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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for

the Proposed Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR)

Project

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.

4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA regulations (10

CFR Part 1021), to assess the potential environmental and human health

impacts of a proposed project under the Clean Coal Technology Program

that would integrate the production of molten iron for steelmaking with

the production of electricity. The Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore

Reduction (CPICOR) project, proposed to be located within the Geneva

Steel Company's existing plant at Vineyard, Utah, would demonstrate the

integration of the High Intensity Smelting (HIsmelt)

ironmaking process with technology to generate electricity using steam

heated by combustion gas from the HIsmelt process. The EIS

will help DOE decide whether to provide 15% of the funding for the $1

billion proposed project.

The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to inform the public about

the proposed action; present the schedule for the action; announce the

plans for a public scoping meeting; invite public participation in (and

explain) the scoping process that DOE will follow to comply with the

requirements of NEPA; and solicit public comments for consideration in

establishing the proposed scope and content of the EIS. The EIS will

evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project and reasonable

alternatives.

DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal

is addressed, DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of

the EIS from all interested parties. All comments must be received by

August 16, 1999, to ensure consideration. Late comments will be

considered to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments

in writing and by telephone, DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting

in which agencies, organizations, and the general public are invited to

present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the range of

actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS. The

scoping meeting will be held at the Council Chambers of the Provo City

Center, 351 W. Center Street, Provo, Utah, at 7 p.m. on Thursday, July

15, 1999. In addition, DOE will host an informational session for

interested parties from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. on the day of the meeting

at the Council Chambers. Displays and other forms of information about

the proposed project and its location will be available, and DOE

personnel will be available to answer questions. The public is invited

to this informal session to learn more about the proposed project.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to participate in the public

scoping process should be addressed to: Mr. Joseph Renk, NEPA Document

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center,

P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940.

Individuals who would like to provide comments and/or otherwise

participate in the public scoping process should contact Mr. Renk

directly at telephone 412-892-6249; fax 412-892-4775; e-mail

[email protected]; or by recorded message at toll-free number 1-800-

276-9851.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about

this project or to receive a copy of the draft EIS when it is issued,

contact Mr. Joseph Renk at the address provided above. For general

information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20585-0119, 202-586-4600; or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Agency Action

Under Public Law 102-154, the U.S. Congress provided authorization

and funds to DOE for conducting cost-shared Clean Coal Technology (CCT)

Program projects for the design, construction, and operation of

facilities that ``* * * shall advance significantly the efficiency and

environmental performance of coal-using technologies and be applicable

to either new or existing facilities * * *'' Under a solicitation in

1992 pursuant to this law (Round V of the CCT Program) and a subsequent

appropriation (Public Law 101-512), DOE selected for further

consideration for cost-shared funding a proposal from the CPICOR

Management Company for design, construction, and operation of a process

to integrate production of molten iron for steelmaking with production

of electricity for utility distribution.

The demonstration of the CPICOR project under the CCT Program would

fulfill an existing programmatic need. Although substantial deposits of

coal exist as a resource suitable for and capable of resolving critical

energy issues, there are a number of obstacles that present barriers to

its increased use. These impediments include: (1) Concerns about

environmental issues, such as acid deposition, global climate change,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions, and solid waste; (2)

commercial demonstration of acceptable coal use technologies; and (3)

technical and economic performance of the technologies. Thus, since the

early 1970's, DOE and its predecessor agencies have pursued research

and development programs that have included long-term, high-risk

activities to support the development of a wide variety of innovative

coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage.

However, the availability of a technology at the proof-of-concept

stage is not sufficient to ensure its continued development and

subsequent commercialization. Before any

[[Page 34641]]

technology can be seriously considered for commercialization, it must

be demonstrated. The financial risk associated with technology

demonstration is, in general, too high for the private sector to assume

without strong incentives or legal requirements. The CCT Program was

established by Congress and endorsed by the private sector as a way to

accelerate the development of innovative technologies to meet the

nation's near-term energy and environmental goals, to reduce the

business community's investment risk to an acceptable level, and to

provide incentives for the private sector to pursue innovative research

and development directed at providing solutions to long-range energy

supply problems.

Proposed Action

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative

agreement with the CPICOR Management Company, cost-shared financial

assistance for the design, construction, and operation of the proposed

project as described below. The project would cost approximately $1

billion; DOE's share would be nearly $150 million (15%). The proposed

project would be located at the existing Geneva Steel Company

facilities in Vineyard, Utah.

The CPICOR project would demonstrate the integration of the HIsmelt

 ironmaking process with technology for power generation.

The HIsmelt  process produces molten iron directly from

iron ore and coal in a single integrated operation without any

intermediate steps. In contrast, conventional ironmaking technology

practiced today requires two separate processes: (1) Initial production

of coke from coal in sequential coal charging, coking (heating coal in

the absence of air to drive off volatile organic compounds), and coke

removal and quenching operations, which result in emissions of

particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants (e.g., polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons); and (2) subsequent use of the produced coke as

both a heat source and a reducing agent in a blast furnace with iron

ore and limestone to reduce the iron ore to molten iron.

The CPICOR project would produce 3,300 tons per day of molten iron

and up to 160 megawatts of electricity (MWe). To produce molten iron,

iron ore, coal, and oxygen-enriched hot air would be injected into a

closed HIsmelt  molten-bath reactor, which would minimize

hazardous air pollutant emissions. The metal bath is the primary

reaction medium in which carbon from the coal would reduce iron ore to

iron. Molten iron that collects in the bottom of the bath would be

continuously tapped from the vessel to maintain a constant level of

iron inside the vessel. Slag, would be tapped periodically and used to

coat and control the internal cooling system and reduce heat loss.

Based on equivalent production of iron, the HIsmelt 

technology is capable of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by over 85%,

oxides of nitrogen by 35%, and particulate matter by over 85%, when

compared to conventional ironmaking technology. Desulfurization would

occur through reaction of sulfur in the reducing gas with limestone/

dolomite additives. The reducing atmosphere in the HIsmelt 

process would minimize the formation of oxides of nitrogen. Another

environmental benefit of the HIsmelt  process is its

ability to process iron oxide wastes (called reverts) produced from

conventional iron and steel production. The Geneva Steel site, as well

as many other U.S. ironmaking sites, currently houses large inventories

of reverts.

In addition to the HIsmelt  unit, the plant would

include such new facilities as: an air separation unit to provide

approximately 1,000 tons of oxygen per day; a boiler to generate steam;

a steam turbine generator to produce electricity; a wet scrubber gas

cleaning system to remove particulate matter; and all necessary

auxiliary systems. Gas produced in the HIsmelt  unit would

be combusted in the boiler to produce: (1) 5,500 tons per day of steam

for in-plant use by Geneva Steel and (2) additional steam required to

drive a 160-MWe steam turbine. About 140 MWe would be used for internal

process needs at the Geneva Steel facilities and the remaining 20 MWe

would be available for export to the existing power grid. Following a

successful demonstration of the CPICOR project, it is anticipated that

the existing coke ovens at the Geneva Steel site would not be replaced

as they reach the end of their useful life.

The CPICOR project would occupy approximately 17 acres of

previously disturbed land at the Geneva Steel site, and an additional 8

acres of previously disturbed land would be used during construction

for laydown, fabrication, and storage areas. Most construction would be

related to the HIsmelt  unit, the air separation unit, and

the power plant unit. Extension of conveyors to transport coal and

other feedstocks to the HIsmelt  unit would be required,

along with a new raw material storage facility. Control rooms for the

HIsmelt , air separation, and power plant units would be

required. Wherever possible, existing facilities and infrastructure

located at the Geneva Steel site would be used for the CPICOR project.

These include railway lines/spurs, coal rotary dumpsters, conveyors,

day bins, slag handling facilities, and water distribution and

wastewater treatment systems.

Project activities would include engineering and design,

permitting, procurement, construction, start-up, and demonstration.

Assuming timely delivery from the CPICOR project team of the

environmental information necessary for developing the EIS, DOE

anticipates a 15-month schedule (from date of publication of this

Notice of Intent) to complete the EIS and issue a Record of Decision.

Upon completing its NEPA review, if DOE decides to implement the

proposed action, construction would commence in the year 2001 and

demonstration would begin in the year 2003. Verification of the

commercial feasibility of the technology would be accomplished through

a 30-month test program, during which the plant would be operated on

several different types of coal, to test and demonstrate the viability

of the technology. Upon completing the demonstration program for DOE,

the facility would continue to operate as part of Geneva Steel's

commercial plant. The facility would be designed for a lifetime of 30

years.

Alternatives

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that agencies discuss the

reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS. The purpose

for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives.

Congress established the CCT Program and directed DOE to pursue the

goals of the legislation by soliciting proposals and partially funding

(cost sharing) projects owned and controlled by non-Federal government

sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more limited

role than if the Federal government were the owner and operator of the

project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a

comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives. However, in dealing

with an applicant, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more

restricted. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial

weight to the applicant's needs in establishing a project's reasonable

alternatives.

An overall strategy for compliance with NEPA was developed for the

CCT Program that includes consideration of both programmatic and

project-specific

[[Page 34642]]

environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a

project. As part of the NEPA strategy, the EIS for the proposed CPICOR

project will tier off the Program's final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (PEIS) that was issued by DOE in November 1989 (DOE/

EIS-0146). Two alternatives were evaluated in the PEIS: (1) the no-

action alternative, which assumed that the CCT Program was not

continued and that conventional coal-fired technologies with flue gas

desulfurization and nitrogen oxide controls to meet New Source

Performance Standards would continue to be used; and (2) the proposed

action, which assumed that the clean coal projects would be selected

and funded, and that successfully demonstrated technologies would

undergo widespread commercialization by the year 2010.

The range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS

for the proposed CPICOR project is also narrowed in accordance with the

overall NEPA strategy. The EIS will include an analysis of the no-

action alternative as a reasonable alternative to the proposed action

of providing cost-shared funding support for the proposed project. DOE

will consider other reasonable alternatives that may be suggested

during the public scoping period.

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide partial

funding for the design, construction, and operation of the CPICOR

project. In the absence of DOE funding, the CPICOR project probably

would not be constructed; therefore, potential environmental impacts or

benefits related to its demonstration would not be realized. In

addition, the project would not contribute to the general objective of

the CCT Program, which is to make available to the U.S. energy

marketplace a number of advanced, more efficient, economically

feasible, and environmentally acceptable coal technologies.

If the CPICOR facility is not built, other reasonable alternatives

for producing coke and molten iron would need to be adopted by Geneva

Steel. While the option to do nothing (i.e., continue to operate the

blast furnaces using coke) is perhaps the most likely, especially in

the near future, it is undesirable because Geneva Steel's coke-making

capacity is declining, which would eventually lead to a total

dependence on imported coke for iron production. Another option would

be to modernize existing blast furnaces to lessen the requirements for

coke and to install new coke-making facilities with state-of-the-art

pollution controls that are needed to comply with the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In the EIS, DOE will

consider both of these options under the no-action alternative.

Because of DOE's limited role of providing cost-shared funding for

the proposed CPICOR project, and because of the advantages associated

with the proposed location, DOE does not plan to evaluate alternative

sites for the proposed project. The project participants initially

considered additional sites during their site selection process. Site

selection was governed primarily by benefits that could be realized by

the companies participating in the project. An existing plant site was

preferred because the cost associated with construction of the project

at a ``greenfield'' site in an undisturbed area would be much higher

and the environmental impacts likely would be much greater than at an

existing facility. The site selected for the project had to provide the

maximum benefit to the companies by closely meeting the project's

technical needs and integrating with existing infrastructure. Because

Geneva Steel Company's only facility is located at Vineyard, Utah, no

other sites were considered after Geneva Steel was selected as the

ironmaking partner for the project.

The existing Geneva Steel plant has several advantages because it

is an operating plant with land available for installation of new

facilities, and likely would have less impact associated with

construction and operation of the facilities. Much of the

infrastructure needed for the facilities, including the electric

transmission lines and towers, is already in place at the Geneva Steel

plant. The molten iron produced by the project can be used in its

liquid form at the steel mill. If not sited at a steel mill location,

pig iron would need to be produced, which would add a processing step

and increase costs. Since pig iron is not a finished product, it would

need to be remelted, thus decreasing overall energy efficiency.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis

in the EIS. This list is not intended to be all inclusive or a

predetermined set of potential impacts, but is presented to facilitate

public comment on the scope of the EIS. Additions to or deletions from

this list may occur as a result of the scoping process. The issues

include:

(1) Atmospheric Resources: potential air quality and human health

impacts on areas and populations surrounding the site resulting from

emissions during current and future facility operations;

(2) Water Resources: potential effects on surface water and

groundwater resources consumed and discharged;

(3) Infrastructure and Land Use: potential consequences to land,

utilities, transportation routes, and traffic patterns resulting from

the proposed project, in particular, due to changes in the amounts of

coal and iron ore required;

(4) Solid Waste: pollution prevention and waste management

practices, including impacts caused by the generation, treatment,

transport, storage, and disposal of solid wastes;

(5) Construction: impacts associated with noise, traffic patterns,

and construction-related emissions;

(6) Environmental Justice: potential for disproportionately high

and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations in the

surrounding community;

(7) Visual: impacts associated with new structures associated with

the proposed project; and

(8) Cumulative effects: incremental impacts of the proposed project

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions (e.g., incremental air emissions affecting air quality and

human health).

Public Scoping Process

To ensure that all issues related to this proposal are addressed,

DOE will conduct an open process to define the scope of the EIS. The

public scoping period will run until August 16, 1999. Interested

agencies, organizations, and the general public are encouraged to

submit comments or suggestions concerning the content of the EIS,

issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and the alternatives

that should be analyzed. Scoping comments should clearly describe

specific issues or topics that the EIS should address in order to

assist DOE in identifying significant issues.

Written, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned comments should be

communicated by August 16, 1999 (see ADDRESSES in this Notice).

A public scoping meeting to be conducted by DOE will be held in the

Council Chambers of the Provo City Center, 351 W. Center Street, Provo,

Utah, on Thursday, July 15, 1999, at 7 p.m. In addition, DOE will hold

an informational session at the same location from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on

the day of the meeting. Displays and other materials and DOE personnel

will be available to provide information about the proposed project.

[[Page 34643]]

DOE requests that anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping

meeting contact Mr. Joseph Renk, either by phone, fax, computer, or in

writing (see ADDRESSES in this Notice). Individuals who do not make

advance arrangements to speak may register at the meeting (preferably

at the beginning of the meeting) and will be given the opportunity to

speak after all previously scheduled speakers have made their

presentations. Speakers who wish to make presentations longer than five

minutes should indicate the length of time desired in their request.

Depending on the number of speakers, it may be necessary to limit

speakers to five-minute presentations initially, with the opportunity

for additional presentations as time permits. Speakers can also provide

additional written information to supplement their presentations. Oral

and written comments will be given equal consideration.

DOE will begin the meeting with overviews of the proposed CPICOR

project and the NEPA process. A presiding officer will be designated by

DOE to chair the meeting. The meeting will not be conducted as an

evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined. However,

speakers may be asked to clarify their statements to ensure that DOE

fully understands the comments or suggestions. The presiding officer

will establish the order of speakers and provide any additional

procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 22nd day of June, 1999.

David Michaels,

Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 99-16355 Filed 6-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P