[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20824]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 24, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology
Project, Polk County, FL
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology
Project, Polk County, Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a Federal Cooperating
Agency, with the Region IV (Atlanta, Georgia) Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Federal lead agency, for
the purpose of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS; EPA 904/9-94-002) for Tampa Electric Companys (TECs) proposed
1,150 megawatt (MW) Polk Power Station. DOEs participation results from
the proposal by its Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program to provide
cost-sharing financial assistance for the development of the first
generating facility to be built at the Polk Power Station site.
Specifically, the proposed 260 MW integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) unit, called Polk Unit 1, is being considered by DOE for
cost-shared financial assistance in the amount of $130 million under
the terms of the CCT Demonstration Program. DOE considers the proposal
to provide cost-shared financial assistance for the IGCC demonstration
project to be a major federal action subject to the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to the corresponding DOE
regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). In accordance with these provisions,
alternatives available to DOE include the proposed action (which is
DOE's preferred alternative), and reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action (i.e., the no-action alternative, including scenarios
reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no-action alternative).
In March 1993, EPA, DOE, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby EPA was
designated as the Federal Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIS,
and DOE and USACOE were designated as Cooperating Agencies. The EPA
Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS for this proposed project was
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 29577) on May 21, 1993. DOE
has adopted this EIS as being adequate and appropriate for the purpose
of developing DOE's Record of Decision for its proposed action.
Accordingly, after careful consideration of the potential
environmental impacts assessed in the EIS for the proposed Polk Unit 1,
along with consideration of CCT Demonstration Program goals and
objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide approximately $130
million in federal funding support for the construction and operation
of the IGCC technology to be demonstrated at Polk Unit 1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on DOE's
activities related to the EIS, contact Bruce J. Buvinger, Environmental
Specialist, U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology
Center, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV. Telephone (304) 291-4379. 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 EPA Final EIS for the Proposed Tampa Electric Company--
Polk Power Station (EPA 904/9-94-002).
An overall NEPA compliance strategy was developed for the CCT
Demonstration Program, consistent with the Council on Environmental
Quality (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 Demonstration 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
Demonstration 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 Demonstration 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 Demonstration Program projects were
selected for funding and that successfully demonstrated technologies
would undergo widespread commercialization by 2010.
The second element involved preparation of a preselection
environmental review of project-specific environmental data and
analyses that the CCT Demonstration Program offerors supplied to DOE as
part of their CCT Demonstration Program proposals.
The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA
documents for each selected project. For Polk Unit 1, DOE determined
that an EIS should be prepared to address project- specific concerns.
EPA agreed with DOE's determination that an EIS should be prepared to
satisfy both agencies' NEPA regulations. As part of the overall NEPA
strategy for the CCT Demonstration Program, the Polk Power Station EIS
draws upon the Programmatic EIS and preselection environmental reviews
that have already analyzed various alternatives and scenarios (e.g.,
alternative technologies and sites).
The DOE proposal to provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC
for construction and operation of the 260 MW IGCC unit was determined
by DOE to be a major federal action subject to NEPA. Because of DOE's
CCT involvement, DOE and EPA initially agreed that DOE would assume the
Federal lead agency role for the development of the EIS, and that EPA
would be a Cooperating Agency. However, EPA's proposed federal action,
in its role as permitting authority for the proposed issuance of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,
pertains to the entire 1,150 MW Polk Power Station project, which
extends beyond DOE's involvement with Polk Unit 1. An additional
consideration in determining the Federal lead agency was the fact that,
if either DOE or TEC were to withdraw from the IGCC demonstration
agreement, DOE's interest in the EIS would cease, whereas EPA's NEPA
obligations regarding the preparation of the EIS would continue by
virtue of TEC's NPDES sitewide permit application. Therefore, it was
mutually determined that EPA would assume the lead agency role for the
preparation of the EIS for the proposed 1,150 MW complex. This change
in Federal lead agency from DOE to EPA was announced in the EPA's
Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI) of May 21, 1993 (58 FR 29577).
Project Description
TEC proposes to expand its electric generating capacity by
establishing an 1,150 MW power station on an approximately 4,348-acre
site in southwestern Polk County, Florida. Approximately 94 percent of
the site has been mined to recover phosphate or has been disturbed by
mining-related activities. Portions of the proposed site continue to be
mined. Existing mine cuts at the site would be modified to become the
Polk Power Station cooling reservoir. Much of the Polk Power Station
storm water would be reused in the cooling reservoir. Over one-third of
the Polk Power Station site (approximately 1,511 acres) would be
reclaimed as a wildlife habitat area of mixed forested and nonforested
uplands and wetlands. The proposed power station would be formally
known as the ``Tampa Electric Polk Power Station.''
At completion to its full 1,150 MW generating capacity, the
proposed Polk Power Station would consist of one 260 MW (net) IGCC
generating facility, two 220 MW (net) combined cycle (CC) generating
units, and six 75 MW (net) combustion turbine (CT) generating units.
This DOE ROD is specific to Polk Power Station Unit 1, the 260 MW IGCC
unit that is the portion of the project for which DOE has decided to
provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC.
The IGCC project was selected under DOE's CCT Demonstration Program
to demonstrate the commercial application of an IGCC system. The plant
is a combination of two leading technologies. The first technology,
combined cycle, is currently the most efficient commercially available
method of producing electricity. The second technology, gasification,
uses coal to produce a clean-burning gas. The integration of these
technologies will allow TEC to couple the high efficiency of the
combined cycle design with the low cost of coal for fuel. Project
objectives include demonstrating the IGCC technology in a commercial
electric utility application at the 260 MW size, demonstrating
commercial operation of the facilitys innovative hot gas cleanup
technology, and assessing long-term reliability, availability, and
maintainability.
The IGCC system offers several advantages over conventional coal-
based power generation technology, including: (1) Major reductions in
sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and dust emissions,
(2) decreased coal consumption associated with increased generating
efficiency, (3) modular construction for economic increments of
capacity to match load growth, (4) fuel flexibility, (5) reduced land
area and cooling water requirements, and (6) potential for design
standardization due to modular construction, which should reduce
engineering effort, construction time, and permitting complications for
subsequent plants.
The proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1 would consist of a 260 MW
IGCC power plant that would include a pressurized, oxygen-blown,
entrained flow gasifier designed by Texaco. Gas cleanup is accomplished
by low temperature acid gas removal, plus hot gas moving bed
desulfurization. The combined cycle portion of the system is an
advanced 150 MW General Electric gas turbine heat recovery steam
generator and a 130 MW steam turbine. The IGCC generation process is
about 10 to 12 percent more efficient than a conventional coal-fired
power plant because combined cycle generation reuses the exhaust heat
from the combustion turbines to produce additional electricity. The
combined cycle design consists of a combustion turbine/generator, a
heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine/generator. In the
gasification portion of the plant, coal would be partially burned to
produce coal gas, which is first cleaned and then used as fuel in the
combustion turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust heat from the
combustion turbine is recovered in the heat recovery steam generator to
produce steam, which then passes through a steam turbine to power
another generator, thereby producing additional electricity.
The proposed IGCC facility would be constructed in two phases. The
first phase would be a 150 MW advanced combustion turbine, fueled by
oil, to begin operation in 1995. In 1996, the coal gasification system
and combined cycle portion of the plant would begin operation, bringing
the total output to 260 MW.
Project Status
Project activities to date include applications for permits and
approvals necessary to construct and operate the Polk Power Station,
preparation of designs and specifications necessary to apply for these
permits and approvals, and preparation, publication, and distribution
of the draft and final EIS.
In July 1992, TEC submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and other appropriate agencies a site
certification application (SCA) for the construction and operation of
the proposed Polk Power Station pursuant to the Florida Electrical
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). The PPSA provides for the coordination
of all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements,
permits, and approvals for steam electric generating facilities with
capacities greater than 75 MW under the SCA review and certification
process.
In accordance with the PPSA process, a land-use hearing was held in
Bartow, Florida, on October 29, 1992. The Florida Power Plant Siting
Board (FPPSB) found the project to be consistent with state, regional,
and local land-use plans on January 26, 1993. The site certification
hearing for the project was held in Bartow, Florida, on October 13,
1993. On January 25, 1994, the FPPSB concurred with the Recommended
Order granting certification for the proposed Polk Power Station
subject to specific conditions of certification.
TEC's application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit (i.e., air quality construction and operation permit),
which was submitted to FDEP as part of the SCA process, included
modeling analyses and potential impact assessments for the proposed
1,150 MW build-out of the power station. However, FDEP approval of the
PSD permit has been granted only for the initial 260 MW IGCC unit.
Additional PSD permit application approvals will need to be pursued by
TEC for each additional proposed generating increment up to the full
1,150 MW level.
Under the PPSA, the determination of need for new electrical
generating capacity is the exclusive responsibility of the Florida
Public Service Commission (FPSC). TEC submitted a need for power
petition to the FPSC on September 5, 1991, including a ``Polk Unit One
Need Determination Study.'' On January 31, 1992, the FPSC voted to
approve and issue a certification of need for TECs planned IGCC unit
(Polk Power Station Unit 1). Additional need for power petitions must
be filed with the FPSC by TEC and approved prior to determination of
need for power beyond the initially-approved level.
TEC has submitted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application to EPA that seeks approval for discharge of
water from the proposed power station cooling reservoir to waters of
the United States. TEC also requested that EPA provide an NPDES ``new
source determination.'' By letter to TEC dated January 11, 1994, EPA
tentatively determined that the proposed Polk Power Station is a ``new
source'' that requires an NPDES permit based on New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). The pending EPA Notice of Determination for the NPDES
permit would constitute a formal ``new source determination'' by EPA.
In addition, TEC has applied to the USACOE for a ``Section 404''
(of the Clean Water Act) permit to conduct dredge-and-fill activities
in waters of the United States. The USACOE is also a Federal
Cooperating Agency to EPA for this EIS because of these permitting
responsibilities. The USACOE is expected to issue its permit following
the issuance of the RODs by each federal agency.
Alternatives Considered
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 the project. However, when DOE signs a Cooperative Agreement with
an industrial partner, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more
restricted, because the agency must focus on alternative ways to
accomplish its purpose, which reflect both the industrial partner's
needs and the functions it plays in the decisional process. It is
appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the
industrial partner's needs in establishing a project's reasonable
alternatives.
Based on the foregoing principles, the reasonable alternative to
the proposed action is the no-action alternative (including scenarios
reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no- action alternative).
The proposed action for the EIS under consideration here is TEC's
proposed project, described in the EIS as the ``Preferred Alternative
with DOE Financial Assistance.'' Reasonable alternatives and
subalternatives to the proposed project were considered in the EIS. In
addition to TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE
Financial Assistance)'' and the ``No-Action Alternative,'' alternative
and subalternative analyses performed by EPA as the Lead Agency
included Alternatives to Constructing New Generating Facilities,
Alternative Generating Technologies, Alternative Sites, and Alternative
Processes and Facilities.
The ``EIS Action Alternatives'' available to DOE are either to
provide cost-shared financial assistance for the proposed initial 260
MW IGCC unit, or to deny the financial assistance. After reviewing the
environmental effects associated with the Action Alternatives, DOE has
determined that its Preferred Alternative is to provide cost-shared
financial assistance for the proposed project.
EPA's ``EIS Action Alternatives'' are to issue, issue with
conditions, or deny the NPDES permit for TEC's proposed project. EPA's
preferred permitting action is to issue the NPDES permit with
conditions, following completion of the EIS process.
DOE's Proposed Action
The proposed federal action is the provision of approximately $130
million in cost-shared federal funding support for the construction and
operation of the 260 MW Unit 1 of the Polk Power Station, a proposed
new 1,150 MW power generating facility in Polk County, Florida. The CCT
program will demonstrate environmentally acceptable and economically
viable means of generating electricity with coal, the most abundant
energy resource in the United States.
The IGCC integrates coal gasification and combined cycle
technologies to develop a highly efficient new technology for removing
sulfur from synthetic fuelgas (``syngas'') prior to combustion. The 150
MW advanced General Electric Model 7F combustion turbine unit would be
integrated with heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and steam turbine
(ST) generator facilities to form a combined cycle generating unit with
coal gasification facilities to complete the proposed 260 MW Polk Power
Station Unit 1.
A Texaco pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier would
be used to produce a medium-Btu fuel gas. Coal/water slurry and oxygen
would be combined at high temperature and pressure to produce a high-
temperature syngas. Molten coal-ash would flow out of the bottom of the
vessel into a water-filled quench tank where it would be turned into a
solid slag. The syngas from the gasifier would move to a high-
temperature heat recovery unit that cools the gases. The cooled gases
would flow to a particulate removal section, and then enter two gas
cleanup trains, i.e., a demonstration hot gas cleanup (HGCU) train and
a conventional cold gas cleanup (CGCU) train. When both the HGCU and
CGCU systems are used, a portion of the syngas would be passed through
a moving bed of zinc titanate absorbent in the HGCU system to remove
sulfur. The remaining syngas would be cooled further through a series
of heat exchangers before entering a conventional CGCU train, where
sulfur would be removed by an acid gas removal system.
The cleaned gases then would be routed to a combined cycle system
for electric power generation. The advanced combustion turbine unit
would have a generating capacity of 190 MW (net) when fired on the
syngas. An HRSG would use heat from the combustion turbine exhaust to
produce high-pressure steam. This steam, along with the steam generated
in the gasification process, would be routed to the ST to generate an
additional 70 MW (net). By-products from the process--sulfur, sulfuric
acid, and slag--can be sold commercially: the sulfur by-product as a
raw material to make agricultural fertilizer, and the non-leachable
slag for use in roofing shingles, asphalt roads, and as a structural
fill in construction projects.
The proposed IGCC unit would provide DOE the opportunity to
demonstrate oxygen-blown entrained-flow IGCC technology, which is
expected to achieve significant reductions of sulfur dioxide and oxides
of nitrogen emissions as compared to conventional pulverized coal
technologies used in existing and planned future coal-burning power
plants. In accordance with a cooperative agreement with DOE under the
CCT Demonstration Program, TEC would be required to use coal from
various domestic sources for the IGCC unit. The potential coal supply
sources during the demonstration period are expected to be coal seams
in the eastern and midwestern United States. The project participant
would obtain all applicable permits for the Polk Power Station and
would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. The
proposed IGCC unit would require approximately 2,325 tons per day of
coal on a dry weight basis when operating at full capacity.
No Action
This alternative does not provide DOE cost-shared financial
assistance for the 260 MW IGCC unit. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT
Demonstration Program (DOE/EIS-0146) evaluated the consequences of no
action on a programmatic basis. Under the no-action alternative for
Polk Unit 1, the commercial readiness of the proposed integrated
gasification combined cycle technology for the combustion of coal would
not be demonstrated in Florida at the Polk Power Station, and probably
would not be demonstrated elsewhere because there are currently no
other similar proposals in the CCT Program. The opportunity to
demonstrate this technology would likely be lost. As a result,
commercialization of the technology 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, i.e., without DOE cost-shared
financial assistance, TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal
(Without DOE Financial Assistance)'' calls for construction and
operation of a 500 MW pulverized coal-fired unit to replace the IGCC
and several other of the planned units. Environmental consequences of
this alternative are additional sulfur dioxide and oxide of nitrogen
emissions, additional water use, additional coal consumption, less
flexibility in relation to load growth, and additional land area
required for the power generation facilities.
Alternative Sites
TEC employed a citizens' Power Plant Siting Task Force composed of
public and private representatives to select its preferred site. The
overall goal of the TEC Power Plant Site Selection Assessment Program
was to select a site, or sites, that were considered the most suitable
for developing the needed electric generating facilities to meet TEC's
future power supply demands. In addition to the preferred site, two
alternative Polk County sites with similar attributes were selected.
Although differences in impacts existed among the three sites, TEC
considered all three sites suitable and potentially permittable as
potential sites for the proposed facilities. Use of the final proposed
site would result in less environmental impact than the other two
sites; it also would be less costly to develop.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative (with DOE Financial Assistance)
DOE's providing TEC with approximately $130 million in cost- shared
financial assistance to construct the proposed Polk Power Station Unit
1 is the environmentally preferred alternative, and is the same as
DOE's proposed action. TEC would demonstrate an HGCU system for
removing sulfur compounds, particulates, and other potential pollutants
from syngas produced in the coal gasification facility prior to firing
in the advanced combustion turbine. The demonstration HGCU system has
the potential to achieve pollutant removal efficiencies equivalent to
or greater than the conventional CGCU technology, while providing a
more efficient power generation system. The HGCU process is also a
factor in minimizing air emissions, land and water impacts, and other
negative environmental consequences as compared with the conventional
pulverized coal technology described in the EIS under the ``No Action''
alternative.
Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation
of the proposed Polk Power Station were analyzed in the EIS, including
air quality, surface water and groundwater quality, biological
resources, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics, hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes, and human health and risk to wildlife.
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 Polk Power Station area (a
Class II air quality area) and within the Chassahowitzka National
Wildlife Area (a Class I air quality area where stringent standards
have been established by EPA). The CAA standards were used as one means
of assessing the magnitude of potential impacts associated with Polk
Power Station air emissions.
EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were used to
establish absolute limits for pollutant concentrations in the ambient
air, whereas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments
were employed to define permissible air quality degradation. Air
quality modeling results indicated that the operation of the proposed
Polk Power Station at completion would not cause or contribute to a
violation of any air quality regulations, including consumption of PSD
increments and the National and State of Florida AAQS. Maximum ambient
concentrations at or beyond the facility perimeter are predicted to be
less than the National and Florida AAQS for all cases, although the
predicted short term particulate matter (PM) concentrations approach
the standard. The results of a No-Threat Level analysis indicate that
public health in Polk County and adjacent counties would not be
jeopardized due to human inhalation of air emissions from the proposed
project operations.
To minimize potential air quality impacts, TEC would implement Best
Available Control Technology measures for the proposed project wherever
feasible to reduce combustion, process, and fugitive emissions. Use of
low-sulfur and low-ash fuels would minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide
and particulates. Coal handling and slag systems would be designed to
effectively control fugitive particulate matter emissions.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
No unacceptable surface water or groundwater impacts are expected
from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power Station.
The results of modeling efforts conducted by TEC indicate that
discharges from the cooling reservoir and from storm water are expected
to meet all state Class III surface water quality standards. The
proposed groundwater withdrawals and associated drawdowns are not
expected to affect other water users in the site vicinity. No impacts
to water quality in the Floridan or intermediate aquifers are
anticipated from the proposed project operations, due to the presence
of confining layers between these aquifers and the overlying surficial
aquifer. Water in the proposed cooling reservoir would meet applicable
FDEP Class G-II standards, with only exceedances of secondary drinking
water standards for iron and color. However, the concentrations of iron
and color are below ambient levels in the surficial aquifer.
Biological Resources
Approximately 1,090 acres of land would be affected by construction
of the power plant, cooling water reservoir, and other associated power
facilities. Most of these facilities would be located on mined or
highly disturbed lands. Approximately 253 acres of USACOE
jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced by the construction of the
power facilities. Potential adverse effects to local or regional
terrestrial and wetland vegetation resulting from Polk Power Station
operation are not anticipated, since air emissions and water discharges
would be in compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards
and water quality standards. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan
aquifer are not expected to result in drawdown of the surficial aquifer
and, therefore, would not cause changes to terrestrial or wetland
habitats. Construction of the Polk Power Station is not expected to
affect regional populations of any endangered, threatened, or special
concern species, which was confirmed by coordination letters and a site
inspection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed plant
construction and operation are not expected to affect biodiversity on a
local or regional scale.
Project mitigation for the loss of USACOE jurisdictional wetlands,
including FDEP-required reclamation measures, would be implemented for
the site. TEC's wetland mitigation/reclamation plan for the proposed
Polk Power Station site has been approved by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Implementation of this plan would
result in 799 acres of wetlands after reclamation of the site is
completed. The 799 acres of wetlands represent an increase of 187 acres
of wetlands relative to site pre-mining conditions.
Noise
Construction noise modeling was performed to determine the effects
at the nearest residential receptor. Because of the distance of 1.6
miles between the Polk Power Station site and the nearest residence,
construction noise levels would only have minor and temporary effects
on the noise environment around the plant site. Average noise levels
associated with Polk Power Station operation would be at or below the
existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residence. However,
instantaneous noise levels, such as from steam line blowout, flare
stack operation, or coal trucks, would be noticeable.
Construction noise would be mitigated by operating construction
machinery according to design specifications and only within daylight
hours. Operation noise would be mitigated through use of a vegetative
buffer. In addition, TEC would evaluate additional noise reduction
measures, such as combustion turbine air intake silencers, in its
detailed plant design.
Cultural Resources
Based on a cultural resource assessment conducted for the site and
confirmation of the results by the Florida Division of Historical
Resources and the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Polk
Power Station construction is not expected to affect any known
archaeological or historical feature listed or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places, or any other known cultural
resources. No mitigation is necessary.
Socioeconomics
Proposed Polk Power Station construction and operation would have
positive socioeconomic effects. Plant construction would begin in 1994
and extend through 1996. About 600 contract construction workers would
be employed at the peak of construction activity. About 130 persons
would be employed for Polk Power Station Unit 1 operations and
maintenance, the majority of which are expected to be drawn from the
local labor pool. The total cumulative annual operational financial
effect is estimated to be approximately $109 million (in 1992 dollars)
from 1995 to 2010. Ad valorem taxes to Polk County expected to be
generated by the project would increase from $1.9 million in 1996 (Unit
1 only) to $19.6 million in 2011 (complete 1,150 MW). Operation of the
proposed project would not unduly impact any community services or
facilities, including community water or wastewater systems or local
roads. Visual buffering between the main operating facilities and
surrounding land use has been incorporated into the design of the
project to reduce any potentially negative aesthetic impacts.
Hazardous and Nonhazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste generated by the facility would be minimized
through the use of source reduction techniques, such as product
substitution, and waste reduction techniques, such as recycling and
regeneration. Hazardous wastes and nonhazardous wastes would be managed
onsite and shipped offsite by licensed handlers to permitted waste
disposal or recycle facilities, in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations. Consequently, these wastes are not expected to
cause adverse environmental effects.
Human Health and Risk to Wildlife
No significant adverse human health effects are anticipated as a
result of the direct inhalation of the proposed Polk Power Station
emissions. Projected air emission levels would not significantly
degrade ambient air, and all regulated air toxics emissions would be at
concentrations below Florida No-Threat Levels developed to protect
human health. Potential impacts to wildlife from particulate deposition
relate to toxic effects from metals. However, based on the air modeling
analysis, the maximum levels of metals expected from particulate
deposition, even at completion of the station, are expected to be below
the threshold limits for wildlife.
No Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would result if DOE does not provide
cost-shared financial assistance under the DOE CCT Demonstration
Program for Polk Power Station Unit 1. TEC is expected to build the
Polk Power Station without the IGCC unit using more conventional
technology as an alternate means of implementing the project. Without
DOE cost-shared financial assistance, TEC's Proposed Project (Preferred
Alternative with DOE Financial Assistance) was compared to TEC's
Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE Financial Assistance)
relative to potential environmental impacts.
Under the Alternative Power Resource Proposal, the proposed 260 MW
IGCC unit and two 75 MW combustion turbines would be replaced by a 500
MW pulverized coal with flue gas desulfurization generating unit.
Primarily because of the resource requirements and effectiveness of
pollution control and minimization measures associated with the
proposed IGCC unit, the alternative proposal would be expected to
create greater negative environmental impacts than the proposed
project. Disadvantages of the Alternative Power Resource Proposal
include the need for more land area for the main plant facilities and
coal and by-product storage; a larger cooling reservoir area and
greater groundwater makeup and surface water discharge requirements;
increased sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter
air emissions; less generation flexibility in relation to load growth;
and increased coal usage which, in turn, would require more frequent
truck/train deliveries.
Decision
DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately
$130 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the
construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1 to demonstrate
the IGCC clean coal technology. All practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from this alternative have been adopted.
DOE has determined that the Congressionally-mandated goals and
objectives of demonstrating clean coal technologies would be achieved
through the construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1.
The Polk Power Station would demonstrate the integrated performance of
HGCU and CGCU, and an advanced gas turbine with oxides of nitrogen
control. The IGCC project would successfully demonstrate a promising
technology 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
generating facilities. In addition, no unacceptable adverse impacts are
expected from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power
Station Unit 1.
The decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed Polk
Power Station Unit 1 was made after careful review of the potential
environmental impacts analyzed in the EIS, consideration of the
public's concerns, and after consultation with Federal and State
regulatory agencies.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 1994.
Patricia Fry Godley,
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-20824 Filed 8-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
