![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Proposed Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement for the Mesaba Energy Project Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Demonstration Plant Northern Minnesota Iron Range, Itasca County, MN
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58207-58211]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05oc05-58]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and
Notice of Proposed Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement for the Mesaba
Energy Project Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Demonstration Plant Northern Minnesota Iron Range, Itasca County, MN
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of proposed floodplain and wetlands
involvement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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), the Council on Environmental
Quality NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts
1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021) to assess
the potential environmental impacts of a project proposed by Excelsior
Energy Inc. (Excelsior), to design, construct, and operate (potentially
under an agreement with an operating company) a coal-based, Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) electric generating facility on the
Iron Range of northern Minnesota (hereafter termed the ``Mesaba Energy
Project'' or the ``Project''). The proposed Project, selected for
further consideration under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative
competitive solicitation, would demonstrate advanced technologies to
produce electricity via the IGCC process, including advanced
gasification and air separation systems, feedstock flexibility,
improved environmental performance, and improved thermal efficiency.
The Project would represent the first phase of a proposed two-phase
generating station, each phase of which would nominally generate 600
megawatts of electricity (MWe) for export to the electrical grid. The
EIS will consider the impacts of both phases, even though DOE's
potential funding would only be provided in support of phase one. The
EIS will evaluate the proposed Project and reasonable alternatives.
Because the proposed Project may affect floodplains and wetlands on the
Iron Range of
[[Page 58208]]
northern Minnesota, the EIS will include a floodplain and wetlands
assessment, and DOE will prepare a statement of findings in accordance
with DOE regulations for Compliance with Floodplain and Wetlands
Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022). Wetland
permitting and mitigation would be conducted in accordance with the
rules and policies of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
The EIS will help DOE decide whether to provide approximately $36
million in cost-shared funding (the estimated total Project cost is
$1.97 billion). DOE may also provide a loan guarantee, pursuant to the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, to guarantee a portion of the private sector
financing for the Project.
The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to inform the public about
the proposed Project; invite public participation in the EIS process;
announce the plans for a public scoping meeting; explain the EIS
scoping process; and solicit public comments for consideration in
establishing the proposed scope of the EIS. Because the proposed
facility is considered a Large Electric Power Generating Plant, the
Project is subject to the Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota
Statutes 116C.51-.69), which requires the preparation of a state-
equivalent EIS. The EIS requirements under NEPA and the Minnesota Power
Plant Siting Act are substantially similar, and it is DOE's intent to
prepare, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and
the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, an EIS that will fulfill the
requirements of both laws.
DATES: To ensure that all of the issues related to this proposal are
addressed, DOE invites comments on the proposed scope of the EIS from
all interested parties. Comments must be received by November 14, 2005,
to ensure consideration. Late comments will be considered to the extent
practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by
telephone (see ADDRESSES below), DOE will conduct two public scoping
meetings in which agencies, organizations, and the general public are
invited to present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the
range of alternatives and environmental issues to be considered in the
EIS. The scoping meetings will be held at the Taconite Community
Center, 26 Haynes Street, Taconite, MN, on Tuesday, October 25, 2005,
beginning at 7 p.m., and at Hoyt Lakes Arena, 106 Kennedy Memorial
Drive, Hoyt Lakes, MN, on Wednesday, October 26, 2005, beginning at 7
p.m. (see ``Public Scoping Process below.'') The public is invited to
an informal session at each location beginning at 4 p.m. on the date of
each meeting during which DOE personnel will be present to discuss the
proposed Project and the EIS process. Displays and other forms of
information about the proposed agency action and the demonstration
plant will be made available to the public for review.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed EIS scope and requests to
participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to the
NEPA Document Manager for the Project: Mr. Richard Hargis, M/S 922-
342C, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory,
P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. Individuals who would like
to otherwise participate in the public scoping process should contact
Mr. Richard Hargis directly by telephone: 412-386-6065; toll free
number: 888-322-7436 ext. 6065; fax: 412-386-4775; or electronic mail:
richard.hargis@netl.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Mesaba
Energy Project or to receive a copy of the draft EIS for review when it
is issued, contact Mr. Richard Hargis as described above. Those seeking
general information on the DOE NEPA process should contact: Ms. Carol
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42),
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0119; Telephone: (202) 586-4600, Facsimile: (202) 586-7031 or
leave a toll-free message at: 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Need for Agency Action: Since the early 1970's, DOE
and its predecessor agencies have supported research and development
programs that include long-term, high-risk activities for 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 continued
development and subsequent commercialization. Before any technology can
be considered seriously for commercialization, it must first be
demonstrated. The financial risk associated with technology
demonstration is, in general, too high for the private sector to assume
in the absence of strong incentives. Congress established the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) in 2002 as a government/industry
partnership to implement the President's National Energy Policy (NEP)
recommendation to increase investment in clean coal technology and
reduce the use of imported energy sources. That recommendation
addresses a national challenge of ensuring the reliability of electric
supply while simultaneously protecting the environment.
The goal of the CCPI program is to accelerate commercial deployment
of advanced coal technologies that provide the United States with
clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Through cooperative agreements
established pursuant to the CCPI program, DOE would accelerate
deployment of innovative technologies to: meet near-term energy and
environmental goals; reduce technological risk to the business
community to an acceptable level; and provide private sector incentives
required for continued activity in 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 Excelsior, and possibly through a loan
guarantee for up to 80% of the total Project cost, financial assistance
for the proposed Project. The proposed IGCC demonstration plant would
be designed for long-term commercial operation following completion of
an anticipated 12-month minimum demonstration period under a
cooperative agreement with DOE. The Project would cost a total of
approximately $1.97 billion; DOE's share would be approximately $36
million. The Project would represent the first phase of a proposed two-
phase generating station; each phase would nominally generate 600 MWe
(net) for a nominal combined generating capacity of 1,200 MWe (net).
DOE plans to complete the EIS within 15 months following publication of
this Notice of Intent and, subsequently, to issue a Record of Decision.
The EIS will consider the impacts of both phases, even though DOE s
potential funding would only be provided in support of phase one.
The Project would use ConocoPhillips' E-GasTM Technology
for solid feedstock gasification. The starting point for the project
design is the 262 MWe (net) Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering
Project (Wabash) in Terre Haute, Indiana, which was built under the
DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program (predecessor to the CCPI) and has
been in operation since 1995. Wabash has achieved an emissions profile
that compares favorably to alternative technologies being proposed and
permitted today for
[[Page 58209]]
new coal-based power projects. Based on subsequent DOE-funded studies
of potential performance and technological upgrades, and nearly 1,600
design and operational lessons learned from Wabash, the E-
GasTM team identified five areas for continued research and
development to improve and advance gasification technologies toward
commercial acceptance. The areas address improvements in operational
availability, capital costs and financing, operating costs, feedstock
flexibility, and environmental performance.
Based in part on the achievements and lessons learned from Wabash,
the Mesaba Energy Project directly addresses the principal barriers
hindering IGCC penetration into the power market. The Project would
integrate numerous design improvements that would substantially advance
the original Wabash technology, design, and systems integration. The
Project would demonstrate the following features and technologies to
improve and advance IGCC processes toward commercial acceptance:
? Increased Capacity--With more than double the generating
capacity of Wabash, the Project would demonstrate the economies of
scale attainable at larger commercial operations. When complete, the
installed cost is expected to be 30% lower per kilowatt than a plant
based on the original Wabash design.
? Advanced Gasifier--The Project would demonstrate a
significantly more advanced full-slurry quench, multiple-train gasifier
system. Two gasifiers would be operated simultaneously to supply two
combustion turbines and one steam turbine, each coupled directly to its
own generator. One or more additional or redundant gasifiers would be
included to help ensure an operational availability of about 90% or better.
? Air Separation Unit (ASU)--The Project would be the first
IGCC plant in the U.S. designed to demonstrate a configuration to
extract bleed air from the combustion turbine to reduce the parasitic
load of the main air compressor in the ASU, increasing net plant output
and reducing capital cost. Nitrogen extracted from air entering the ASU
would be recycled for injection into the combustion turbine to reduce
formation of nitrogen oxides by reducing the flame temperature of the
combustor and the time that combustion gases remain at elevated
temperatures.
? Feedstock Flexibility--The Project would demonstrate
greater feedstock flexibility with the capability of gasifying
bituminous coal (Illinois No. 6), sub-bituminous coal (Powder River
Basin), blends of sub-bituminous coal and petroleum coke, and/or other
combinations of these feedstocks.
? Improved Environmental Performance--The Project is
intended to improve upon Wabash by deploying processes and technologies
that would make it among the cleanest coal-based power generating plant
in the world. Emission levels for criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and
particulate matter) and mercury are expected to be equal to or below
those of the lowest emission rates for utility-scale, coal-based
generation fueled by similar feedstocks. In addition, carbon dioxide
emissions are expected to be 15 to 20% lower than the current average
for U.S. coal-based power plants fueled by similar feedstocks.
? Thermal Efficiency--With a design heat rate of about 8,600
Btu/kilowatt-hour when using bituminous coal, Mesaba would demonstrate
a significant heat rate improvement over Wabash.
From a broad perspective, the Project would demonstrate the
commercial development, engineering, and design necessary to construct
a large feedstock-flexible reference plant for IGCC and thus establish
a standard replicable design configuration complete with installed cost
information for future commercialization. Major components of the
Project would include feedstock acceptance and storage; slurry
preparation; oxygen preparation via the ASU; feedstock gasification and
slag handling; synthesis gas preparation (i.e., particulate matter
removal, char re-injection, water scrubbing, acid gas removal, and
mercury removal); sulfur recovery; synthesis gas combustion (using
nitrogen dilution to reduce formation of nitrogen oxides) with
concomitant electricity production (using combustion turbine
generators); and electricity production via heat recovery (using steam
turbine generators).
The ConocoPhillips E-GasTM gasification technology
utilizes a slurry-fed, two-stage gasifier to convert carbonaceous
feedstock to a synthesis gas (syngas) and a vitrified, inert slag. The
first stage is operated at an elevated temperature using oxygen and
feedstock-water slurry to drive off volatile matter from the feedstock
and facilitate the removal of its mineral content as a molten slag. The
first stage also produces a raw, hot syngas that requires cooling and
cleaning before being used as fuel gas to generate power in the gas
turbines. The second stage provides the initial cooling of the hot
syngas by quenching it with slurry, without using any additional
oxygen. The thermal heat of the hot syngas from the first stage
volatilizes the slurry fed to the second stage and converts that
portion of the feedstock to additional syngas.
The two-stage gasifier, coupled with E-GasTM unique
application of a firetube syngas cooler design, minimizes the size and
temperature level requirements for the high temperature heat recovery
system, which is cost-effective and yields high conversion
efficiencies. Raw synthesis gas exiting the gasifier contains entrained
solids that are removed and recycled to the first stage of the
gasifier. Recycling of these solids also enhances efficiency and
consolidates the solid effluent from the process into one stream as
slag leaving the gasifier. Sulfur in the initial feedstock is recovered
in the process as a molten liquid and sold as a byproduct. The process
yields a desulfurized syngas that can be used as a fuel gas for power
generation in advanced combustion turbines.
Excelsior plans to construct the Mesaba Generating Station in two
phases, of which the Project would represent the first phase. Plant
start-up, system and feedstock testing, and long-term performance and
reliability demonstration for the Project would require approximately
one year, after which the plant could continue in commercial operation.
A minimum 12-month demonstration period is planned to begin in 2011.
Alternatives: NEPA requires that agencies evaluate reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS. The purpose for agency
action determines the range of reasonable alternatives. Congress
established the CCPI Program to help implement the President's NEP
recommendation to increase investment in clean coal technology by
addressing national challenges of ensuring the reliability of domestic
electric and energy supplies while simultaneously protecting the
environment. The Program was structured to achieve NEP goals by
promoting private sector initiatives to invest in demonstrations of
advanced technologies that could be widely deployed commercially to
ensure that the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
Private sector investments and deployment of energy systems in the
United States place DOE in a more limited role than if the Federal
Government were the owner and operator of the energy systems. In the
latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a comprehensive review
of reasonable alternatives for siting the
[[Page 58210]]
system. However, in dealing with applicants under the CCPI
solicitation, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more
restrictive, because DOE must focus on alternative ways to accomplish
its purpose and need, which reflects both the application before it and
the functions that DOE plays in the decision process. Moreover, under
the CCPI Program, DOE's role is limited to approving or disapproving
the project as proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the only
alternative to the proposed action, other than the alternative site
discussed below, is the no-action alternative.
Alternatives considered by Excelsior in developing the Project will
be presented in the EIS. Legislation enacted by the State of Minnesota
in 2003 provides the Project an exemption from obtaining a Certificate
of Need (see Minn. Stat. 216B.1694 Subd. 2 (a)(1)), but also requires
the Project to be located in the Taconite Tax Relief Area (in
northeastern Minnesota) [(at Minnesota Statutes 216B.1694 Sub. 1(3))].
Therefore, the range of sites considered by Excelsior will necessarily
be limited to a plant located within the Taconite Tax Relief Area of
Minnesota.
Excelsior is proposing a preferred and alternative site for the
proposed Project. The preferred site is the West Range site, which is
located just north of the city of Taconite in Itasca County, Minnesota.
The East Range site is the alternative site, and is located about one
mile north of the city of Hoyt Lakes in St. Louis County, Minnesota. In
the case of the West Range site, the Project's generating facilities
would connect to the power grid via new and existing high voltage
transmission line (HVTL) corridors to a substation near the
unincorporated community of Blackberry; in the case of the East Range
site, the generating facilities would connect to the grid via existing
HVTL corridors that lead to a substation near the unincorporated
community of Forbes. Excelsior would reconstruct and/or reinforce the
HVTL infrastructure within the final corridors selected. In conjunction
with both phases of the Project, Excelsior anticipates that network
reinforcements would be required within other existing HVTL corridors
leading to load centers and/or at substations down-network of the
existing substations identified. In addition to these siting and
transmission alternatives, the EIS also would analyze alternatives for
feedstocks and feedstock blends; access to the facility and means of
transport (road and rail) for feedstocks, byproducts, and wastes; water
sources; wastewater disposal; and connection to existing natural gas
pipelines.
Both sites are fairly remote wooded areas, with access to water
supplies, rail and highway transportation, natural gas pipelines and
high-voltage transmission lines. At either site, construction of the
proposed facilities would require approximately 85 acres for the IGCC
complex associated with the Project; an identical amount of land would
be required for the Phase II facilities. Since both sites are
``greenfield'' sites, development of infrastructure at either site
would include railroad spurs, plant road construction, water pipelines,
natural gas pipelines and upgrades to high voltage transmission lines.
A major difference between the sites is that the West Range site lies
outside the Lake Superior Basin Watershed.
Construction of the proposed Project potentially would affect
jurisdictional wetlands located within the West Range or East Range
sites and their associated transportation/utility corridors.
Approximately 300 acres of wetlands are located within the boundary of
the 1,260 acres of property currently optioned for the West Range Site.
Additional wetlands exist within transportation and utility corridors
located outside the optioned property and through which project-related
infrastructure must traverse on route to this site. Construction and
operation of the proposed Project at the West Range site potentially
would result in long-term impacts to wetlands within the optioned
property and these transportation/utility corridors; construction of
buried and overhead utilities could result in temporary construction
impacts to additional wetlands therein. Approximately 300 acres of
wetlands are located within the boundary of the approximately 825 acres
of property currently identified for the East Range Site. The potential
for wetland impacts from facility construction and operation on the
East Range Site is similar to those identified for the West Range Site.
No floodplain areas are located on the West Range or East Range sites,
but construction of surface, buried, and overhead utilities will
traverse the floodplain areas of several rivers and streams. Wetland
impact avoidance, minimization and other mitigation will be described
in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The final EIS will include a floodplain and
wetlands assessment and a statement of findings in accordance with DOE
regulations for Compliance with Floodplain and Wetlands Environmental
Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022).
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide partial
funding for the final engineering, construction, and operation of the
plant. In the absence of DOE funding, the sponsor may still construct
the Project, but it might not demonstrate all features as proposed for
CCPI Program support.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues: The following
environmental issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in
the EIS. This list, which was developed from reviews of the proposed
technology and of the scope of the Project and similar projects, and
which is presented to facilitate public comment on the planned scope of
the EIS, is neither intended to be all inclusive nor a pre-determined
set of potential impacts. Additions to or deletions from this list may
occur as a result of the public scoping process. The environmental
issues include:
1. Atmospheric resources: Potential air quality impacts resulting
from emissions during construction and operation of the Project,
including potential impacts on Class I areas in the vicinity (Voyageurs
National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness) and local odor
impacts.
2. Water resources: Potential impacts on surface and groundwater
resources and water quality, including effects of water usage,
wastewater management, storm water management, and soil erosion and
sedimentation in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes Basins.
3. Cultural resources: Including potential effects on historic and
archaeological resources and Native American tribal resources.
4. Ecological resources: Potential onsite and offsite impacts to
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, and ecologically sensitive
habitats.
5. Floodplains and Wetlands: Including potential impacts on
wetlands located within the East Range and West Range sites and their
associated transportation/utility corridors, and potential impacts on
floodplains within the transportation/utility corridors for both sites.
In accordance with DOE regulations (10 CFR part 1022), the final EIS
will include a floodplain and/or wetlands assessment and a statement of
findings.
6. Terrestrial resources: Land requirements and compatibility of
plant facilities and operations, access roads, rail alignments, and
potential new corridors for HVTL and natural gas lines with adjacent
and surrounding land uses.
7. Utility and transportation infrastructure requirements for delivery
[[Page 58211]]
of feedstocks and process chemicals to the facility.
8. Health and safety impacts, including construction-related safety
and process-related safety associated with handling and management of
process chemicals.
9. Noise: Potential impacts resulting from construction and
operation of the proposed plant and from transportation of feedstocks,
process materials, and plant byproducts.
10. Community resources: Potential impacts on local traffic
patterns, socioeconomic impacts of plant construction and operation,
including effects on public services and infrastructure resulting from
the influx of construction personnel and plant operating staff, and
environmental justice issues.
11. Aesthetic and scenic resources: Potential visual effects
associated with plant structures and operations.
12. Cumulative effects that result from the incremental impacts of
the proposed plant when added to the other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Iron Range area.
13. Connected actions, including the effects of construction and
operation of the second phase of the Mesaba Generating Station
resulting in a combined, nominal 1,200 MWe (net) power generating
facility on the selected site.
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 end on November 14,
2005. Interested agencies, organizations, and the general public are
encouraged to submit comments or suggestions concerning the content of
the EIS, issues and potential impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and
alternatives that should be considered. Scoping comments should
identify specific issues or topics that the EIS should address in order
to assist DOE in identifying significant issues for analysis. Written,
e-mailed, faxed, or recorded comments should be communicated by
November 14, 2005 (See ADDRESSES).
DOE will conduct public scoping meetings at the Taconite Community
Center, 26 Haynes Street, Taconite, MN, on Tuesday, October 25, 2005,
beginning at 7 p.m., and at Hoyt Lakes Arena, 106 Kennedy Memorial
Drive, Hoyt Lakes, MN on Wednesday, October 26, 2005, and beginning at
7 p.m. In addition, the public is invited to an informal session at
each location beginning at 4 p.m. on the date of each meeting to learn
more about the proposed action. Displays and other information about
the proposed agency action and the demonstration plant will be
available, and DOE personnel will be present to discuss the proposed
action and the NEPA process.
DOE requests those who wish to speak at either public scoping
meeting to contact Mr. Richard Hargis, either by phone, fax, e-mail, or
in writing (See ADDRESSES above). Attendees wishing to speak, but who
have not requested to do so in advance, may register at the meeting and
will be provided opportunities to speak following previously scheduled
speakers. Speakers who may need more than five minutes should indicate
the length of time desired in their request. Depending on the number of
speakers, DOE may need to limit speakers to five minutes initially but
will provide additional opportunity as time permits. Speakers may also
provide written materials to supplement their presentations. Oral and
written comments will be given equal consideration.
DOE will begin each meeting with an overview of the proposed
Project. The meeting will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing,
and speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may be asked
questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands their comments or
suggestions. A presiding officer will establish the order of speakers
and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 29th day of September, 2005.
John Spitaleri Shaw,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 05-19972 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P