fired power plants in various
locations in the Alaska Railbelt has been studied on several occasions
by several organizations. GVEA and the City of Fairbanks, for example,
proposed to build a 130-MW coal-fired plant adjacent to Healy Unit No.
1 in 1978; and in 1985 and 1988, the Alaska Power Authority studied the
feasibility of siting coal-fired power plants in the Alaska Railbelt.
In 1987, the City of Nenana performed a preliminary feasibility study
for a coal-fired electric generation facility to be located near the
city.
These studies all showed that siting a coal-fired power plant at
any of the studied locations, including Healy, would have environmental
impacts. Although an alternative site location such as Nenana might
have been feasible for the projects referenced above, such a location
renders a proposed CCT project economically infeasible from GVEA's
standpoint because of increased capital requirements, labor costs, and
fuel costs. In addition, siting the plant near Nenana to utilize the
river water source could impact anadromous fisheries. Locating the
plant between Nenana and Fairbanks would probably not be permitted
because of nonattainment of air quality standards in the Fairbanks
area. A location away from the existing electrical intertie system
would require construction of a new powerline transmission link at a
cost of about $500,000 per mile and with associated environmental
impacts. Siting a plant near existing communities between Healy and
Fairbanks could also require developing new infrastructure.
The project participant has determined that the only alternative
sites that appear feasible for economic or environmental reasons are
those along the Nenana River close to the UCM Poker Flats mine and
adjacent to the existing power intertie. Within that area, sites closer
to the mine mouth, sites near an existing community infrastructure, and
sites that do not require additional disturbance or access routes
appear to have advantages. The project participant previously had
considered a site located at the UCM train loadout facility across the
Nenana River from the UCM mine. This site, which is the site initially
proposed by AIDEA, is typical of feasible alternative sites from the
standpoint of environmental and socioeconomic impacts and was therefore
adopted as the reasonable alternative site to be analyzed in the EIS.
Other alternatives which did not meet the goals and objectives of
the CCT Program or of the participant were dismissed from further
consideration.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
No action would be the environmentally preferred alternative,
depending on what action AIDEA and GVEA would take as a result of a DOE
decision not to fund the project. If GVEA continued to purchase power
in lieu of building a new plant, impacts would remain at current
levels. However, if a new conventional coal-fired plant were to be
built, it would cause greater air quality impacts than the HCCP. In
addition, the reduction in emissions of Unit No. 1 resulting from the
Memorandum of Agreement would not occur. While it is reasonably
foreseeable that GVEA could pursue a conventional plant to meet its
power needs if DOE were not to fund the HCCP, that eventuality is
somewhat speculative, because it is unknown whether such a plant could
meet all regulatory requirements. However, a conventional plant would
be expected to meet the limits of the air quality permit issued by ADEC
in March 1993 for the HCCP.
Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to air quality, surface water, groundwater, and
ecological and socioeconomic resources that could result from
construction and operation of the proposed HCCP are analyzed in the
HCCP EIS.
Air Quality and Visibility
Of primary concern are the impacts to air quality and visibility
expected from HCCP operation, as predicted by analyses based on
computer models. The analysis examined the impacts of the HCCP alone,
and cumulatively with those from Unit No. 1, both without and with the
retrofit to Unit No. 1 provided for by the Memorandum of Agreement.
Emissions
The following table shows the projected emissions, in tons per
year, for the Healy site, including the reductions to be achieved by
the Memorandum of Agreement.
Unit No. 1 only Healy site w/o MOA Healy site w/ MOA
SO2................... 630 ..... Unit No. 1............ 630 ..... Unit No. 1............ 1472 .....
..... ..... HCCP.................. 124 ..... HCCP.................. 124 .....
------- -------
..... ..... ...................... ..... 754 ...................... ..... 596
NOx................... 848 ..... Unit No. 1............ 848 ..... Unit No. 1............ 429 .....
..... ..... HCCP.................. 577 ..... HCCP.................. 577 .....
------- -------
..... ..... ...................... ..... 1425 ...................... ..... 1006
------- ------- ------
Total........... ..... 1478 ...................... ..... 2179 ...................... ..... 1602
For NOX control, the Agreement calls for Unit No. 1 to be
retrofitted with low-NOX burners after the start-up of the HCCP.
GVEA has agreed to reduce Unit No. 1 NOX emissions by
approximately 50%, from 848 tons per year to 429 tons per year. The
Agreement also requires that SO2 emissions from Unit No. 1 be
reduced by 25%, from 630 tons per year to 472 tons per year, using duct
injection of sorbent (e.g., flash-calcined material or lime). If the
HCCP demonstration technology operates as expected, combined NOX
and SO2 emissions from the Healy site would increase by only about
8%, from 1478 tons per year to 1602 tons per year, even though
electrical generation would increase from the existing 25 MW to 75 MW
for the two units. This is about 25% less than the 2179 tons per year
that would be emitted if Unit No. 1 were to continue to operate,
unretrofitted, in conjunction with the HCCP at its demonstration target
levels. GVEA is required under the Agreement to request permit
emissions limitations to reflect the levels achieved during the HCCP
demonstration, allowing for reasonable operational variability.
If the HCCP demonstration fails to meet project objectives for air
emissions, but attains levels allowed by the permit issued by ADEC in
March 1993, (the ``permitted case''), then the combined emissions from
the Healy site would be capped under the Agreement at 2160 tons per
year (i.e., 1439 and 721 tons per year of NOX and SO2,
respectively), about 46% over the emissions for the existing Healy
site. These maximum emission levels would be incorporated as permit
conditions.
Additional Mitigation
DOE believes that the Healy site can be operated at the emission
levels provided by the Memorandum of Agreement without causing
unacceptable air quality impacts (see below). However, the Agreement
requires that additional measures will be taken to further reduce
combined emissions from the site, if necessary, to protect DNPP from
visibility plume or haze impacts. Specifically, GVEA must reduce
combined site emissions to the levels of Unit No. 1 for 12 hours
whenever NPS (or ADEC) notifies GVEA of the presence of a visible plume
or haze inside DNPP attributable to the Healy site. If these conditions
occur more than 10 times in any six month period, then NPS may reopen
the Agreement and negotiate with GVEA new emission limitations or other
measures for the site, including reducing emissions to the levels of
Unit No. 1. If NPS and GVEA cannot agree, the matter will be arbitrated
in accordance with the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C.
571-583).
Air Quality
Generally accepted computer models, appropriate for establishing
compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory requirements, were used
for analyzing potential impacts within the Healy area (a Class II air
quality area) and within DNPP (a Class I air quality area where
stringent standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency). The CAA standards have been used as a gage for
assessing potential impacts associated with HCCP air emissions. For the
purpose of air quality analysis, two emission rates (levels) based on a
100% plant capacity factor were analyzed using the computer models.
These are the ``demonstration case,'' based on the very low emission
rates that are the target objectives of the HCCP demonstration, and the
``permitted case,'' based on the emission levels contained in the March
1993 ADEC permit. Both cases were modelled with and without the
retrofit controls on Unit No. 1 provided by the Memorandum of
Agreement. Maximum ambient (at or beyond the facility perimeter)
concentrations resulting from the combined operation of Healy Unit No.
1 and the HCCP are predicted to be less than the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all cases, although the predicted short
term SO2 concentrations approached the standards. Almost all of
the modeled concentrations are predicted to occur at the site
perimeter, resulting not from the new HCCP, but from downwash (downward
movement) of the existing Unit No. 1 stack plume caused by the larger
and taller HCCP boiler building. Thus, there was no difference between
the predicted concentrations for the demonstration and permitted cases
at either level of Unit No. 1 emissions. However, the reduced emission
levels from retrofitted Unit No. 1 resulted in a small reduction in
maximum SO2 concentrations and a greater than 50% reduction in
maximum NOX concentrations for both the demonstration case and the
permitted case.
NAAQS are used to establish absolute limits for pollutant
concentrations in the ambient air, whereas Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) ``increments'' have been established to define
permissible air quality degradation. For analyzing air quality impacts
within DNPP, the stringent standards of the PSD limits for Class I
areas were used to gauge potential impacts of the HCCP at both the
demonstration and the permitted case emissions. Modeling results for
the HCCP demonstration case indicate that maximum concentrations would
be less than 50% of the PSD Class I limits in all cases. However, the
permitted case emission levels consumed 88% percent or more of the
short term increments for SO2 and particulate matter.
Visibility and Haze
The issue of the HCCP's potential to cause visibility impacts
within DNPP is of great concern to the NPS, a cooperating agency by
virtue of its role as Federal Land Manager for the DNPP. Air quality
and, when weather conditions permit, visibility within DNPP are
considered among the best anywhere. Visibility impairment, if any, is
expected to take the form of a yellowish-brown NO2 plume that
would reduce visibility or be noticeable when contrasted against
relatively clean air either above or below the plume line.
For visibility analysis, two computer models and a visibility
monitoring (photographic) program were used to analyze potential
visibility impacts within DNPP. The area of detailed study included the
far eastern edge of DNPP within the Nenana River Valley. Views from the
interior of DNPP, including views of Mt. McKinley, are not expected to
be subject to visibility impairment. The results from the computer-
based modeling predict that for the HCCP demonstration case, a visible
plume may be perceived by DNPP visitors a total of 2 hours per year (h/
year). The computer modeling also predicts that when the HCCP and Unit
No. 1 would operate simultaneously (without retrofit of Unit No. 1), a
visible plume may be perceived by visitors 15 h/year. The combined
operation of the HCCP and Unit No. 1 after the retrofits provided by
the Memorandum of Agreement predict that a plume may be perceived 9 h/
year. At the higher levels of the HCCP permitted case, a plume is
predicted 26 h/year without retrofit, and 20 h/year with retrofit of
Unit No. 1. In addition, the computer modeling predicts that during
operations of the existing Unit No. 1 alone, a visible plume should be
perceived 6 h/year. This is consistent with the fact that there have
been no published sightings of a visible plume from Unit. No. 1 from or
within DNPP by observers or operating camera equipment.
A sensitivity analysis of the effect of using modelling assumptions
preferred by the NPS indicated that a plume could be perceptible as
much as 78 h/year for the HCCP demonstration case, 262 h/year for the
simultaneous operation of the HCCP and unretrofitted Unit No. 1, and
205 h/year for the simultaneous operation of both units after the
retrofit of Unit No. 1. Results increase to 329 h/year and 294 h/year
for the HCCP permitted case, combined with Unit No. 1 unretrofitted,
and Unit No. 1 retrofitted, respectively. Use of these same assumptions
also predicts that the current operation of Unit No. 1 alone may cause
a visible plume to be perceived 145 h/year.
DOE has concluded that the modeling using the original assumptions
form reasonable estimates of the number of hours that a plume from the
HCCP and in combination with Unit No. 1 may be perceptible. The results
using the assumptions preferred by the NPS are beyond credible
estimates in view of the actual experience with Unit No. 1, that is,
there are no published sightings of a plume from Unit No. 1. The 145 h/
yr prediction for Unit No. 1 is 39% of the 372 hours of the year during
which, based on historic conditions, wind direction and speed would
allow a transport of a potentially perceptible plume to the DNPP
Visitors Center.
An analysis of regional haze reveals that adding HCCP emissions to
those from Unit No. 1 increases the estimated number of events per year
by only one event. A sensitivity analysis of the effect of using
assumptions preferred by the NPS was also done for haze modeling.
Although a larger number of events was predicted when the NPS
assumptions were used, all of the modeling indicated little increase by
adding HCCP emissions to those from Unit No. 1, regardless of the
assumptions. Observations have not attributed regional haze to the
existing Unit No. 1.
DOE is fully aware of the uncertainties inherent in the computer
modelling of visibility and haze impacts. However, the implications of
these uncertainties for predicting the impacts of the HCCP have been
significantly mitigated by the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement
discussed above. If a plume, or haze is sighted, emissions will be
reduced to existing Unit No. 1 levels.
Water Quality
The EIS also evaluates impacts of construction and operation of the
HCCP on surface water, including the Nenana River. Primary impacts to
the Nenana River would be caused by the rejection of waste heat to the
river from the discharge of a once-through cooling system. During the
production of electricity, power plants need to reject waste heat.
During preliminary engineering design, the participant evaluated three
different systems for waste heat rejection: (1) Wet cooling tower, (2)
dry (air) cooling tower, and (3) a once-through system that would use
water directly from the Nenana River. The existing Unit No. 1 uses
once-through cooling. A wet cooling tower was found to be not feasible
because the subarctic climate of central Alaska would present
operational problems and a wet cooling tower could adversely affect
local weather conditions. A dry cooling tower was found to be very
expensive because it would be much larger than a wet tower and dry
towers consume large amounts of power to drive circulation fans. The
large power requirement of a dry cooling tower would lower the overall
plant efficiency. The option of a once-through system was selected
because with the discharge of cooling water from Healy Unit No. 1 and
the HCCP into the Nenana River, cumulative water temperatures during
winter months would be below the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) limit of 55.4 deg. F at 30 ft downstream of the
HCCP discharge and beyond. During summer months, cumulative water
temperatures would be below the limit beyond 50 ft downstream of the
HCCP discharge. The state has been asked by the project participant to
allow a thermal mixing zone of 600 ft for the HCCP to meet the state
limit. The Nenana River, at the proposed site, does not support a large
population of sport fish; the fish found at the proposed site are
primarily round whitefish and longnose suckers. However, during the
winter, cold shock could kill fish acclimated to the warmer
temperatures of the once-through cooling system discharge that become
deprived of the warmed water if the HCCP would suddenly shut down. A
cross connection would be installed between the Healy Unit No. 1 and
HCCP discharges to provide the flexibility of discharging Unit No. 1
water downstream of the intake basin during summer, and to keep the
water intakes free of ice during winter if Unit No. 1 is shut down. The
cross connection may mitigate cold shock mortality by allowing
discharge to both outfalls when Unit No. 1 is shut down during winter
months.
During the winter, the waste heat rejected by Unit No. 1's once-
through cooling system presently prevents the Nenana River from
completely freezing over for an approximate distance of 4 miles
downstream (to the north). It is estimated that during operation of
both the proposed HCCP and Unit No. 1, the combined thermal discharge
would extend the area to about 10 miles downstream. Residents of the
village of Ferry, which is located about 13 miles downstream of the
proposed site, use the frozen river as an ice bridge to transport
supplies and materials across the Nenana River during the winter.
Although remnants of the thermal plume reaching Ferry could cause a
delay in the river's freezing at the beginning of winter and an earlier
breakup of the ice sheet in the spring, it is expected that the river
would continue to freeze at Ferry.
The EIS analyzes short-term and long-term socioeconomic impacts
associated with construction and operation of the proposed HCCP,
particularly in the areas of housing, education, traffic, police and
fire protection, and medical services. During HCCP construction, a peak
of approximately 300 workers is estimated. To help reduce the
``boomtown'' effect on the Healy area, it is proposed that a temporary
construction camp would be built at a location about 0.5 miles from the
proposed site to house most workers. Longer-term socioeconomic impacts
would result from 32 new workers expected for HCCP operations and from
8 new jobs created at the UCM mine. It is estimated that these new
workers and their families would increase the population of the Healy
area by approximately 102 people by 1996-1997.
No Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would result if DOE does not provide
cost-shared funding support for the HCCP; two reasonably foreseeable
scenarios could result (see Alternatives above). For the no-change
scenario, impacts would remain unchanged from the baseline conditions.
For the conventional coal-fired plant scenario, the level of impacts
would be almost identical to that of the HCCP for most resource areas
because the resource requirements and discharges are nearly identical,
except for air emissions. Surface water, groundwater, and ecological
and socioeconomic impacts are not expected to change from those in the
HCCP. The amount of coal required for the conventional plant would be
about 90% of the coal required for the HCCP. However, total mining
operations (including coal mined for other users) would increase at the
UCM mine by about 10% for the conventional plant compared with the HCCP
because about 50% of the coal used by the HCCP would be waste coal
uncovered during mining for run-of-mine coal. Particulate emissions
from fugitive dust during mining would be about 10% greater for the
conventional plant. Operational air emissions are expected to be up to
100% greater for the conventional plant (compared with HCCP
demonstration case) because the conventional plant would only be
required to meet emissions standards existing at the time of
construction, while the HCCP is expected to generate emissions
substantially less than the standards. The conventional plant would be
expected to generate about 50% less ash following combustion. Fewer
trips, involving less ash, would be required to return the ash to the
UCM mine, although the mine can easily accommodate the greater amount
of ash disposal from the HCCP.
Alternative Site
In addition to the proposed site, the EIS considers the alternative
site for the HCCP located about 4 miles north-northwest of the proposed
site. The EIS analysis indicates that, except for air quality, other
environmental and socioeconomic impacts would be greater if the HCCP
were to be constructed and operated at the alternative site. The
alternative site has been disturbed, in part, during the construction
of the loadout facility and conveyor system that transfers coal across
the Nenana River from the mine. However, the alternative site is
somewhat isolated and much less of an ``industrial site'' than the area
adjacent to the existing Unit No. 1. For example, construction of the
HCCP at the alternative site would require the site clearing of 37
acres of which 22 acres are identified as wetlands in the National
Wetlands Inventory. Only about 10 acres need to be prepared at the
proposed site adjacent to Unit No. 1 and no loss of wetlands would
occur. Also, during the winter the rejection of waste heat from the
HCCP into the Nenana River at the alternative site may extend the area
of ice-free water approximately 1 mile closer to the village of Ferry
(2 vs 3 miles). However, cumulative thermal effects resulting from the
discharge of the HCCP and Unit No. 1 cooling water into the Nenana
River would not occur at the alternative site. The expected maximum
elevation in river water temperature would be less than that expected
at the proposed site because the ambient river temperature would not be
elevated by Unit No. 1 thermal discharge. However, cumulative impacts
at the proposed site would be mitigated by the installation of a cross
connection to direct the discharge to either or both outfalls. If the
HCCP were built at the alternative site about 13 additional workers
would be required for plant operations over the 32 workers required at
the proposed site because it would no longer be possible to integrate
the operations of both Unit No. 1 and the HCCP. These additional
operational workers would be needed for control room operations and
maintenance.
Air quality analysis using computer models was performed to analyze
the potential impact from air emissions if the HCCP was constructed and
operated at the alternative site. The predicted maximum concentrations
for the demonstration case are less than the PSD Class I limits.
Because the alternative site is located about 6 miles east of the
nearest border of DNPP (and about 8 miles north of the DNPP border that
is downwind of frequent winds), while the proposed site is about 4
miles north of DNPP, air dispersion modeling has indicated that maximum
concentrations of air pollutants within DNPP would be reduced for the
alternative site as compared with the proposed site.
Impacts outside of DNPP would also decrease, except for PM which
would increase or remain about the same. Cumulative concentrations from
the simultaneous operation of the HCCP at the alternative site and the
existing Unit No. 1 would be reduced from those predicted for the HCCP
at the proposed site because the new HCCP boiler building would not
affect the Unit No. 1 stack plume. Visibility impacts to DNPP from
operation of the HCCP at the alternative site are expected to be
similar to the proposed site.
Comments Received
DOE received two letters of comment on the FEIS. Mr. Dave Lacey of
College, Alaska commented that heavy metals and carbon dioxide were
inadequately analyzed. Mr. Lacey also objected to the economic and
Federal budget implications of a government cost-shared project. He
requested a public hearing to explore these issues. Mr. Lacey's letter
raised similar issues to those provided in his oral and written
comments on the draft EIS. DOE believes that they were adequately
addressed in the FEIS, and that an additional hearing is not necessary.
The Trustees for Alaska urged DOE to delay issuance of this Record
of Decision until after the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the Trustees
for Alaska's appeal of the Superior Court decision upholding the APUC's
issuance of a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to AIDEA for the
HCCP. The Trustees for Alaska claimed that the order of the Superior
Court to stay the Certificate pending a final ruling by the Supreme
Court undermines DOE's ability to depend on the APUC action to
establish the need for the project.
This argument misconstrues the role of DOE in the HCCP and the
purpose and need which DOE is attempting to fulfill by cost sharing the
project. The Federal need established by the CCT legislation and the
Alaska state need reflected in the APUC process are not the same, and
DOE does not depend on the APUC determination of need for power to
conclude that the project is needed to meet DOE's goals and objectives.
The goal of the CCT Program as established by Congress is to make
available to the U.S. energy marketplace advanced and environmentally
responsive technologies that will help alleviate pollution problems
from coal utilization. DOE's purpose and need for cost sharing the HCCP
is to generate data to help achieve that goal. AIDEA and GVEA's need to
meet their goals of encouraging economic development and meeting power
demand, respectively, are independent of DOE's need to meet CCT program
goals. As discussed above, AIDEA and GVEA's needs are important in
defining the alternatives available to DOE in meeting its goal, but
they are not necessary for DOE to establish that the need to meet its
goal exists.
Decision
DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately
$110 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the
construction and operation of two integrated clean coal technologies to
be demonstrated in the HCCP. The HCCP is intended to demonstrate the
combined removal of SO2, NOx, both of which can contribute to
acid rain, and particulate matter using advanced combustion and flue
gas cleanup technologies. In doing so, the project would successfully
demonstrate two promising technologies ready to be commercialized in
the 1990s. 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 these technologies to new
or existing units. While it is possible that selecting no action would
be environmentally preferable to the proposed action, it would not
produce the data needed to further the Congressionally mandated goals
and objectives of demonstrating clean coal technologies.
This decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed HCCP
was made after careful review of the potential environmental impacts,
especially any potential adverse impacts on DNPP, as analyzed in the
EIS; consultation with DOI (including NPS, the Federal Land Manager for
DNPP); and taking into consideration the Memorandum of Agreement for
providing mitigation of potential impacts on DNPP from the operation of
the proposed HCCP. The decision to provide cost-shared funding for the
HCCP is being made contingent on the incorporation of the terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement into the ADEC air quality permit, as provided
in the Agreement.
Mitigation Action Plan
Section 1021.331(a) of the DOE regulations implementing NEPA (10
CFR part 1021) states that DOE shall prepare a Mitigation Action Plan
that addresses mitigation commitments expressed in the ROD. A
Mitigation Action Plan for the HCCP is being developed to ensure that
DOE implements all mitigation commitments. Copies of the Mitigation
Action Plan may be obtained from Earl W. Evans, Environmental
Coordinator, Office of Clean Coal Technology, U.S. Department of
Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, P.O. Box 10940,
Pittsburgh, PA 15236. Telephone (412) 892-5709.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 1994.
Marvin I. Singer,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-6563 Filed 3-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
