99-16355. Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) Project  

  • [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 
    renk@fetc.doe.gov; 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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/28/1999
Department:
Energy Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Document Number:
99-16355
Dates:
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal
Pages:
34640-34643 (4 pages)
PDF File:
99-16355.pdf